Yale Psychiatrist Calls On Pelosi To Put “A Mental Health Hold” On Trump

I have previously criticized psychiatrists who have regularly appeared on the air to identify a variety of mental illness that they have observed in President Donald Trump from afar. As I discussed in a prior column on the demise of the Goldwater rule, this is diagnosis without examination and often seems mixed with strong political judgments about Trump’s political positions. Bandy X. Lee, a professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine, has been one of the most outspoken and last week urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to demand some ill-defined “hold” on the president pending psychiatric examination. Her position latest position is utterly bizarre but has been treated as a serious discussion point by some media like Salon magazine.

Lee previously served as the editor of the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President” and has continually argued for removal on the basis for mental illness. I previously discussed the difficulties in pursuing such loose analysis as the basis for removal under the 25th Amendment.

Lee’s most recent call for some form of intervention by Pelosi seems utterly disconnected from the constitutional process. She bizarrely treated this as an office intervention. Lee told Salon that “As a co-worker, she has the right to have him submit to an involuntary evaluation, but she has not. I am beginning to believe that a mental health hold, which we have tried to avoid, will become inevitable.”

I am at a loss on this one. Does Lee think that Pelosi can “as a co-worker” force the President into an involuntary evaluation? The only provision from incapacity of a president is found in the 25th Amendment and it omits such a workplace evaluation process. As I previously discussed, Section 4 has, essentially, two avenues for dragging a president from the Oval Office. First, there is the mutiny option. A vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can agree that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Pence could get eight Cabinet officers to sign a letter to that effect, he would immediately become the “Acting President.”  But if the president then declares to Congress that “no inability exists,” Trump could resume his powers.

Pence and the rebellious Cabinet would then have to send another declaration within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that says, more or less, don’t believe a word, he’s unfit. Once Congress had the second declaration, if not already in session, it would have 48 hours to assemble to debate the issue. It would then have 21 days to vote on the president’s fitness. To remove the president, two-thirds of both houses would have to agree. If Congress did not vote within 21 days, the president would get his power back.

Notably, Lee again seems triggered by policies or actions with which she disagrees. This latest call for co-worker intervention was due to the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. I also raised concerns over this action as a possible assassination in violation of U.S. law and an act of war under international law. However, Trump is not the first president to attack individuals on foreign soil whether it was Osama Bin Laden or the attempt on former Libyan President Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Lee’s medical diagnosis is hard to untangle from her political judgment. She insists that this is “exactly what someone who lacks mental capacity would do.”:

“This is exactly the kind of dangerous event we foresaw as Donald Trump’s response to the impeachment proceedings, just as his pulling troops from northern Syria was a direct response to the announcement of an impeachment inquiry . . . In other words, he is extremely drawn to actions that would help him appear as if he has mental capacity, such as a ‘presidential strike’ against an enemy, while avoiding the proper procedures, such as briefing with Congress, that might expose his lack of capacity . . . What we do not expect from someone who lacks mental capacity is rational, reality-based decision making that is non-impulsive, non-reckless, and cognizant of consequences.”

She adds that his attacks on President Obama must also be treated as a reflection of his mental illness: “Since he is incapable of putting himself in another person’s shoes, he projects his own thoughts entirely onto others. Hence, we can deduce that what he has said about Mr. Obama has nothing to do with the former president but has only to do with the way he himself thinks.”

At points, Lee seems herself a bit adrift. When asked about the widespread criticism of her claims of mental illness, Lee responded “My critics do not have an argument. There are many situations where I hoped that my formulation would be wrong — but now that my hypotheses have been tested so many times to 100 percent precision.”

Really? She is 100 percent right without ever actually personally examining the subject.

Then the interview gets downright batty when the 25th Amendment is raised:

“Yes. In this country, no one is above the law, and as far as mental health laws and the president are concerned, there is no Office of Legal Counsel memo, no exceptions and at this time not even confidentiality, since he has yet to be a patient. Before it is a political matter involving impeachment or the 25th Amendment, it is a medical matter. The physical danger due to psychological impairment needs to be removed, and we are bound by our own professional code not to abandon persons or the public in danger. We are even legally bound to take steps to protect potential victims if warning is insufficient and security staff will not act. If the personal physician is unavailable or too conflicted to do so, any physician can.

A 72-hour hold does not require court intervention and is enough for a solid evaluation. There is no shortage of mental health professionals willing to put their names to commitment papers, and multiple legal groups have offered to file for a court order for security staff to cooperate. All we need are auspices so as to show it is not a coup or something nefarious — although, at this point, we may need to proceed anyway because the populace is growing too sick to see any intervention as legitimate unless it is illegitimate. This is common in mental health settings, and we apply the proper treatment according to standard anyway with the hope that patients will improve enough to see that you have helped them — which happens most of the time. It is this nature of mental disease that has allowed for civil commitment laws to be possible in a country that protects civil liberties.”

Could you imagine the future of our system if a Speaker of the House could have a president civilly committed for involuntary examination? Some Republicans would no doubt have asked Pelosi’s GOP predecessor for the same civil confinement of President Obama. We would need a regular presidential suite at St. Elizabeth’s. Lee herself shows the potential for securing favorable rulings from doctors who believe no sane person could hold certain political views or take certain actions.

It would be, in a word, madness.

195 thoughts on “Yale Psychiatrist Calls On Pelosi To Put “A Mental Health Hold” On Trump”

  1. What is a Salon magazine and why should I care. I haven’t read a magazine since with the exception of National Geo and similar they have turned into 90 percent ads and 10 percent nothing. Triple that sentiment for what was previously called ‘news’ papers.

  2. I have no problem with the CIA in principle, it’s necessary to have a foreign intelligence agency, I just have a problem with them presuming to boss the elected civilian president for whom they serve, as representative of the people of the nation.

    of course the arrogance of the people who work and lead the CIA like Brennan, and some who’ve come before him, is such that they believe they know better than the electorate, and they presumptuously usurp the people’s prerogatives.


    Yale & the CIA


    WILLIAM WEIR; Courant Staff Writer

    If President Bush’s nomination of U.S. Rep. Porter Goss of Florida is approved, the Central Intelligence Agency will have its third Yale alumnus as its director.

    And Goss, who first joined the agency the year he graduated from Yale — 1960 — will be continuing the university’s long tradition of contributing to the agency.

    Though its connections with the CIA are nowhere near what they once were, Yale — which has roots in espionage as far back as alumnus Nathan Hale — has arguably done more than any other university to shape the course of American intelligence.

    From the 1940s to the early 1960s, Yale was closely connected with the CIA and its predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services. The bonds loosened in the 1970s, but were never severed. A list of some of the agency’s most influential figures reads like a who’s who of Yale alumni. There have been two CIA directors: former President George H.W. Bush, who served in 1976 and 1977, and R. James Woolsey, who served from 1993 to 1995.

    Yalies Richard M. Bissell Jr. and Tracy Barnes engineered the Bay of Pigs disaster. It ultimately destroyed Bissell’s intelligence career, which until then was highlighted by the development of the U-2 spy plane and the first spy satellite. William F. Buckley Jr. served a stint in the CIA.

    There was Sherman Kent, a member of the research and analysis division of the OSS who was instrumental in bringing new Yalies into the CIA; and Walter L. Pforzheimer, who headed several operations in OSS and helped draft the act that created the CIA in 1947.

    And there was James Jesus Angleton, perhaps the quintessential American spy, who has appeared in fictional form in dozens of novels. Angleton was as legendary for his quirks as for his passion (bordering on paranoia, according to some) for counterintelligence. A breeder of rare orchids who often punctuated his arguments with quotes from poems, Angleton’s incessant hunting of moles led him to suspect even Sen. Joseph McCarthy as a communist agent.

    Robin Winks, a Yale history professor who died last year, wrote in his book “Cloak & Gown: Scholars in the Secret War 1939-1961” that 42 Yale students, just from the Class of 1943, went into the OSS. So many Yale alumni populated its research and analysis branch that it came to be known as “the campus.”

    Ernest May, a historian at Harvard who specializes in the CIA and OSS, said much of Yale’s involvement in intelligence is rooted in patriotism and bad eyesight.

    “The key was that there were a number of Yale faculty members who were Anglophile and they admired the British system,” he said. They were passionate about helping in the war effort, he said, but were unable to enlist in the military because of their poor vision.

    “But as soon as the opportunity arose, they volunteered for the OSS, which was modeled after the British intelligence system,” he said.

    The transition from campus to agency was so seamless that at least one CIA operation directly involved Yale’s business matters. Winks writes of the 1942 Yale Library Project, possibly conceived by OSS founder “Wild Bill” Donovan and secretly funded by his agency. The mission, which went unknown for years by even the university’s highest officials, employed the services of Joseph Curtiss, an assistant English professor. Curtiss was charged with persuading the university to send him to Turkey — supposedly to collect materials for the school’s Sterling Library, but in actuality to gather sensitive information for the OSS.

    But why Yale? How did the tweedy, elite institution become the nation’s premiere spy maker?

    For one thing, the matter of gathering intelligence isn’t far from the skills that make good scholarship. Though “intelligence” often conjures images of skullduggery and dangerous forays behind enemy lines, there’s also the less dramatic matter of research — extremely close readings of dry texts to unearth the important from beneath the trivial.

    And there’s the simple matter of networking. Once the first Yalies poured into American intelligence, the university became a breeding ground for new agents. Many of the faculty members who served in the OSS during World War II returned to their old positions at Yale, where they actively sought new CIA recruits for service during the Cold War. Winks writes that the university’s crew coach even received $10,000 annually from the CIA to sway team members toward service in the agency. But Yale historian Gaddis Smith says he doubts extra incentives were needed in most cases.

    “This was a gentleman’s club,” he said. “They were doing what they thought they could to save the country.”

    There was a very different climate on the Yale campus than the one that grew out of the 1960s, he said. “There was no criticism of the American foreign policy,” he said. “The CIA was looked upon, up until the Vietnam War, as a very exciting and honorable way to serve the country — and that spirit was pretty strong at Yale.”

    Vietnam “changed everything,” Smith said, and academia started to drift away from the CIA and other government agencies by the mid-1960s. As Yalies distanced themselves from “The Company,” Richard Nixon did what he could in the 1970s to widen the divide. Long wary of the Ivy Leagues, which helped lead the fight against his Vietnam policy, Nixon discouraged heavy recruiting from Yale and other elite schools.

    And the nature of gathering intelligence changed. In the days of the OSS and the CIA’s beginnings, agents with backgrounds in the liberal arts and humanities made sense. But in recent decades, American intelligence has become more technology driven, and engineers took on a greater premium than scholars. And as the nation’s enemies broadened, so too did the need for agents of different cultural backgrounds.

    “Instead of having these self-styled aristocrats with three last names,” Smith said, “they started to look at people with different ethnic backgrounds.”

    Though Goss’ tenure as CIA director would further the Yale tradition, experts say it’s unlikely it would mark a return to an Old Blue network.

    “I think his nomination has much more to do with his intelligence experience and congressional role than the fact that he went to Yale,” said Martha Crenshaw, a professor of government at Wesleyan University.

  3. “…demand some ill-defined “hold” on the president…”

    – Professor Turley

    A very profound observation, Professor.

    The entire American welfare state is “ILL-DEFINED.”

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. Redistribution of wealth and regulation are so “ill-defined” as to be irrefutably unconstitutional.

    – Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…” not individual or specific welfare.

    – Article 1, Section 8, provides congress the power to regulate ONLY the “value” of “money” and the flow of “…Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…” to preclude bias or favor by one jurisdiction over another.

    America has been “ill-defined” as a socially engineered, redistributionist communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” even though the Constitution manifestly provided maximal freedom to individuals while severely limiting and restricting government to its role of merely facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

    The Good Professor would do well to edify America on the “well-defined” truth of the of freedom provided to individual Americans and the severe restrictions imposed on government by their Constitution.

  4. When asked about the widespread criticism of her claims of mental illness, Lee responded “My critics do not have an argument…

    Eegads. What a mess Yale has on their hands. She also holds an M Div Degree. Oy vay

    APA Calls for End to ‘Armchair’ Psychiatry

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as “The Goldwater Rule.” We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.

    The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context. Doing otherwise undermines the credibility and integrity of the profession and the physician-patient relationship. Although APA’s ethical guidelines can only be enforced against APA members, we urge all psychiatrists, regardless of membership, to abide by this guidance in respect of our patients and our profession.

    A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.

    “The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “APA stands behind this rule.”

    The President is about to undergo his annual physical examination, and APA has confidence that his physician will follow the standard of care in examining all systems, which includes an age-appropriate medical and mental health evaluation. If mental health concerns are raised, the standard of care would result in the examining physician seeking consultation from an experienced psychiatrist who would approach the consultation with objectivity and within the physician-patient confidential relationship.

    APA is ready to make recommendations from among our 37,000 psychiatrist members, physicians who have the knowledge, training, expertise, discretion, and objectivity to perform a thorough and apolitical evaluation. Using psychiatry for political or self-aggrandizing purposes is stigmatizing for our patients and negatively impacts our profession.

    American Psychiatric Association

    The American Psychiatric Association, founded in 1844, is the oldest medical association in the country. The APA is also the largest psychiatric association in the world with more than 37,000 physician members specializing in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses. APA’s vision is to ensure access to quality psychiatric diagnosis and treatment.


    1. Are these standards even enforced? A great many psychiatrists appear unconcerned that they are abusing their position to attack a politician they dislike.

      1. No, they’re not enforced. You have to run afoul of the gay lobby before you trigger that sort of professional sanction.

      2. As a Fox News disciple, you have an amazing ability to jump to conclusions and pivot to attack anyone who comments negatively about Trump.

        Karen: 1. The Mueller Report proves that Trump cheated to “win the victory”. HE IS THE HOAX, not the mountain of evidence, sworn testimony, documents and other proof of his illegitimacy, not to mention the attempt to leverage aid to Ukraine, in a failed effort to cheat his way into the White House a second time. 2. Those professionals who have commented on Trump glaring mental illness base their opinions on observations of his demeanor, his instability, his endless lying, his lack of any semblance of empathy (characteristic of a true narcissist), his in ability to maintain relationships (historic turnovers in agency and cabinet positions), his knee-jerk and poorly-considered decisions, his arrogance and extreme need for attention and adulation as the driving forces in his life. Their opinions are not based on disliking Trump. Dismissing valid criticism of Trump as merely “disliking” him is a Fox News talking point, too.

        Instead of repeating Fox News conclusory talking points, why not try reading the Mueller Report?

        1. Karen: 1. The Mueller Report proves that Trump cheated to “win the victory”.

          I see your handlers at Correct-the-Record told you to repeat lies over and over. Even JanF has gotten bored with this one (and he used the less crude version).

        2. Natacha – read the Mueller Report, and Professor Turley’s assessments.

          Constantly repeating an untruth does not make it true.

          Psychiatrists have been called to task by their professional association for unethical armchair diagnosis.

          Inability to maintain relationships does not mean high turnover in staffing. An inability to maintain a relationship means that someone cannot keep a familial or friend relationship. They don’t make friends. They don’t maintain contact with anyone. They drive their own family away.

          Trump does not suffer this problem, and has many long friendships and family bonds.

          This is so ugly, thinking it’s OK to make false accusations against someone, even accusing them of having very serious mental illnesses, because they are from an opposing political party.

          Very bad character flaw.

          Rather than pretend that those around you suffer mental disorders, go see a mental health professional about your obsession with Fox. It’s weird. You either watch it constantly or never do, but it figures in your fevered imagination. Get help.

          1. What are the “untruths” in the Mueller Report? Cite them for me, plus the proof you rely on to call the facts gleaned from over 2 years of depositions and thousands of pages of documents. You haven’t read the Mueller Report, so you don’t know, but Hannity says it’s all lies, so you believe it. Jon Turley never said the Mueller Report was all lies, either.

            Trump has no real friends. Narcissists almost never do, because they always put themselves first. He has a long trail of failed family and business relationships, which is why he installed poor, dumb Ivanka and her husband as “senior advisors”. He craps on everyone, even those very loyal to him to the point of committing crimes. If you don’t believe me, ask Michael Cohen.

            Because you deign yourself qualified to call someone mentally ill because they report the truth about Trump and Fox, I will once again ask you to set forth your educational credentials that qualify you to make such comments.

            1. Andrew Weissmann’s best efforts didn’t work out for you. Get over it and quit lying.

        3. NUTCHACHA, did you read and concur with the Warren Report? It is the greatest work of fiction in American history. At least Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller was compelled to stumble into the truth of President Trump’s complete innocence before being charged himself for malicious prosecution and, yes, not charging a target is de facto exoneration.

          NUTCHACHA, was your uncle/mentor Lavrentiy Beria?

          1. “complete innocence”? Did he refuse to cooperate with Mueller when they requested to depose him? Did Giuliani write answers to interrogatories that were untrue and incomplete and then refuse to amend or supplement his answers? How about the 10 + instances of obstruction of justice laid out in the Mueller Report? What about the American Intelligence community’s unanimous conclusion that Russia interfered with the 2016 election with help from the Trump campaign? Are they all liars, too? Why has Trump gone overboard to help Russia out: 1. trying to get it back into the G-7; 2. publicly siding against American Intelligence and with Putin, giving Putin a powerful PR advantage; 3. withholding aid to Ukraine, not only for political advantage, but also to help Russia, which had invaded the Crimea and other Ukrainian territory. Could this be payback?

            Instead of rehashing the Warren Report, let’s talk about the Trump impeachment. Why is he instructing witnesses not to testify? Why is he hiding the actual transcript of the call with the President of Ukraine? What does he have to hide? An innocent person doesn’t act this way.

        4. After she’s repeated the same lines hundreds of times, it might be better if Natacha does not complain about repeating talking points.

      3. Hi karen

        There is no way for medical associations to enforce any standards

        At one time the majority of physicians were solo practitioners or belonged to a small group of physicians running a small business. It was then that they sought their respective medical association membership like the American Cardiology Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, et al. A few decades ago, 75% of physicians belonged to the American Medical Association. Membership in the AMA today is less than 15% of all licensed physicians. The medical associations need physicians membership fees more than the other way around


        The standards that govern the practice of medicine today is business and government / third party payer regulations. The rest is tertiary.

        1. Estovir, I don’t think physician membership dues keep the AMA afloat. If my recollection is correct, in 1983 the then HCFA made a secret deal with the government to profit off the coding books produced and maintained by the AMA that had to be used by physicians. That was very odd because of its secrecy so that even its members didn’t know and also the fact that when certain things must be used for payment by the government one doesn’t have to pay a third party for the rules.

          I’m a bit rusty on this history so correct me if you have further information.

  5. Too many Pseudo psychiatry professors
    Spoil the dialogue.
    We are very fortunate to have a strong
    Rational President at the Helm of this
    Great Nation.

    1. She is faculty at Yale School of Medicine. She is not pseudo professor. She is legit

      What is being missed in the discussion is her lack of published scholarly work. The motto “Publish or perish” is very true and it rules in academia particularly in medicine. In scientific published literature, the order of the authors indicates their contribution to the published work. First author position means scutt work, the author did the majority of the work, and the other authors were contributors. The last author is key. That person is the senior researcher who supersizes the research work. A professor of medicine at Yale with such national prominence should have a ton of published articles with her name in the last position as author.

      Bandy Lee MD, M Div, has a very unimpressive number of published scholarly work. PubMed has only 21 articles with her name in them, none of them in the last author position for scholarly scientific work, and most of the articles are commentary, opinion pieces or political in nature


      Considering her dismal number of articles, none that I saw were clinical scientific research, Bandy not only perishes for failing to publish, she is toast. The sole article with her name in the last position is a review on gender based violence in a civil war in the Ivory Coast. How embarrassing.


      1. read the associates list on this thing.

        she’s probably working for ex CIA honchos like Brennan

        scroll to list at bottom


        this is a setup for a second term 25th amendment coup. plain as day!

        1. and yet the number of published articles related to pre-clinical or clinical scientific studies are vanishingly small.

          She is a nobody in the published medical literature.

          I wouldn’t get worked up about her. Like Shi’ite Muslims, the names listed in Bandy’s political organization are fanatics. It is their version of an American Fatwa

          1. What’s curious about her bibliography is that she appears to have started out as a specialist in neuroscience, then veered off elsewhere. There are two published research papers in 1997 and another in 2011. An article on her next research project was issued in 2014, and it’s an exercise in sociological research. The next project saw publication in 2017, a group effort undertaken in Malaysia (she’s in the middle of a list of authors). Everything else as far as I can see consists of reviews, commentaries, and essays. That’s five research papers on divergent topics with a 14 year gap separating the 2d and 3d paper. That she’s at Yale is puzzling. Research universities commonly expect you’ll keep cranking the papers out. A teaching institution with a certain amount of cachet (say, Pomona or Davidson or Williams) will commonly expect 4 refereed research papers when you’re evaluated for tenure.

          2. these people are not fanatics they are seasoned political who one could imagine were almost hand-picked to impress bureaucrats. i say this is a slowly built up 25th amendment coup initiative that is having new life breathed into it by its backers.

            conceptually, for any coup to work here, whether its impeachment, 25th amendment, or even a forcible one to work, the bureaucracy would need to “buy” it.

            likewise if the bureaucracy could be sold strongly enough on a fiction like “trump is crazy” they could foot drag malinger and sabotage key areas into a standstill

            what we are seeing here is UNRESTRICTED WARFARE applied to internal not to foreign adversaries but to domestic political dynamics

            partisan / antipartisan warfare, low intensity conflict, 4th generation warfare, unrestricted warfare, are all parts of a different elephant, seen and felt differently across generations.

            the thing is, we are seeing their methodologies applied to internal domestic political conflict– now, the US is in a low intensity conflict, not quite a civil war, but something way different than what we’ve seen before with our peculiar combination of social and economic and technological characteristics.

            this lady comes from nowhere, catapulted into major media attention back in 2017. does that just happen by accident? NO. It happens when she has powerful sponsors recommending her to journalists and news editors. Read the notes in wiki. these are footprints. of some CIA geeks, most likely! Or maybe their friends in the sorosphere

            from wiki:

            “Bandy Lee was born in 1970 and raised in the Bronx, New York. She is of Korean descent. Her mother was Inmyung Lee and her grandfather was Geun-Young Lee, a South Korean physician who she says inspired her with a belief that practicing medicine also involves social responsibility. As a teenager she volunteered in Harlem as a tutor for homeless African-American children.[2]

            Lee interned at the Bellevue Hospital Center in New York and was chief resident at the Massachusetts General Hospital. She received her MD from Yale University School of Medicine in 1994 and her MDiv from Yale Divinity School in 1995.[3] She then studied the anthropology of violence in East Africa as a fellow of the National Institute of Mental Health[4] and has co-authored academic papers on Côte d’Ivoire, Tanzania, and Rwanda. She is a specialist in violence prevention programmes in prisons and in the community[3] and worked for several years in maximum security prisons in the United States[2] when she was instrumental in initiating reforms at New York’s Rikers Island jail complex.[3] Since then, she consulted with five different U.S. states on prison reform.[3] She was director of research for the Center for the Study of Violence and with Kaveh Khoshnood founded Yale University’s Violence and Health Study Group.[4] She heads a project group of the Violence Prevention Alliance for the World Health Organization[3] and wrote the textbook, Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences, and Cures.[1]

            Views on Donald Trump
            In April 2017 Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the mental health of President Donald Trump.[5][6] In an interview with Salon in May 2017 she argued that the subject of the President’s mental health amounted to a “state of emergency” as “our survival as a species may be at stake.”[7] She also discussed her political views, linking what she sees as increasing inequality in the United States to a deterioration in collective mental health.[7] Later in 2017 she was the editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a book of essays that examined Trump’s mental health[8] and resulted in her receiving thousands of threatening messages by letter, phone and on social media that included death threats.[2]

            In December 2017 she met 12 members of the United States Congress (11 Democrats, 1 Republican) to give them her opinion on the mental health of Donald Trump in which she reportedly argued that he was “unraveling”.[2]

            1. Again, there’s something quite off about her publication record. That 14 years elapsed between her 2d and 3d research paper (ages 27 to 41) suggests something very wrong.

  6. This professor exemplifies the problem with psychiatry in general: there are no uncontroversial criteria of what comprises a mental illness because, in the case of mental as opposed to physical illness, the definition of illness is not confined to its traditional quarters, i.e., a universally agreed-upon, undesirable deviation (from the patient’s standpoint most of all) in the structure and function of the body. For decades, Thomas Szasz leveled this criticism relentlessly against the psychiatric profession and, unsurprisingly, it has never been adequately addressed, but always come at sideways or ignored. Thus, in psychiatry, because of the liberties it has taken with the concept of illness, the question of whether a person is mentally ill depends primarily on the opinion of the psychiatrist. The profession has vainly tried to restrain the inevitable diversity of such opinion through its consensus-building tome, periodically reissued, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But all one need do to recognize that this process is inadequate is reflect on the fact that homosexuality was once classified in this book as a disorder (a weasel word for disease). Although recent, unconvincing attempts have been made to base the psychiatric concept of disorder in neuroscience, because nothing in the fundamental conceptual orientation of psychiatry has otherwise changed since homosexuality was removed from the DSM, there are still no reliable constraints on psychiatric judgment that would prevent a similar social prejudice, or any other surreptitious moral evaluation, from being included in a subsequent edition of the DSM, or that would prevent a psychiatrist from characterizing, based on the current DSM, nearly any “deviant” behavior as a disorder. As other commenters have noted, this is why totalitarian governments love psychiatry as the gift that keeps on giving.

    1. DSM metadiagnostic method depends on community standards.

      Since community is so vague, that leaves a lot of wiggle room

      This is probably a former CIA honcho ordered operation. Brennan and that crowd.

      If Yale as a whole isn’t “Deep State” then nothing is

      Read the list of “speakers” on the list on her nonprofit thing below. Bunch of names you may know if you have been paying attention to IC stuff for decades. Like Dick Painter. Wow, how transparent an op is this or what.


      25th amendment coup setup, OBVIOUSLY

  7. Last time I checked the mental health professionals in this country are not the ones charged with running the country. Attacks on Dr. Lee are a great distraction. But the greater question is why is it so evident, even to the average person, that our current “posing” president has some serious mental health issues and why isn’t anyone adressing it?. Compulsive lying comes to mind, as does narcissism in the extreme. Illusions of grandeur are present as well. I only have to put the face of one of my children in place of Mr. Trump’s face and ask myself, “Would I accept this behavior from one of my children? Oh no. No I would not. My children were taught to be honest caring people. If one of my children was exhibiting the same characteristics as this man then I would want to have them mentally evaluated for their own good, the good of our family and the greater good of the community. The question isn’t about the ethics of some mental health pro. It is about the mental health of this guy running (ruining) OUR country. Stop muddying the waters people and PAY ATTENTION!!!

    1. But the greater question is why is it so evident, even to the average person, that our current “posing” president has some serious mental health issues and why isn’t anyone adressing it?.

      It is not evident. It is your fantasy. Fix yourself woman. The president knows what he is doing and so do we.

      1. I do not need fixing but thank you very much. And you assume I am a woman. Haha.
        I am aware that he KNOWS what he is doing. I didn’t say he was Stoopid! I said he is exhibiting behaviours I would find unacceptable in my children and that I find unacceptable for an American President. Selfishness, dishonesty, hiding evidence of wrongdoing. Not acceptable behaviors. Not acceptable at all. Unless you think like him. Then I suppose it seems perfectly normal.

        1. And you assume I am a woman. Haha.

          I don’t assume. That’s how you sign yourself and that’s encoded in how you express yourself. Either that, or you’re a satisfactory mimic who has appropriated the identity of a 56 year old woman who lives in a Seattle exurb.

          I said he is exhibiting behaviours I would find unacceptable in my children and that I find unacceptable for an American President. Selfishness, dishonesty, hiding evidence of wrongdoing. Not acceptable behaviors.

          He didn’t do these things. This is your imagination talking.

          1. Like I said. If you think like him then this seems perfectly normal. And the evidence speaks for itself clearly. Thank you.

            1. Doesn’t matter how many aspersions you cast on my character. He still did not do these things.

              1. He didn’t pay hush money to porn stars???? He didn’t use a sharpie to change a national weather map???This person has been caught in so many lies its not even funny anymore. Its scary. But that’s just my humble opinion of the man not the party.

                1. Pam Aspiri:
                  He didn’t pay hush money to porn stars???? He didn’t use a sharpie to change a national weather map???This person has been caught in so many lies its not even funny anymore. Its scary. But that’s just my humble opinion of the man not the party.”
                  And if he was running for church deacon or bubble-headed blond weather girl at your local station, you might have an argument. He’s a political leader not your child, priest, or local weather shill. He’s the President doing a damn good job. Your failure to see that is what allows us to dismiss the rest of your argument as screed.

                    1. Clinton was not impeached over an affair. He was impeached for committing felony perjury, to which he admitted.

                      As I stated before, I did not consider the felony perjury of lying about an affair to rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor, required to throw someone out of office. The House didn’t even require a crime to target Trump. They used a misrepresented phone call that was disproven.

                      Your vulgarity and political poisoning are ugly.

                2. Do you seriously consider him writing on a map to be a bona fide issue? Initial reports indicated a storm could hit certain areas. He warned those areas. Then activists made a huge deal because they claim he warned more people than he should have. That is the level of slathering political fanaticism that we’ve sunk to.

                  Get ahold of yourself.

                  As for paying off former mistresses, JFK was one of the biggest skirt chasers in history while in office. He had one of his mistresses, Marilyn Monroe, sing “Happy Birthday” to him in the sexiest possible way, while wearing a sheer dress she had to be sewn into, on national television, humiliating his wife. He was infamous for constantly sleeping with other women, favoring strippers, while in office.

                  It is possible to have personal flaws and be a good leader. There have been myriad famous generals, who had wrecked home lives, or were alcoholics. One can acknowledge those flaws, while also acceding that they are still capable in their jobs. How many CEOs, lawyers, stock brokers, or race car drivers have personal problems, but are still quite skilled at what they do?

                  At some level, the Left understands this. You don’t hear them say that JFK was the worst president and unfit for office because he constantly committed adultery.

                  Voters were aware that Trump was twice divorced, and had had affairs in the past. It does not appear he has had any affairs while in office. (I certainly hope note. I quite like Melania.)

                  You have made emotional judgements without supporting evidence. And your “gotcha” moments are writing on a map and an affair prior to taking office.

                  And then, after posting under the name of “Pam” you took offense that it was assumed you were a woman. That is odd behavior.

                  1. Karen: the issue wasn’t writing on a map: it was the refusal to admit he was wrong and then trying to fake up evidence to support his version of facts. This is not normal behavior. It is the behavior of a malignant narcissist.

                    No one cares how many skirts JFK chased: he didn’t cheat to get into the White House. He won medals for serving his country. He was not a chronic, habitual liar. He was not unfit for office by virtue of his sexual escapades, AND, critically, he never bragged about assaulting women. Like Clinton’s situation, that was a matter between JFK and his wife.

                    Trump is NO leader: not even a poor one. He is a serial bankrupter of businesses. He did the apprentice to sell his persona as a rich, successful man because no more US banks would loan him any more money. He eventually did business with Russians and Saudis, which is why he is hiding his taxes. He is beholden to them.

                    Karen: there is no “Left”, if you try to use this phrase to describe those opposed to Trump. Most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. have consistently disapproved of him, by historic margins and for an historically long period of time; and 3. want him out of our White House.

                    Karen: maybe you didn’t pay much attention to Michael Cohen’s trial: he testified that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, both of whom were screwing Trump. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. His comment about assaulting women was made at or near the time of Barron’s birth, so the hand holding charade is just that. No one respects Melania, because she doesn’t respect herself: we all know where those tiny hands have been.

                    1. Natacha – Are you a Russian troll, trying to spread misinformation in order to weaken the country? No matter how many times you’re proven wrong, you persist in telling untruths. Either you are helping the Russians, or you are an activist who doesn’t care that your untruths help the Russians. Or perhaps you can’t understand the facts.

                      Paying off mistresses prior to taking office has already been abandoned as a possible impeachable offense. Otherwise, Congress would be mostly empty.

                      Stop lying and saying that Trump cheated to get into the White House. He did not collude with the Russians. When that was disproven, Democrats tried to get him on obstructing an investigation into a crime he didn’t commit, but they lost on that, too. Now they’ve moved on to lying about a phone call.

                      Here is an article from the American Bar Association.

                      “The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

                      As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

                      But Barr said that he and Rosenstein “have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.””


    2. Were your children taught to do drone strikes on their enemies (Obama), lie about a bill to get it passed (Obama), constantly have affairs (Kennedy), be a hard drinker (LBJ), pay for false Russian intelligence for an October Surprise on your opponent (Hillary Clinton)..,Are you kidding me? What about driving a woman into the lake far away from her hotel, and leaving her trapped inside, still alive, with water slowly rising, as you go home, sleep it off, and then read a paper before calling your attorneys before the police (Ted Kennedy). She survived for hours in that slowly filling car, but he was the Lion of the Senate.

      Do you teach your kids that it’s OK to make up false allegations as long as their victim is a Republican? All’s fair in politics? Do you teach them to call a Republican an antisemite when he has a Jewish family and is no such thing? Do you teach them to make fun of their classmates with Republican parents, or not to speak to them?

      Because if you’ve been telling your children that the President is mentally unstable I question your judgement. Mental illness is not a political weapon. There really are mentally unstable people lurching all around CA, as we speak, unable to manage. That’s what mental instability really looks like. Shame on you to take a legitimate, painful condition and abuse it for political purposes.

      My 9 year old has already encountered bigotry on the playground. A little boy was running around saying, “If you like Trump you’re a racist” to all the other kids. Now where did he get this idea? The bigotry and ignorance of his parents. It starts in the home. Like your home, perhaps.

      Do not abuse your position of authority as a parent and pass on bigotry to your children. I’ve taught my child that I disagree with Democrat policies because of their result, but that I believe that Democrats think they are helping. They are just misguided. One of our mottos is that you judge the person in front of you as an individual.

      1. One of “our” mottos? You use the word “them” and “they” when describing Democrats to your children? I didn’t homeschool so I didn’t teach my kids poly sci. I left that up to their educators. I also noted that you only “attacked” democrats in your tirade. It sounds to me like you were grooming young republicans not healthy open-minded voters who would look to the individual. As for how we discussed politics in our home it was NEVER about political parties. They are fine for “sheep” but not for me thank you. It was always about the individual merits of the person running or holding an office. You speak of the “individual” in a sea of “them” and “theys”. Can you not see the hypocracy in that? I NEVER vote based on party affiliation, I vote based on the merits of the individual candidate period. I think its time for our government to stop having parties and start working for the American people. Partisan divide is about as immature as high school cliques. Lets grow up people.

        1. Why, yes, I use “them” and “they.” It’s proper grammar. Why would I refer to them as “we Democrats” when our family is conservative?

          I don’t homeschool. My son goes to public school. But I do teach him extra topics when he gets home, which is why he’s one of the few kids in his school to have sailed through the standards testing. Common Core has been a disaster to math. In addition, our schools no longer teach cursive, so if you don’t teach them at home, they won’t learn it.

          Part of my child’s education is to learn critical reasoning. To view facts and come to a conclusion. As stated previously, to judge the individual before them. I have explained exactly why certain Democrat policies created poor outcomes, and also warned him about the racism in identity politics. I have explained how good intentions is not enough. You have to research outcome before you can say if a move was good or bad. He started complaining about how boys have been portrayed recently, which started a discussion. It does not sound like you had this upbringing.

          If you don’t go over political science at home, did your kids never watch School House Rocks or learn the song about the bill on capitol hill? Pity.

          You sound quite shrill. Are you OK? Are you flooding?

      2. When was I “proven wrong’? Provide proof. Saying that Mueller “did not find” something when Mueller couldn’t conduct a complete investigation because Trump refused to cooperate, when he hid documents and when he procured witnesses to either not show up or lie (Fynn, Manafort) is NOT EXONERATION. It is obstruction of justice, which Mueller found plenty of. American intelligence professionals who investigated this matter say Russia did interfere, and that the Trump campaign fed them internal polling information for their use in how to most effectively slander Hillary Clinton to leverage the Electoral College. Trump was NOT EXONERATED. Like everything else in his pathetic life, he cheated his way out by not cooperating.

        And BTW: the 2018 elections were a referendum on Trump because he asked that it be such. The House of Representatives was given a mandate by the American voting public. They are doing their duty. Poll after poll shows that Americans believe Trump is a crook and they want him gone, but the Republicans refuse to take reasonable steps to secure the votes for the 2020 elections. It’s OK with them if Russians or other foreign governments help him cheat again.

        I didn’t say paying off women was an impeachable offense. You were trying to make the case that Trump didn’t have any “affairs” while in office, as if that distinction mattered. He has cheated on all of his wives because he cheats at everything: golf, business, his wives. Melania is just an accessory, like a pair of cuff links. There isn’t much about her to respect. She has lied about having no higher education, she posed nude and allows herself to be publicly disgraced, yet goes along with the hand-holding routine for suckers like you. Her “be best” and anti-bullying campaigns are a joke: why not start with that fat slob you hold hands with? When has he not called someone who crosses him some insulting name? How about caging innocent children whose parents came to the US just trying to get a better life? How can she be such a complete hypocrite and expect the American people, much less people in other countries, to respect her?

        1. Melania is a beautiful and graceful first lady and shame on YOU nuthatch for trying to embarass her for posing for tasteful nudes which is pretty much par for the course for a SUPERMODEL.

          YOU are not a SUPERMODEL and mirror mirror prolly cracked the last time you gave it a looksee.

          So stop displaying your rude envy of her which makes you seem as ugly on the inside as you surely are on the outside.

          1. “tasteful nudes”, you mean the ones in which she is naked and spooning with another nude woman for lesbian porn? Then, there are the ones in which she is holding a phallic symbol gun, and so forth. This was before she got regular modeling work. It’s called soft-core porn everywhere except in your head, and it’s not dignified. I wonder whether anyone’s shown them to Barron yet. If not, they soon will. It’s no ones fault but hers if she’s embarrassed by what she’s done.

            And nothing I’ve said is untrue. It is indeed hypocritical to campaign for people to “be best” when her husband lies, uses profanity, insults anyone who dares not to kow tow to him, and when he can’t bully people to get his way. He openly bragged about assaulting women around the time of Barron’s birth, but she holds hands with him, to provide cover for his repulsiveness and to draw in the suckers who don’t see through this charade. Then, there’s the bullying, especially of the helpless children of migrants who are locked up like animals. We’ve had some wonderful wives of politicians in this country, but Melania isn’t one of them. She should just keep a low profile.

            1. Natacha – you are so jealous of her body. Those are really catty statements.

              BTW, it was little Barry who started caging immigrants. Just to set the record straight.

    3. Explain “illusions” of grandeur please.
      If you mean delusions of grandeur you may want to look that one up too.
      If an uneducated minimum wage making janitor believes he is super rich, holds the most powerful job on the planet and has the power to guide the direction of most of the world will go in, then he has delusions of grandeur.
      If Donald Trump has this same self assessment, then he is correct.

      1. I meant what I said. Illusions not delusions of grandeur. Again you missed the point. Not surprised!

          1. Its simple. What I believe to be a delusion, he views as an Illusion. He actually believes his own lies.

            1. Hillary isn’t President, the unemployment rate is under 4%, and ‘Russian collusion’ was a hoax dreamed up by Christopher Steele. Get over it.

              1. 3 million more votes for Hilary. That is the voice of the American People not partisan politics and gerrymandering.

                1. Waal, yeah, if you count the ‘harvested’ ballots.

                  The Democrats have managed to win a ‘popular’ majority in three of the last 13 presidential elections, tootsie.

                  1. Name calling huh? The display of immaturity leaves me no choice but to leave this conversation. I will not bend to being rude in the name of politics. You have your opinion and I have mine and we shall agree to disagree with all due respect. See ya in November!

                    1. Name calling huh?

                      You do a fantastic impression of an inept and frivolous elementary schoolteacher.

                      Don’t let the door hit your tuchus on the way out.

                    2. But under your Democrat rules disagreeing is not allowed Pam. Don’t you read your own posts?

                2. The Constitution.
                  That’s the Governing Document of The United States.
                  Specifically created to prevent mob rule.
                  Under your dream scenario, The United States and most of the world would still be buying and selling women and slaves.

                  1. You don’t read my posts. I am NOT a Democrat. Never will be. I have voted both ways in the past. I can agree to disagree and so should we all.

                    1. The display of immaturity leaves me no choice but to leave this conversation.

                      Don’t Let the Door Hit Ya (Where the Good Lord Split Ya!)

                    2. Oops, sorry, my bad. It’s clear from your posts you’re a death cult, totalitarian loving, Communist which means you subscribe to…wait…apology rescinded Democrat.

                3. Pam sounds like a sock puppet for Natacha.

                  Look. If you don’t understand the electoral college, then go research it. I know you wish the rules for the election were different, so your criminal could win, but that’s now how elections work. You can’t go back in time and change the rules.

                  A president has to win voting districts all across the country, so that he or she will represent the entire country. Otherwise, large parts of the country would become discarded, meaningless politically. The Condition prevents that.

                  Democrats are in a terrible hurry to chip away at that Constitution, including the electoral college. They are so eager to disenfranchise most of the country, as long as it benefits them.

                  1. No, Pam’s got a different vibe. Unless Correct-the-Record told Natacha to play a different character, they’re not the same.

                    1. Well, it’s true that Pam hasn’t mentioned Fox Fox Fox Fox FOX Hannity Fox!!!!! That obsession with the false idea that Trump cheated, while ignoring that Hillary actually did cheat, though, sounds like a regular.

            2. Um, no, that’s not what “illusion” means.

              If he viewed something as an illusion, he wouldn’t think it was real. Literally. A hologram is an illusion. David Copperfield making elephants disappear is an illusion. Cutting a man in half in a magician’s box is an illusion. Then there is the illusion of control.

              You don’t know what “illusion” means?

          2. Pam seems to be unable to adequately explain illusions of grandeur.
            Here Pam, let me help you.


            a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.


            splendor and impressiveness, especially of appearance or style.
            Example: How Adam Schiff sees his impeachment debacle.

              1. And you know this how?
                Are you a degreed psychiatrist, qualified to render such a conclusion, who has spoken with Trump at great length or did you get your information from this weeks MSNBC talking points memo?

                1. A note of caution here: the population of credentialed psychiatrists is amply studded with people who endorse mutilating surgery and hormonal treatments for very peculiar people who announce they are the wrong gender, but fancy that just talking to a counselor about one’s inability to function as a husband (and concomitant urge to fellate other men) should be unlawful because reasons. Credentialed mental health tradesmen are not the most trustworthy sorts. What’s amusing about this woman is she cannot even stick to their own self-designed protocols (but suffers no professional opprobrium for failing to do so).

                2. No Dawn. I killed my television 20 years ago. Sorry but I like to think for myself. Last time I checked I didn’t have to be a professional to have opinions of people. In my opinion (and others of worthy note) it would be a waste of my time to talk to the Donald.
                  Most times I have listened to him speak publicly he is incapable of completing a sentence or thought. He sounds. . . .confused. Like he is lost in the script. Like on his TV shows. I end up feeling very embarrassed for him. We are facing unprescedented changes globally with respect to climate and this man refuses to even admit that there might be a problem. It doesn’t take a professional or a genius to see that. I think most people can see that he is unfit for office but are scared to speak up for some reason. Its sad. The future of our planet is not a game. No more endless wars. No more lies! Pay attention to Mother Earth! She will take us down of we don’t. How will your partisan politics help you then? Will it even matter anymore?
                  I don’t think so. . . I don’t think so.

                  1. Pam Aspiri:

                    “Most times I have listened to him speak publicly he is incapable of completing a sentence or thought. He sounds. . . .confused. Like he is lost in the script. Like on his TV shows. I end up feeling very embarrassed for him. We are facing unprescedented changes globally with respect to climate and this man refuses to even admit that there might be a problem. ”
                    He’s richer, smarter, more accomplished and has a better family than you. He also earned 63 million votes in the face of a vicious fascist smear campaign and won a historic political victory. He’s ushered in a Golden Age economically and we’re stronger by any metric you care to name than when he came into office. He’s playing chess; you’re playing checkers.

                    Post your CV. Then save the embarrassment for yourself. It’s much better placed.

                    1. Not sure what a CV is. Communicative Virus? Common View? Correct View? Communist Values? Consensual Vegans? Cognitive Vibrator? I could do this all day. If your going to try and insult me then please get some facts and use whole words. Too many acronyms these days. Thanks!

                    2. Pam:

                      “Not sure what a CV is. Communicative Virus? Common View? Correct View? Communist Values? Consensual Vegans? Cognitive Vibrator? I could do this all day. If your going to try and insult me then please get some facts and use whole words. Too many acronyms these days. Thanks!”

                      That, in the context of my comment fraught with comparative credentials, you don’t know that a “CV” is a curriculum vitae tells me everything I need to know.

                      Here’s a primer — you’re welcome:


                    3. Pam – CV stands for Curriculum vitae. It’s essentially a list of academic credentials, skills, and education, very similar to a resume.

                  2. If you think that you are thinking for yourself why is every one of your statements which you have now modified to “opinions” an MSNBC or CNN talking point?
                    And what makes you so sure your society that decides the merit and value of a human being and whether that human should be allowed to live their life or not based solely emotionalism and opinion garnered from gossip and carefully crafted propaganda will not collapse with no protective provisions for the reality people are different and must live and work together for civilization to survive?
                    As for Mother Earth are you not hypocritically killing animals and polluting the environment by using electricity to power your computer or whatever?
                    And as for wars, the reality is evil exists in the world. Evil people exist in the world and it sometimes takes War to stop these evil people from consuming the world and exterminating all that is good on Mother Earth. The grandest delusion people like you have is there is some kind of perfect utopia awaiting humanity if everyone can just be forced to act and think exactly same with zero deviation from the nebulous narrative and zero tolerance for those who threaten that narrative with facts, reality or God forbid, their own self determination, actualization and conciousness.
                    The especially successful evil people are masters at convincing those who are enslaved by this kind of thinking that they are free.

                    1. Didn’t modify. Been my humble opinion all along. Don’t know if my views are same as any stoopid TV views cause I don’t own one. Absolutely LOVE messing with you all though. You’re funny!
                      P.S. I KNOW how I am causing climate crisis. . . at least I admit it isn’t a hoax. Duh!

                      P.P.S. There are no perfect utopias. My perfect world would be rich in diversity and acceptance. People could agree to disagree and not murder each other in the name of peace. HOW DARE ME!!!!

                    2. Pam: If you want to stop contributing to climate change, you should eschew all fossil fuel based plastics…like keyboards. Do your part for the environment.

                    3. Pam Aspiri:
                      “My perfect world would be rich in diversity and acceptance. People could agree to disagree and not murder each other in the name of peace. HOW DARE ME!!!!”
                      Pam, add some honey bees, a few turtle doves and a group sing and you’ve got a Coke commercial. It’s the real thing, you know:

      1. This Pamnatch post must be an illusion because Pamnatch said she was leaving an hour ago and as we all know, Pamnatch NEVER lies.

        1. She’s not Natacha, unless she’s taking painstaking efforts to control her emotional and intellectual Tourette’s. Natacha professes to be a lawyer who considered nursing school (or a nurse-practitioner who considered law school, I cannot keep it straight and neither can she). She’d likely know what a CV is.

          There actually is a ‘Pamn Aspiri’ living outside of Seattle. She apparently runs some sort of design business out of her house. She’s been married a couple of times, borne a couple of kids (one of whom died young), gone through the divorce courts at least once. Her surviving son is 34 years old and works for Central Washington University (where he once took classes). His father (who died in 2012) was a retail manager in a small town outside Seattle before decamping to the east coast about 15 years ago. No clue who is appropriating Mrs. Aspiri’s identity.

    4. “Illusions of grandeur are present as well” – are these delusions of grandeur, or do you think Trump is David Copperfield?

      What does it mean when you say that if any of your children acted like Trump, you would not accept it. How old are your children? What would you do? Disown them if they became conservatives or showed up in a MAGA hat? That would be sad.

  8. One of the most disturbed psychiatrists in history was the late Harry Harlow:


    The Pit of Despair was just one of his many experiments designed to psychologically torture monkeys. He suffered depression, and created the most devious, depraved way to break the minds of baby monkeys until they were completely ruined.

    Not only did he take great pleasure in tormenting infant monkeys, but his colleagues and students did not stop him.

    “Another of Harlow’s students, William Mason, who also conducted deprivation experiments elsewhere,[15] said that Harlow “kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. It’s as if he sat down and said, ‘I’m only going to be around another ten years. What I’d like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind.’ If that was his aim, he did a perfect job.””

    The man was clearly mentally disturbed, yet, as a psychiatrist, he had the means, the funding, the facility, and employees to go on destroying the minds of primates, our nearest relations.

    Psychiatry has a very scandal-plagued history. At some point, one wonders, who are they to judge when they appear impaired themselves? Dr Lee’s behavior is questionable.

  9. Years ago I worked as a lawyer for mental patients locked up in various state hospitals in a midwest state. Often, very often, the “doctors” were wrong about diagnosis. One guy got released at age 36. He had been locked up in maximum security since age 7. I hired two renowned experts. One a psychologist examined him and tested him and found he was not mentally retarded, ore deficient. An M.D. psychiatrist examined and tested him in several ways and found he was not mentally ill– no psychosis or lesser dgrees of mental illness. The judge sprung him. Free at last.
    Don’t trust aholes from med schools who launch out at people from afar and say they are mentally ill or retarded. This so called expert is a retard. Fire him from his jobs.
    Call the men in the white suits.

  10. Voters, take heed.

    Let’s examine what the hard Left has been up to, and what would be the predicted outcome should they gain power in government:

    1. Antifa calls everything they don’t like a Fascist, takes over streets, misdirects traffic, beats up a journalist, and ran down and dragged from his car an elderly man for having Southern plates. Ironically, they behave like Brown Shirts.
    2. IRS, NSA, FBI, EPA – abuse their authority to target conservatives. An FBI agent even materially altered an email from the CIA to spy on Trump’s campaign, and by extension, him.
    3. Hillary Clinton paid a disgraced former British spy to get false intel from Russian intelligence in order to damage a Republican candidate in a planned October Surprise. This false document was used as the basis to get a FISA court warrant to spy on that Republican candidate, and President. The sub source said it was all just gossip and never to be treated as fact. That bit got cut out of the FISA application.
    4. Democrat academics harass conservative students on campus.
    5. Democrat activist threaten conservative invited speakers to campus. They threaten violence.
    6. When those conservative speakers don’t cancel, and brave the threatening crowds, then activists harass them inside, screaming, blowing whistles, blowing bullhorns, trying to prevent anyone else from hearing what they have to say.
    7. When a Republican got elected, prominent Democrats openly fantasized about murdering him.
    8. The Democrat media hides positive results of Trump’s administration, and misrepresents the facts in order to meddle in voting behavior. An example is when they selectively edited video of the Japanese PM dumping the dregs of his koi food into the pond, and Trump following suit, to make it look like Trump was trying to kill the imperial koi.
    9. Activists constantly lie about Donald Trump, such as the time they were absolutely sure he was an antisemite. Obviously, that was a lie, as he has a Jewish family, Jewish friends, is tight with Netanyahu, moved the embassy to Israel while thumbing his nose at the terrorists, etc.
    10. Democrats in the House abused their authority to impeach Trump over a phone call that was misrepresented by an activist mole, posing as a whistleblower. The FBI had to change its rules to allow 2nd person information, and then backdate this change, in order for this to occur.
    11. Democrats now espouse socialism, which, as history shows, is incompatible with individual liberty.
    12. Democrats routinely assault and harass people who wear MAGA hats.
    13. Democrats lied about the Covington Catholic High School kids, and a Disney executive fantasized about murdering them in a wood chipper, complete with a very graphic image.
    14. Democrats oppose the first amendment (harassing people for their conservative opinions), 2nd amendment, the electoral college, due process,
    15. The Democrat Party espouses racist identity politics, in which your worth is gauged on your gender, race, and sexual orientation, with white cis gendered males openly experiencing bigotry and discrimination, and even death threats.
    16. Democrats allow biological males to compete in women’s sports, and intrude in women’s most private spaces. The gender serration of some sports occurred because males have a physical advantage over females. But when being a woman has been reduced to a state of mind, that can change minute by minute, it allows stronger males to blow females out of the water in their own divisions. I love the Youtube video of Kevin from Kevin’s Corner remarking, “I am a woman!”. Then he deadlifts a bunch of weight, and proclaims he’s just broken the women’s deadlift world record. Men and boys are allowed into the bathrooms, showers, and battered women’s shelters set aside for the safety of women. There is a viral video going around of a high school girl shaken and upset because her school board voted to allow boys into her changing room, where they can watch her undress and there’s nothing she can do about it. All it takes is for a boy to declare he’s a girl, and he can stride right in. I am woman, hear me roar, is just a state of mind. A decision that can be changed at any time. If a man feels like he might be a woman that hour of the day, then the Democrat party considers him a woman. I heard an interview with Gloria Allred, who has made herself wealthy championing women’s rights (on TV). She said that if a man identifies as a woman, he/she should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. She acknowledged that this gave him a physical advantage over biological females. That right there just blew her out of the water as any poser of women’s rights activist. What a grasping fool.
    17. Hardline Democrats target for destruction anyone who disagrees with them. Take, for example, gay marriage. It was supposed to open that option up to committed gay couples. What it ended up doing was provide an industry for activists to destroy businesses who didn’t want to participate. Take the Christian baker. An activist has harassed him for years. He tried to get him to bake a Satanic cake, and he declined. He asked for a transgender cake to celebrate his mental illness, in which the center of the cake would be pink, but the outside blue. He declined. He keeps getting dragged into costly court battles because an activist won’t let him decline to participate in whatever his conscience objects to. He won’t bake a Halloween cake, either. Not only do gay men need the right to get married, but they need the right to punish each and every person who chooses not to participate in their ceremony or reception. They want tolerance they won’t give.

    The list goes on and on, but these are the highlights. These hard liners are trying to move us towards another Leftist dictatorship. We’ve seen what they do with power. They abuse it, because they think the ends justify the means. Are voters going to give people with propensities to attack dissent more power?



    1. Wow! Hope your kids are reading this Karen. They won’t be brainwashed at all! You give such a non partisan approach! Well done!

      1. Hey, Pam, which of the above bullet points would you want you or your kids to engage in? Since you think eschewing these are wrong, which ones do you agree with? Is it fantasizing about murdering conservative teenagers for wearing a MAGA hat?

  11. “I am at a loss on this one. Does Lee think that Pelosi can “as a co-worker” force the President into an involuntary evaluation? ”

    Pssst, JT. Lee’s crazy.

    1. The field does seem to attract some who are looking for their own diagnosis.

      See my link above to the infamous Harry Harlow.

      1. It attracts very arrogant people who wish to earn ample incomes by manipulating people.

        See Fuller Torrey and others on the development of psychiatry after 1935. They had frustrating professional lives supervising hopeless public order problems in state asylums, so they go off on tangents. One was the practice of psychosurgery, which did a great deal of damage to people (though helping a few). Another was investing in insight-oriented talk therapies (which were useless if not harmful for schizophrenics but provided a comfortable living for practitioners who wanted out of asylums and into outpatient office practice). Another was promoting psychotropic medications, which are now hideously over-prescrdibed.

        1. There was also that scandal about implanting false memories of sexual abuse in some patients, i.e. victims. The field really does have a sordid history. There is scope for good and great evil in psychiatry.

          1. In fairness to psychiatrists, I think the main perps there were clinical psychologists – often junior grade clinical psychologists trained by social work faculties. It seems to me the ‘family therapist’ who ruined Gary Ramona’s life was one such specimen.

    2. No, Lee’s willing to put her name on it. Little doubt that the a**holes in the mental health trade make utterances like this all the time, but they do so over a latte at Starbucks. Adhering to certain rubrics invites more public scrutiny from laymen, whose representatives in Congress and in the state legislatures might just cut off the flow of insurance re-imbursements animated by the notion that their services are seldom if ever anything in the realm of ‘health care’.

      See the public writings of Paul McHugh, who was chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins on the structural problems in psychiatry which other departments of medicine suffered from in the 19th c but eventually overcame.

      Dr. McHugh managed to persuade Johns Hopkins some decades ago to shut down it’s gender-reassignment practice. The money quote from his argument was, “we don’t give liposuction to anorectics’. His argument was an intramural one (that before-and-after assessments showed the procedures had no effect on the subjective satisfaction with life of those who underwent them).

      Outside of that discourse, ordinary people can see plainly that it’s craziness, but they’re being told by their social betters they must pretend otherwise on the pain of job loss and other forms of official harassment. When people start to get the idea that there are a number of quack clerisies running around and we need to start taking their public subsidies away from them, a great many rice bowls are gonna get broken. Remarks by Lee make it plain to many that there are an ample supply of credentialed quacks in this world.

      1. This is some sort of operation probably commanded by donors and former CIA skullduggery squads

        setup for 25th amendment coup

        read her associates list, it’s like someone like Brennan handpicked them from his rolodex

        1. read my above comment on the “associates list”

          there wont be any 25th Amendment Coup. relax

          1. Relax? they had guys near the top of FBI counting cabinet heads to see if it was feasible. or did you miss that? ever heard of Rosenstein and McCabe? Remember that?

            1. The 25th Amendment is an unworkable mess when you have a recalcitrant president. The irony here is that it was enacted with the example of Woodrow Wilson in mind, who pig-headedly insisted on holding on to the office even though he was too incapacitated to converse with anyone but his wife and his doctor. Essentially, it requires a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress to depose a President, after a period of weeks in which the appropriate holder of the office is contested. We have a very cumbersome amendment process which we fancy filters out bad ideas, and it generated this dog’s breakfast. Neither Congress nor the state legislatures do anything well.

    3. mespo – Since Pelosi is in the House, she would not qualify as a co-worker.

Comments are closed.