According to reports, a group of psychiatrists and doctors is currently lobbying to testify on President Trump’s mental health during the impeachment hearings – despite never having personally met or examined Trump.
The group graced headlines back in 2017 when one of the psychiatrists, Dr. Bandly Lee of Yale, went to Capitol Hill to warn lawmakers on how “psychologically dangerous” and unfit for office President Trump was.
Now, Lee is back with her crew – demanding that they be called to testify against Trump as part of the impeachment inquiry.
Regarding the fact that none of the “experts” in the group have ever examined the mind of President Trump – or even met him for that matter – Lee claimed,
“We don’t believe there is the need for any further evaluation, and we are making ourselves available for the impeachment hearing because we believe that mental health issues will become critical as pressures from the impeachment hearings mount In other words, the more successful the impeachment proceedings become, the more dangerous the psychological factors of the president will become.”
It looks like TDS symptoms have evolved to now include entitledness and self-importance!
Take a look for yourself:
The Washington Examiner has more on the looney leftist psychiatrists trying to testify on Trump's mental "fitness" during the impeachment hearings:
A group of medical experts who claim that President Trump's mental health makes him dangerous and unfit for office is seeking to testify during House impeachment proceedings.
The group, comprising four psychiatrists, a clinical neuropsychologist, a neurologist, and an internist, are planning to announce their availability next week to members of Congress and the media. They'll also be available to consult privately with members of Congress, with 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, or with members of Trump's cabinet.
Dr. Bandy Lee, a Yale School of Medicine psychiatrist, announced the group's plans to the Washington Examiner on Friday.
"We think that hearing about mental health aspects in the context of the impeachment hearings is critical, partly because, for the past 2.5 years we have been very deeply concerned about mental instability of the president, and pretty much all that we have said has born out to be true," she said.
The idea of doctors presenting a mental health assessment of someone without personally examining them is controversial and against some medical association codes. Lee and others who agree with her stance stress, however, that their description of the president's behavior, of his showing mental instability and dangerousness, shouldn't be interpreted as issuing a diagnosis.
Lee and those prepared to testify say there is enough information from the president's public appearances, tweets, interviews, and also from special counsel Robert Mueller's 448-page report, to make the determination that, as Lee put it, "the president lacks mental capacity to fulfill the duties of his office."
"There is very little that a personal examination will add," Lee said.
Lee led a group of experts this year to conduct a mental health analysis of Trump using the Mueller report. After asking the president to submit to a medical exam, and not hearing back, they concluded Trump does not have the sound mental capacity to function in his role as president and recommended Trump lose his war powers and access to nuclear weapons.
The psychiatrists who are making themselves available for consultation are Dr. James Merikangas, Dr. Jerrold Post, Dr. John Zinner, and Dr. Allen Dyer, all of whom teach at George Washington University. Sara Pascoe, a clinical neuropsychologist who is a former member of the National Academy of Medicine, is also part of the panel. Lee doesn't yet have permission from the neurologist and internist to name them publicly.
Red State added some background:
Some of us might remember Yale psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee who made headlines in December 2017. She traveled to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers from both the House and the Senate on Donald Trump’s “fitness” to be President. Speaking to CNN afterward, she said, “Lawmakers were saying they have been very concerned about this, the President’s dangerousness, the dangers that his mental instability poses on the nation. They know the concern is universal among Democrats, but it really depends on Republicans, they said. Some knew of Republicans that were concerned, maybe equally concerned, but whether they would act on those concerns was their worry.” There was one Republican senator among the group whom she would not name. Corker, maybe Flake?
According to CNN, “Lee made it clear that she is not in a position to diagnose the President, or any public figure, from afar. But she said that it is incumbent on medical professionals to intervene in instances where there is a danger to an individual or the public. She argues that signs the President has exhibited have risen to that level of danger.”
Her concern began immediately after Trump’s victory. Lee believed that President Trump posed a danger to America and felt it was her duty to warn us.
For decades, psychiatrists have observed “The Goldwater Rule.” Following a hit job from a group of psychiatrists who had never met him, Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, sued them and won. Since then, it’s been the policy of the American Psychiatric Association not to diagnose a patient unless the individual has been evaluated in person. But because Trump presented such a threat, she just could not remain silent.
Lee observes a different rule called the “Duty to Warn,” which is currently a law in 38 states. If a doctor believes that a mental health patient may cause physical harm to another, they “may break confidentiality and alert the likely victim or call the police.” The law makes sense in general, but it hardly applies to Trump.
“The Goldwater Rule is not absolute. We have a duty to warn about a leader who is dangerous to the health and security of our patients,” she told New York Magazine’s Gail Sheehy.
Lee formed a “coalition” of like-minded mental-health professionals who were “sufficiently alarmed that they feel the need to speak up about the mental-health status of the president.”
To make a long story short, Lee had spent time in East Africa and in maximum security prisons studying the culture of violence and views life through that lens.
Sheehy asked her, “Do Trump’s middle-class supporters see him as a strong man who promises to revive the status they have lost? Is their sense of belonging tied to Trump?”
Lee replied, “He is giving his fans a false sense of empowerment: ‘Make America great again, reject outsiders who will take your jobs.’ But instead of elevating their status with real solutions, he is exploiting their psychology.”
Dr. Bandy Lee also gave a recent interview with Salon about...
Wait for it...
President Trump's "self-destructive diet" and how its deteriorating his mental health.
Among other weird accusations in the interview, Lee suggested that rumors about President Trump eating an extra scoop of ice cream during dinner is evidence that he has an "antisocial need to be cruel to others."
This is not a joke.
Here's an excerpt of the crazy interview:
It has been reported numerous times that Trump has a recurring fear of being poisoned, which is one reason why he consumes an excessive amount of fast food. This predates Trump's move to the White House, yet the president also reportedly distrusts the staff preparing his food at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What does this ever-present fear tell us about his psyche?
You are correct to ask the broader question. The ongoing fear of being poisoned would be indicative of a more general paranoid tendency he has, which is why he has to ask for loyalty from all and to practice nepotism rather than hire competent help — or not to hire at all. He also believes there is a "deep state" on a "witch hunt" against him. Paranoia can be a measure of severity of mental compromise.
Trump is a self-admitted germaphobe, so he reportedly eats only pre-packaged snacks like chips and Oreos on flights; he has also commented on the cleanliness of fast-food restaurants as a draw. What do these intense fears of germs indicate?
I would conjecture that his affinity for fast-food restaurants goes beyond mere cleanliness concerns. For someone with a generally unhealthful lifestyle, his choice of fast food — especially in this day of food consciousness — is rather another example of the self-destructiveness that is characteristic of disease. He could pursue cleanliness without opting for processed, non-fresh foods, but even more greatly endangering his health is the route he chooses.
Trump’s McDonald's order includes 2,400 calories and 3,400 milligrams of sodium. He is known to wash that down with large quantities of diet soda — up to 12 cans a day. How does this diet, which consists of copious amounts of artificial sweeteners, and red and processed meats, impact both his current and long-term mental health? Would he see a positive impact if he switched to the balanced diet advocated for by former first lady Michelle Obama in her “Let’s Move“ campaign?
He is consuming some of the worst-quality foods, which will have an effect on his brain health, as well as mental health. The brain is highly sensitive to the quality of foods that it intakes, since it consumes a lot of energy and is dependent on having abundant vitamins, minerals and antioxidants in its fuel. Processed or refined foods create a lot of free radicals or "waste" which cause oxidative stress, inflammation and harm to the brain.
Not only will there be generally impaired brain function and brain health, but there is an immediate worsening of mood disorders, such as depression and angry outbursts. Research suggests that much of this damage can be reversed and improvement is possible if one switched to a more balanced diet; without switching, however, the damage only accumulates.
At least one instance has been documented where Trump as president was served more food than his guests — for example, an extra dish of sauce to go with his chicken and two scoops of ice cream instead of one. What does his choice to short his dining guests say about him?
There is the narcissistic need for special and exclusive treatment that distinguishes himself from the others, but food in particular is psychologically related to a lack of love. In other words, not having received enough love at a critical, infantile stage often gives rise to a fixation on food and an inability to get enough of it. His shortchanging his guests may also indicate an antisocial need to be cruel to others — or at least to cheat them in order to establish his sense of power.