quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:
I forgot to say that I doubt that the analysis would be enough to prove the issue in court, although they could certainly deploy some expert witnesses and give it a try, but it wouldn't have to be admissible in court to get a whole lot of people talking.

quote:

“If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren today told CNN. “The Constitution provides for a procedure whenever the Vice President and senior officials think the President can’t do his job. It does not provide that senior officials go around the President — take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds. Everyone of these officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It’s time for them to do their job.”

quote:

Aides are following leads based on the way the op-ed is written, looking at key words used in the editorial that stand out, a source close to the White House told CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
This might be an example of why using forensics on the op-ed might not be successful:

quote:

Originally posted by piqaboo:
I think its BS and its disgusting. Its disgusting they would subvert their job this way, its disgusting its anonymous, its disgusting that the end result may still be the greater good for America, despite the horrible example & precedent it sets.
I think its more butt-covering than real. One day folks will jump up shouting 'it was me, see, I tried. I get a pass!'. Otherwise, they'd just do it quietly and very much hope not to be noticed so that they could continue to do what they feel keeps the country safe.

I'm w Liz W. There's a process. Follow it. Otherwise they are just as bad as the guy they are thwarting.

quote:

Bob Woodward’s new book, “Fear,” describes a “nervous breakdown of Trump’s presidency.” Earlier this year, Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” offered a similar portrayal.

Now, an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior White House official” describes how deeply the troubles in this administration run and what effort is required to protect the nation.

None of this is a surprise to those of us who, 18 months ago, put together our own public service book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

My focus as the volume’s editor was on Trump’s dangerousness because of my area of expertise in violence prevention. Approaching violence as a public health issue, I have consulted with governments and international organizations, in addition to 20 years of engaging in the individual assessment and treatment of violent offenders.

The book proceeded from an ethics conference I held at Yale, my home institution. At that meeting, my psychiatrist colleagues and I discussed balancing two essential duties of our profession. First is the duty to speak responsibly about public officials, especially as outlined in “the Goldwater rule,” which requires that we refrain from diagnosing without a personal examination and without authorization. Second is our responsibility to protect public health and safety, or our “duty to warn” in cases of danger, which usually supersedes other rules.

Our conclusion was overwhelmingly that our responsibility to society and its safety, as outlined in our ethical guidelines, overrode any etiquette owed to a public figure. That decision led to the collection of essays in the book, which includes some of the most prominent thinkers of the field including Robert J. Lifton, Judith Herman, Philip Zimbardo and two dozen others. That decision was controversial among some members of our field.

We already know a great deal about Trump’s mental state based on the voluminous information he has given through his tweets and his responses to real situations in real time. Now, this week’s credible reports support the concerns we articulated in the book beyond any doubt.

These reports are also consistent with the account I received from two White House staff members who called me in October 2017 because the president was behaving in a manner that “scared” them, and they believed he was “unraveling”. They were calling because of the book I edited.

Once I confirmed that they did not perceive the situation as an imminent danger, I referred them to the emergency room, in order not to be bound by confidentiality rules that would apply if I engaged with them as a treating physician. That would have compromised my role of educating the public.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Seen on Twitter:

“It’s a bad sign when an employee writes an anonymous letter calling you a brain dead asshole and you can’t even narrow it down to 100 people”