Yale Psychiatrist Calls On Pelosi To Put “A Mental Health Hold” On Trump
by Jonathan Turley
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.
HT/Tyler at ZH
(TLB) published this article from Professor Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for his perspective.
Pictorial content added by (TLB)
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.