Search This Blog

January 21, 2020

Hal Brown Jan 20 --- 2020



This is a blog with my own opinion plus some of today's stories that piqued my interest. Click on my photos to enlarge them. They are meant as moments of zen. Email Hal Brown (halbrown@columnist.com)


Back to Earlier in January

Now it is Feb. 3, 2020


Jan. --- ??? somehow I screwed up the dates......
Jan. 27 2020



Excerpt:


You can see this with Donald Trump. I don’t want to talk about him too much, but I think that’s part of what’s going on with him. If you insult virtually everybody, they're going to throw the shit back at you.

Sean Illing 

Well, I’m not going to call the president an asshole here, but I will say that he’s checking all the asshole boxes you’ve set forth in this book.

Robert Sutton

Yeah, I won't call him one either, but I agree with your assessment.

Sean Illing

What’s the surest way for someone to recognize that they’re being an asshole? I assume that most of us are occasionally assholes but prefer not to be. 

Robert Sutton

Absolutely. There's some evidence in the book about how few people will say that they're assholes compared to how many people will say they're oppressed by assholes. There's a huge disparity. The main thing this research on self-awareness says is that the worst person to ask about someone’s assholeness is the asshole himself, and the best people to ask are the people around him or her who know that person at least fairly well. Bottom line: Assholes need someone in their life to tell them they’re being an asshole.




Under the Radar in both meanings of the phrase: ‘Crazy’: FOIA’d emails reveal alarm and frustration among top NOAA officials over Trump’s ‘doctored’ Hurricane Dorian map






Jan. 26, 2020


Click above to view on Twitter where 240 people have already looked at it.

Joe Scarborough Comes Up With Scathing New Way To Describe Donald Trump’s Legal Team

Joe Scarborough on Tuesday mocked President Donald Trump for having “a  confederacy of dunces” defending him during his Senate impeachment trial over the Ukraine scandal.





Scarborough, who appeared to be channeling John Kennedy Toole’s novel with his swipe at the defense attorneys, called out the statements and arguments made by Alan Dershowitz, Pam Bondi and Ken Starr.

He reserved particular scorn for Starr’s complaint that we are now living in “the age of impeachment,” given his key role in the 1999 impeachment trial of then-President Bill Clinton.
If irony weren’t already dead and buried years ago, it was Ken Starr yesterday talking about how abuse of power is not sufficient to impeach a president, you need a crime. He literally dragged the corpse of irony out of the grave. He meticulously tied the corpse’s neck bone to the back of a tractor, and he ran that tractor throughout the graveyard of stupidity and ran over every headstone. Before once again kicking dirt on the corpse of irony again and putting its bones back into the ground one by one by one.
“These people lowered the collective IQ, not only of America, but of the Western world, by at least 24 points every hour they spoke on the Senate floor,” Scarborough concluded.




Can you guess what this is a still photo of? Click image to find out. Don't forget to click to see the actual video.


Plymouth, Mass.

Jan. 25, 2020




Warren got a grimace from Roberts: 

Elizabeth Warren Brilliantly Trolls Chief Justice Roberts ― And He’s Not Happy





Oh my, in the Washington Post of all places. What has Bandy Lee wrought? Good or bad? What do you think?

"In the age of Trump, let psychiatrists judge the mental health of public figures..."
THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION RULE PREVENTING IT HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS
By a new name to me, John Martin-Joy
a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School and author of the book "Diagnosing from a Distance" (April 2020).
Excerpts:
While Alan Dershowitz is all over the news for arguing “that presidents could do nearly anything so long as they believe their reelection is in the public interest” during Wednesday’s impeachment proceedings, his overall role as the president’s defender has drawn attention to his own behavior, language and friendships.

Fending off allegations in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, he said publicly that he had a “perfect” sex life. That prompted Yale psychiatrist Bandy Lee to note that Dershowitz’s language was similar to the way Trump had described his “perfect” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Given “the severity and spread of ‘shared psychosis’ among just about all of Donald Trump’s followers,” she tweeted, it was quite possible that Dershowitz’s comment about perfection demonstrated his similarity to Trump. Dershowitz, she asserted, had the same lack of empathy and “grandiosity and delusional-level impunity” as his client.Dershowitz labeled these accusations “absurd.”
He also claimed Lee’s behavior was “unethical” and violated the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Goldwater Rule, which prohibits psychiatrists from commenting on the mental health of, or diagnosing, public figures without examination and consent. Lee equivocated on whether she was making a diagnosis and on what she meant by psychosis, but she stood her ground on her duty to call out the behavior of ill and unsafe public figures. But Lee shouldn’t have to fear repercussions. Nor should other psychiatrists who want to speak out in the Trump era. The Goldwater Rule, adopted to protect public figures and the image of psychiatry, needs to be changed to protect psychiatrists of conscience....................
.....................

In the Trump era, it has faced challenge anew. Two prominent psychiatrists — Judith Herman, a trauma expert, and Lifton, an expert on how German physicians adapted to Nazism — have developed Post’s notion that in morally urgent circumstances, a psychiatrist’s obligation to society can override the rule. Lifton argues for a concept he calls “malignant normality,” in which a tyrant’s rise slowly erodes society’s usual moral norms and followers lose their ability to appreciate what is right. Then more than ever, he believes, it is important for professionals to speak out about the dangers evident in the tyrant.

Lee is not a member of the APA, so technically her recent comments on Dershowitz and Trump don’t violate the Goldwater Rule. But the rule sets the tone for ethics guidelines in psychiatry at large and in other mental health professions. Lifton, Herman and Post have joined Lee in the argument that President Trump has created a situation of malignant normality in collaboration with his misguided followers — an argument that may inform Lee’s comment about “shared psychosis.” From this point of view, it is important to challenge misguided government officials, not to collude with them.

...............................................
.The APA has done much good and, I believe, sincerely intends its rules to be helpful (I myself am a member). But the Goldwater Rule was flawed from the beginning. Its rigid approach has at the very least now outlived its usefulness.
Lee’s assertion that Trump and most of his followers are psychotic will strike many as naive, but it is not unethical. Psychiatrists have the right, and even a responsibility, to speak out thoughtfully in circumstances that they believe jeopardize the safety of the nation — and to speak out without fear of ethical retribution.



Jan. 24, 2020

It would be amazing to write an OpEd letter to John Bolton and think that there's a good chance he'd read it.
Excerpts:

Dear John Bolton:
Before you were national security adviser, before you represented the United States at the United Nations, you were a lawyer — a pretty good one, as I understand. As a member of the bar, you must have been pained and shaken to hear President Trump’s attorney Alan Dershowitz argue for the proposition that anything a president thinks he needs to do to get reelected — bribe or extort a foreign country, even — cannot be impeachable. This defies and defiles our constitutional system, one in which even the president is not above the law. It’s a proposition that would have boiled your blood had President Bill Clinton or President Barack Obama advanced it.
..........
The moral and constitutional instincts that drove you to condemn the “drug deal” being cooked by Trump’s aides and to repeatedly tell your former employees to report their concerns to White House attorneys should now compel you to throw sand in the gears of a totalitarian-minded president. Your attorney certainly has run through some options for you, but let’s review them.

(Summarized:

First, you could hold a news conference Thursday or agree to an interview, perhaps with Chris Wallace so that his Fox News audience would have a front-row seat. 


Second, you could call up the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees and ask to appear immediately in an open hearing. You can then, under oath, lay out what you know.
Third, you can do nothing, meekly accepting prior restraint on your free speech and remaining silent so that the Senate can escape confronting what it knows would be damning evidence of the president’s impeachable conduct. 
Finally, you have gotten a taste of the heavy-handed intimidation techniques the president and his sycophantic enablers use to beat down critics. If someone as financially and professional secure as you capitulates, imagine how easy it will be for the Trumpists to crush dissent from ordinary Americans.



























More:

Scaramucci Questions Trump’s Mental Health After He Stumbled Over Words at Rally


Excerpt:

Never mind what one thinks of trade wars, immigration, or whether his Ukraine intervention meets the criminal standard of a quid pro quo. Simply on stylistic grounds, Trump represents the opposite of the traditional 20th-century masculine ideal, as mythologized on movie screens, on battlefields, in athletic stadiums. So the transformation in the American mind—or at least in the conservative mind—of what it means to be a strong leader and a strong man counts as one of the more profound cultural and political shifts of the past generation. The impeachment battle puts this underappreciated shift in an especially sharp relief. 
In the 20th-century tradition, strong men were supposed to be laconic, stoical, self-effacing. They might secretly enjoy publicity, but the standard pose was to feign indifference or even disdain. Trump, by contrast, is flamboyant, boastful, desperate for acclaim, loud in protest when he doesn’t get it. 
In the 20th-century tradition, strong men didn’t complain about their circumstances. Trump is relentless in whining about his burdens, including the claim that he has been treated more unfairly than any president in history.
In the 20th-century tradition, strong men were supposed to elevate team and cause above self. Trump’s presidency has been consistent with the cult-of-personality pledge he made in his 2016 GOP acceptance speech, “I alone can fix it.” Strong men, likewise, are supposed to show self-discipline in all aspects of life. Trump celebrates impulsiveness and free-roaming appetites in every arena, from his tweetstorms that often come at a hundred bursts or more a day, to his abundant record of extramarital affairs, to his expanding physical girth.

Bakery sending cakes to all 53 GOP senators telling them to let Bolton testify





Jan. 23, 2020
First I made the image, and then I wrote a story to go with it:


Jan. 22, 2020


Not a link




Jan. 21, 2020



Jan. 26, 2020 After a dry spell with none of my stories on Daily Kos recommended this one was selected by their staff even though only 13 readers recommended it. Now 76 have, and it has 123 comments (some of them my responses).

Excerpt: 
Are there more recordings that Lev Parnas has? With the president?” Cooper asked Bondy.
“Yes,” Bondy replied.
“Do you plan to release those?” Cooper asked.
“Perhaps,” said Bondy, who added that recordings have already been provided to officials of the House Intelligence Committee. He said the video released Saturday “certainly addresses the issue of the ambassador, and we thought it was really important to get that recording out in public.”
Bondy said if Parnas and other witnesses are not called to testify about what they know occurred in Ukraine, the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate will be “like a silent movie or a puppet show.”
The nearly 90-minute video released by Bondy involves a 2018 donor dinner including Trump, Parnas, his Ukrainian business partner Igor Fruman and what sounds like several other people in a private room in the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
“Get rid of her!” Trump can be heard saying about Yovanovitch at one point after Parnas criticizes her. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Do it.”

Bondy said Parnas was “shocked” that he could simply “raise the issue of the ambassador and have the chief executive say, ‘Get rid of her and fire her,’” Bondy told Cooper. Read story

More about Joseph Bondy:
To many outside legal commentators, Bondy’s strategy has been puzzling. Ken White, a criminal defense attorney, posited a number of theories earlier this month, including that this may be Bondy and Parnas’ way of offering a “public proffer” that can't be buried by the Barr-controlled Justice Department.
That’s part of it, Bondy acknowledges. “We’ve decided to speak to the audience that will listen to us,” Bondy said, referring both to Congress and to the public. 
“We just need to be truthful and complete, while trying to raise awareness for the need for there to be a fair tribunal” in the Senate, he elaborated. “If we reach the point where Lev has not been called as a witness, at least I can look back and know I did the best I could for him and for the public.” 
And those cheesy slideshows of Parnas with various Trump world luminaries? The ones whom Bondy often gleefully pumps out immediately after they say they don’t recall meeting him? They’re part of a strategy Bondy has been honing for decades, dating back to his days as a young lawyer who made his name representing high-profile New York mobsters.
The narrative goes something like this: Parnas was just one small part of a scheme directed from the top. And anything he did, he did with the naive belief that he was doing the right thing, because he trusted his superiors and always carried out their orders. 

It doesn’t always work. But to Bondy, it’s always worth a try.

All about the artist Trump thinks is the greatest:



Jan. 25, 2020


Trump will get off like O.J. did, but unlike in that case (the knife was never found), more and more evidence will come out proving his guilt after the Senate finds that, as his lawyers are saying, he did nothing wrong. O.J. didn't have to run for president when he was set free. Trump, as Politico reports, does. 

The Salon article about how Trump will get off just like OJ Simpson did made me think that that if Trump wasn't delusional he'd be worried about the equivant of the knife OJ used as a murder weapon being found. As Trump's lawyers make his case today they talk about how no Democratic witnesses have direct knowledge of Trump demanding a quid pro quo. This should be jumped on as the reason why the four witnesses who can testify about this should be called. Otherwise Trump will claim vindication and we can only hope that the knife with Nicolle and Ron Goldman's DNA on it is found. If it is Trump will stagger into the election as a morally wounded candidate.
Could John Bolton be the knife? If he wants his book to sell more copies that The Art of The Deal, and he has the knife with Trump's DNA, he should release it well before November.

Pompous Profane Pompeo:  


Now Pompeo is having a hissy-fit because his f-bombs leveled at Mary Louise Parker have gone public.

"NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly lied to me, twice. First, last month, in setting up our interview and, then again yesterday, in agreeing to have our post-interview conversation off the record.  It is shameful that this reporter chose to violate the basic rules of journalism and decency. This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration. It is no wonder that the American people distrust many in the media when they so consistently demonstrate their agenda and their absence of integrity.”

"It is worth noting that Bangladesh is not Ukraine."
Diplomatic Correspondent for The New York Times. Nieman Fellow @ Harvard. Ferris Professor of Journalism @ Princeton. 13 years covering China & Iraq Edward Wong tweets: 

Pompeo also undermines his credibility on the facts of the episode in the statement. There is little chance


@NPRKelly , a Cambridge-educated expert on Europe, would have pointed to Bangladesh if he asked her to identify Ukraine on an unlabeled map.


The lost boys of Ukraine: How the war abroad attracted American white supremacists






Jan. 24, 2020

Scroll down for select stories of the day
















































































Screenshot2020-01-23at3.06.27PM.png
www.nytimes.com/...

After a few self-aggrandizing paragraphs Alan Dershowitz writes the following reasons why he concludes that President Donald Trump doesn’t meet the constitutional requirements for conviction in a letter to the New York Times:
While it is true that most other constitutional scholars believe that impeachment can be based on completely noncriminal type behavior, such as abuse of power, my independent research conducted over the past two years has led me to the opposite conclusion — a conclusion shared by Justice Benjamin Curtis, who after resigning from the Supreme Court in protest of its decision in the Dred Scott case represented President Andrew Johnson, with whose politics he thoroughly disagreed.
As to my 1998 statement that “you don’t need a technical crime,” it was made during the Clinton impeachment when there was no debate over whether a crime is required, since Mr. Clinton was charged with perjury. I was not then aware of Justice Curtis’s argument. Now that the primary issue is whether criminal conduct is required, I have done extensive original research and have come to the firm conclusion that Justice Curtis was correct and that criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery is constitutionally required, and that vague terms like abuse of power and obstruction of Congress did not meet the criteria.
Akin is not a legal term today. (In old English law it meant Of kin or “Next-a-kin.”) Therefore we are left with the current meaning. First here’s what it doesn’t mean. Akin does not mean identical. 
As you can see from my illustrated examples the word means “similar in some way” or “having some of the same qualities.”
I think the real Democratic House lawyers we have been hearing from over the past two days are making the case that what Trump is accused of is equivalent to the criminal-type of behavior akin (or similar to) to what the Framers meant when they wrote the requirements for impeachment and conviction. 
Note that Dershowitz doesn’t get into what the Framers meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors” since he knows that when the Constitution was written there was no American criminal code. 
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Let’s go to the second word’s definition:
Vague means of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning, or thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way.
If anything two days into the trail anyone who says that the Democrats have been vague should take a taxi home because they are not safe to drive and could be arrested for DWI.
Only in Dershowitz’s attempt to “get his client off” by rewriting the dictionary can the terms “abuse of power” or “obstruction of Congress” be considered vague. 

The Poll:

I heard the joke about the most dangerous place in Cambridge during the O.J. Simpson trial. Here’s a quote about it:
Dershowitz, like Trump, also has an ineluctable power to draw media attention. “I’ve discovered that the most dangerous place to be in the criminal justice system is not the Federal Penitentiary at Marion or the holding cell at the Tombs, but between Alan Dershowitz and a television camera,” Brian Wice, a Texas lawyer who worked alongside him in the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker case, quipped in 1991. Dershowitz’s ubiquitous appearances on television made him perhaps the best-known living American lawyer in the 1980s and 1990s. One book reviewer, writing about O.J. Simpson lawyer Robert Shapiro’s account of the TV-driven case in 1996, wondered if Shapiro had hired Dershowitz “mainly to shut him up.” From “Dershowitz hasn’t changed one bit” from The New Republic.
Really Rudy?

More about Rudy




Woods Hole

Jan, 23,2020


What is required for removal of the president?
 A demonstration of presidential commission
 of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which
 in Trump's case the evidence is
ample and uncontradicted.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?

One quarter of my readers log in from Hong Kong, and a handful from China itself. This story should be of interest to all of them:

According to an official court document dated Nov. 5, 2019, Chinese police detained 20-year-old Luo Daiqing in July 2019 in Wuhan, his hometown, where the liberal arts student had returned after the end of the spring semester.
  • The court document says that "in September and October 2018, while he was studying at the University of Minnesota," Luo "used his Twitter account to post more than 40 comments denigrating a national leader's image and indecent pictures," which "created a negative social impact."
  • After months of detention, Luo was sentenced in November 2019 to six months in prison for "provocation." (According to the court judgment, the time he spent in detention will count toward those six months).
  • A request for comment sent to Luo's university email account received no reply.
Ed note: Obviously anyone who posts images critical of President Xi online takes huge risk if they travel to China, for example:

Note the similarities between this image and the Trump Baby Balloon and cartoons of Trump.




Jan. 22, 2020



In Davos Trump called Adam Schiff a

“con job” and a “corrupt politician.” I added the new words...





This article from a Ring of Fire interview was computer generated so crucial quotation marks and paragraph breaks were omitted here. Corrected below:
"Dr. Lee has a history of such unethical conduct. She previously diagnosed president Trump as being psychotic. Now, she is doubling down accusing me of having a shared psychosis with president Trump and having wholly taken on Trump’s symptoms by contagion." Dershowitz.
Author Farron Cousins' response:
What Dershowitz is referring to there is that about a week or so ago you had Dr. Lee talking about the fact in response to Richard Painter, talking about the fact, that Dershowitz started using the same language Trump did, you know, that, the perfect phone call. And then Dershowitz started using the word perfect shortly after Trump did in a very strange way, but similar to Donald Trump and Dr. Lee suggested, she didn’t even diagnose you Dershowitz, she suggested there’s, this is a symptom of shared psychosis. So this could be something that’s happening. Well, Dershowitz didn’t like it. Dershowitz doesn’t like to be called crazy. So he sent the complaint, he wrote the op-ed and he thinks that is it.

Let me, let me go ahead and tell you something, Dershowitz. Yeah, sure, psych mental health professionals, I guess, they have the Goldwater rule. They’re not supposed to diagnose somebody based on public appearances or speeches or things like that. Yeah. It’s probably bad for them, yet lawyers get to do it all the time. Right? I know you’re not diagnosing people, but how many times do you turn on the TV and you see a lawyer out there giving, like Dershowitz actually, giving their opinion on a legal case that, that they haven’t seen the documents for? That, that they haven’t talked to the witnesses of, but they’re giving their opinion? How that any different, honestly? Somebody tell me how that is any different than what Dr. Lee is doing. You’re a professional. She is a professional. You know your profession. She knows her profession. You know what to look for in yours. She knows what to look for in hers. Your complaint is going to go nowhere, most importantly because Dr. Lee says she is not going to back down and this country will be a better place because she is going to stand her ground.

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Hillary Clinton Over ‘Russian Asset’ Comments


My comment there generated a few replies

I wonder where the $50 million damages figure came from? This being said I think the entire suit is frivolous and comes out of fantasyland. The claim is made that Hillary "is widely perceived by the public as someone who would have access to information and intelligence not available to ordinary Americans" and therefore must be using the word asset to mean she has a factual basis for saying she thinks Tulsi is a Russian agent. Hillary as I said is clearly using there word asset not in that way, but as to mean someone who is a useful or valuable person to support in order to disrupt the Democratic primaries. When Democrats call MConnell Moscow Mitch, or Trump Putin's Puppet, or Nancy Pelosi says all roads lead to Moscow, they may or may not be speaking in metaphors. McConnell has benefitted from Russian contracts being awarded to companies in Kentucky, Trump may be taking directions directly from Putin, and even though Tulsi denies it, we actually don't know what the truth is. Perhaps she is guilty of being an asset in the most egregious treasonous meaning of the word. Her lawsuit could be viewed as her protesting too much and claiming that her personal history proves such a betrayal of the country is impossible. But ask yourself, if you want to spin a yarn worthy of a show like The Americans, what else would she claim if it was true?







Jan. 21, 2020




In view of this "China sentences ex-boss of Interpol to 13 years for bribes" I wonder what President Xi thinks of Trump's belief that bribes are acceptable.


I was dismayed (to say the least) to see this Bandy Lee piece prominently featured on Salon this morning:




While the Democrats struggle with McConnell to get their perfectly reasonable request for witnesses, documents, and a trial that doesn't extend until 2 AM, we see Bandy Lee insisting that men in white coats confront the Secret Service to haul Trump off to a psychiatric unit for an emergency evaluation. Give me a break!

I think she knows more about psychiatry than she does about politics and how the Senate functions.

to Dr. 
Not a link
Question to Dr. Barnhost: I think Dr. Lee would argue that the president poses a danger to others. We discussed the escalating tensions with Iran, for example.

Answer: Well, I think it's hard to disagree with the fact that our president poses a danger. Personal politics aside, every president poses a danger to some people every time they order any kind of military action, any kind of rescue operation. You're putting people's lives at risk, and as president that's something that again is an analysis you make a lot. Whether it's troops, or emergency personnel or your Secret Service, you're putting people's lives at risk and in danger.

Now whether or not you think Trump is making those decisions in the thoughtful calculated way with the council of expert advisors is a whole different problem. But yeah, I would agree that he, like those who have happened before him, is putting lives at risk. Maybe more recklessly and with less knowledge and foresight than other presidents have. However, a mental health hold is only appropriate for somebody, and it's only legally applicable to somebody who's putting people's lives at risk because of an untreated mental illness.

Secondarily, the purpose of that mental health hold. It’s not to sweep the streets and cleanse society of anybody who poses any kind of risk of danger. That's way beyond what the psychiatric system can handle. It's to treat those people who are suffering from an untreated mental illness that's causing them to be dangerous. It's to treat them and get them better. People who are just out there committing acts of violence — armed robbery, domestic abuse, murder — for the most part, they're not driven by mental illness.

Very little of that violence is driven by an untreated mental illness. About 4 percent of community violence is driven by an untreated mental illness. So the other 96 percent are just people out there doing bad things, and it's not appropriate to put all those people on an involuntary mental health hold and lock them up in a hospital for 72 hours, do nothing to them and then release them.


And that gets to the second aspect of this, which is that there's no real point of holding somebody who's dangerous. Yes, I agree that Trump is putting many people's lives at risk. But putting them on an involuntary psychiatric hold when there's no treatment for what ails them and then releasing them later? Maybe we get three days without him tweeting, but that's all that's going to get us.

Amy Barnhorst, MD is Vice Chair for Community Mental Health in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, where she runs a large psychiatric hospital and crisis unit, and writes and presents nationally on mental illness and gun violence. In her clinical work, she treats patients with serious mental illness who are in an emergency room, in jail, or on a psychiatric unit. As a faculty member at the UC Davis School of Medicine, she supervises medical students and residents, and teaches about psychiatry, firearm violence and suicide, and public mental health. She has published multiple papers on firearms, mental illness, and the law, and has presented to policy makers around the country as an expert on these issues. Note that she is an ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, and Bandy Lee is an ASSISTANT clinical professor. In my experience these aren't usually professors on the tenure track. Bandy Lee makes a point of not representing Yale University when she makes public statements. However she certainly makes no secret of being a professor in their psychiatry department.

We now have a World Mental Health Coalition with Lee as the president. I assume it was Bandy Lee who originally called her group the NATIONAL COALITION OF CONCERNED MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS. Mercifully neither had a Wikipedia page. I suppose being a mere national coalition wasn't global enough for her. Perhaps  I should organize the anti-Trump therapists I know into own organization: Sensible Therapists of the Universe: Going Boldly Where No Therapists Have Gone Before.

Bandy Lee made a huge contribution to the movement of psychotherapists informing the public about Trump's dangerous psychopatholgy. As editor of "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" she became a go-to expert for articles and television interviews along with Drs. John Gartner, Lance Dodes,  Steve Buser, and a few others.

I regret that she has now gone too far and in television parlance, she has jumped the shark.
Jumping the shark is the moment when something that was once popular, but that no longer warrants the attention it previously received, makes an attempt at publicity, which only serves to highlight its irrelevance. The phrase derives from a scene in a Season 5 episode of the 1970s sitcom Happy Days in which the character Fonzie jumps over a shark while on water-skis.[This gimmick gimmick strayed absurdly outside the original storyline of the sitcom.

AMERICAN IDIOTS

Trump ‘Honors’ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. By Visiting His DC Memorial – for 30 Seconds




Jan. 20, 2020

Trump Turns MLK Day Tweet Into Tribute To His 2017 Inauguration

Read story: Kellyanne Conway actually tries to defend Trump on impeachment by using Martin Luther King


Here's her quote:

(NBC News reported Geoff) Bennett asked Conway how Trump was observing the holiday.
“Well, I can tell you the president is preparing for Davos and agrees with many of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King stood for, and agreed with for many years — including unity and equality. And [Trump’s] not the one trying to tear the country apart through an impeachment process and a lack of substance that really is very shameful at this point. I’ve held my opinion on it for a very long time, but when you see the articles of impeachment that came out, I don’t think it was Dr. King’s vision to have Americans dragged through a process where the president is not going to be removed from office, is not being charged with bribery, extortion, high crimes and misdemeanors. And I think that anybody who cares about ‘and justice for all’ on today or any day of the year will appreciate the fact that the president will have a full-throttle defense on the facts, and everybody should have that. I, this morning, was reading some of the lesser-known passages by Dr. King and I appreciate the fact that we as a nation respect him by giving him his own day, and I’m happy to share a birthday with this day.”