It’s risky, but impeachment definitely has to be on the table. If you have been watching television lately, you have probably seen a video by Tom Steyer making a case for impeachment.

However, we have to be cautious. The very reason why Trump should be removed from office is the same reason why no attempt should be made. As we have previously stated, trying to assess him by his “beliefs” or positions on issues is irrelevant, because he is a psychologically damaged individual and the nature of his illness(es) is what drives his actions. The word “unhinged” has frequently been used, and with the exception of Richard Nixon in his final days, we have never had a situation quite like this.

Trump is far too erratic to be a legitimate leader of our country. But because he is unhinged, we are taking a trip into the unknown if a serious attempt is made to remove him from office. Legally, he has his finger on the button; he can be the one to launch American nuclear missiles. Practically, we are not sure whether there are military or other security personnel in the government who have taken steps to prevent Trump from acting unilaterally, even if he thinks that he can. Just think about what you would do if you were in the government and you had an opportunity to “disarm” Trump. Would you take steps of dubious constitutionality to save the country or the world? Not an easy question to answer.

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times stated this morning on CNN’s New Day that Trump’s disconnect has been markedly accelerated in recent days and weeks. His retweeting this morning of far-right, Anti-Muslim videos seems to be more gratuitously nasty and distorted than anything he has done to date.

Republicans are not going to take the lead on impeachment. They should, because in a sense, they own him. To paraphrase Colin Powell about the Pottery Barn policy, “if you break it you own it.” But most Republicans are too partisan to act boldly, and perhaps more importantly, they are often poor readers of reality; e.g. when a tax bill would take way health coverage from thirteen million or more Americans, they don’t seem to see the pain. People who can’t see pain are not really equipped to assess the damage done by Trump.

The downside to Democrats taking the lead on impeachment is that it would appear to be partisan. In part, it would be. But is it possible for something partisan to also be good policy? The answer is clearly yes, witness virtually everything that Democrats were able to do in the New Deal and the Great Society. More recently, the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by Democrats.

On the partisan scale, it would be important for Democrats to get ahead of the curve and make it even more clear that they have had little or nothing to do with the damage that Trump has done, and likely will continue to do to the country. If Democrats do not act, there will be a certain hollowness to their future pleas that they did everything that they could to spare the nation from the wrath of Trump.

But more important than any political benefits to Democrats, the issue of Trump being unhinged begs for our attention. As Maggie Haberman said, it is only getting worse.

If a genuine effort was made to impeach Donald Trump, there are at least two areas of risk. The first can be summed up in two words: Mike Pence. The second is the question of what Trump would do while the process is taking place.

My suggestion would be for the Democrats to take the lead on a move for impeachment, but to recognize that they might have to back off if the Trump situation gets too volatile. Theoretically, if Trump’s behavior becomes even more outrageous, it might prompt discussion between Pence and members of the Cabinet on invoking the 25^th Amendment to temporarily remove Trump from office. Finally, there is the wording in Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment which allows Congress to take quick action for temporary removal.

This is all tricky. We need to say things publicly that might best be said behind Trump’s back. But that is not an option. We may need to follow the old adage, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.” Of course, like Trump, the adage needs to include women.

Postscript: Interview with Psychiatrist Lance Dodes re. mental status of Donald Trump

The post Impeachment might make sense where very little else does appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As if on cue, following Donald Trump’s speech about Afghanistan last Monday (8/21/17), he removed the subtlety of his mental and emotional challenges the next night in his “campaign speech” in Phoenix. As soon as he gave himself permission to walk away from the teleprompter, it was open season on the bizarre, the rash, the offensive, the nonsense, and the falsehoods. Once the speech was concluded, CNN’s Don Lemon was a little less polite in his assessment.

Since the Phoenix speech, there have predictably and fortunately been more disclosures and revelations about Trump’s mental state and how it puts the country and the world at risk in an unprecedented fashion. But fortunately for all of us, talk of his instability is becoming more and more commonplace.

Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, shared his thoughts Tuesday evening with Don Lemon. “I really question his ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office, and I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it.”

The following day, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen wrote a comprehensive article in The New Yorker about why the Goldwater Rule should be revisited.

The class of professionals best equipped to answer these questions has largely abstained from speaking publicly about the President’s mental health. The principle known as the “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists from giving professional opinions about public figures without personally conducting an examination.

The Constitution contemplates, by virtue of the First Amendment, that we may freely raise concerns about elected officials, and also that in the extreme circumstance envisioned in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, medical professionals would be free to help us understand whether the President can fulfill his duties. If those who know the most are the least free to speak, neither Amendment can function properly. The Goldwater rule was an overreaction to psychiatrists wielding their professional badge to do politics. Today, the profession risks protecting itself from the taint of politics by withholding expertise from a vital public debate—a situation that seems no less irresponsible.

It is not just a matter of professionals in the field of mental health to offer their assessments of the president. All of us as citizens must include the mental and emotional state of the president as we make judgments about whether he or she is fit to serve.

Consider the words of Hillary Clinton who experienced Trump in an “up-close and personal” manner that would make most of us cringe. In her forthcoming book, “What Happened,” she writes about how Trump was stalking her on the stage of the second debate at Washington University in St. Louis:

“This is not okay, I thought,” Clinton said, reading from her book. “It was the second presidential debate and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces.

“It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled. It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, ‘Well, what would you do?’ Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, ‘Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can’t intimidate me, so back up.’”

Here is the audio (excuse the opening commercial).

A major problem that our country has, and one that is rarely discussed, is that as individuals, we need to improve our “creep detection” ability. Innocent people continuously are victimized by others who one way or another may fit within the definition of a “creep.” Hillary Clinton tells us how she saw that in Donald Trump and millions of other Americans did as well. Unfortunately, millions did not see that, or they did see it and did not care.

Using such loose language can be dangerous. But with everything that we see in Donald Trump and the risks that he presents to us. we are obliged to truly call it as we see it. Short of him receiving some remarkable therapy, he is thoroughly unfit to be out president and either by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment or impeachment, he must be removed from the position.

The post Saying that Trump is unhinged is the polite way to put it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Gordon Humphrey isn’t a household name. But perhaps he should be. Humphrey, formerly a conservative Republican senator from the Granite State who served for twelve years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, resigned in protest from the Republican Party the day after the 2016 general election. In early August, Mr. Humphrey emerged from his home in Chichester, New Hampshire, to thrust himself into the center of the debate on Donald Trump’s fitness to serve as president.

On August 9, 2017, after listening to Donald Trump’s blustering on North Korea, Humphrey sent scathing letters to Representatives Ann McLane Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter, as well as to U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan outlining the reasons why members of the New Hampshire congressional delegation should support congressional bill H.R. 1987.

H.R. 1987 proposes to establish an Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity. The commission would be charged with determining whether the president is “mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of president” and whether he should be removed from the duties of the presidency under the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution. To date, H.R. 1987 has attracted the co-sponsorship of twenty-one House Democrats and been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. There the bill is expected to languish without coming to a vote. Not surprisingly, not a single Republican has shown the courage or patriotism to sign on, even though signs of Trump’s mental instability continue to mount.

Following release of his letter, Humphrey spoke candidly with New Hampshire Public Radio’s Peter Biello about why he felt compelled to speak out. Calling Trump delusional, sociopathic, and a sick psyche with no sense of shame or guilt, Humphrey observes during the interview that there is “a mountain of empirical evidence that this president is not well.” Listen to the full interview here and read Humphrey’s letter below.

Dear Representative Kuster:

President Trump’s threat to rain down “fire and fury” on North Korea is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It’s crazy. Donald Trump is impaired by a seriously sick psyche. His sick mind and reckless conduct could consume the lives of millions. The threat of nuclear war is steeply on the rise.

You must not take comfort in the system of checks and balances. The president alone has the authority to launch nuclear weapons, the only restraint being the advice of senior advisers who might be present at the time of crisis, and Donald Trump has shown repeated contempt for informed and wise counsel. He is sick of mind, impetuous, arrogant, belligerent and dangerous.

Donald Trump should be relieved of the powers of the presidency at the earliest date. I urge you to support HR 1987, the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, which would establish a commission to determine whether the president is mentally fit. I have asked Rep. Shea-Porter to do the same and have asked Sens. Shaheen and Hassan to lead an effort in the Senate.

HR 1987 is consistent with the intent and the wording of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Either the Cabinet or a body created by Congress, may find the president unfit for reasons of health, whereupon his powers are transferred to the vice president.

Serious crises are bearing down on us. We cannot leave our national security and our families’ safety in the hands of a president whose poor judgment, belligerence, vindictiveness and reckless impetuosity constitute an indictment of his mental health.

Donald Trump is seriously sick. He is dangerous. As a citizen, a former U.S. senator and 12-year member of the Armed Services Committee, I urge you to act at once. This is an emergency.

Regards,

GORDON HUMPHREY

Chichester

The post Gordon Humphrey: A lone voice in the Trump wilderness appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Some Republicans are seeing the light about Donald Trump in the White House. While he may have led a Republican tsunami in 2016, his actions as president have been so bizarre and injurious to the American people that the unspoken question about him is now widely spoken. Is he mentally and emotionally unfit to be President of the United States?

This relates to the confirmation hearings that are taking place for Trump nominees to fill his remaining Cabinet positions. Those nominees who are confirmed could well be in a position to stand in judgment as to whether Trump should be temporarily or permanently removed from office under the powers of the 25^th Amendment.

Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment states:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

From what we have seen in the first ten days of the Trump Administration, a very relevant question for senators to ask of all nominees for Cabinet positions is, “Should, in your opinion, President Trump be unable to discharge the duties of his office, would you be willing to support his removal under the 25^th Amendment?” The 25^th does not state the criteria under which a president would not be able to discharge his or her duties, but if someone is clearly mentally deranged and unstable, one could reasonably argue that the president should be removed.

Under present circumstances, it is imperative that senators who are being asked to provide their advice and consent on presidential nominations to the cabinet should indeed ask the question.

This leads to an obvious Catch 22, or Catch 25. If the nominee says “yes,” and their answer seems to be sincere, then that would make the nominee more qualified to serve in this particular cabinet. But if the nominee says “yes,” then it is quite likely that Trump would withdraw that candidate’s nomination.

From the point of view of the Cabinet nominee, there is no correct answer to the question. But from the perspective of the well-being of the American people and all citizens of the world, there is a correct answer, which is “yes.”

This does not commit the Cabinet nominee to vote to remove President Trump. It only means that if circumstances would warrant such a removal, then the nominee would be willing to take the bold step of supporting such action.

If it seems like we’re in the Twilight Zone, it is because we are. Bold measures must be considered, and there are still important individuals to select who must be willing to step forward and be bold if needed.

The post Would Trump nominees support the 25th Amendment? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How far will Trump go before it’s too late? We need to test the limits. President Donald Trump has already shown that he is comfortable taking drastic measures, foolish measures and basing decisions on false information. But what so many are concerned about, and this is what separates Trump from his Vice-President, is how dangerous he will get.

He has the nuclear code. He’s easily peeved. He does not have a good understanding of international relations. He appears to be largely blind to the consequences of his actions. How much longer can we allow him to be in this position?

There are two peaceful ways to try to curb Trump unleashed. The first is by invoking Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

That is the easiest and the quickest way to do it. However, since Trump has hand-picked his cabinet members and many of them seem to be as unprepared for their job as he is, it will require a significant improvement in the wisdom and fortitude of enough Cabinet members to invoke the amendment.

The second path, one which may be more democratic but is also lengthy and drawn out, is for the House of Representatives to open impeachment hearings and initiate the process that could lead to a conviction of Trump by the Senate, thus removing Trump from office. It would not be difficult to find “high crimes and misdemeanors” that Trump has committed, beginning with his finances.

Many would argue that it would be rash to move ahead with either of these options at this point, and I would agree. However, I would suggest that two steps need to be taken to indicate whether drastic action might be needed in the near future. These two steps are intertwined.

Some Republicans are going to have to stand up to Trump. Obviously, neither the 25^th Amendment nor impeachment and conviction can occur without Republican involvement. Once some Republicans stand up to Trump, it will be illustrative to see what he does.

For example, if there were a handful of Republicans who voted against one of his cabinet nominees, how would Trump respond to that? Would he go on a name-calling tirade? Would he try to cut off federal favors to those senators? Would he try to turn his legion of voters against them?

What would he do about submitting a replacement nominee? If we were talking about Secretary of Health and Human Services, would Trump say that there is no one else in the country who could do the job as well as Dr. Tom Price? Would he insist on resubmitting Price’s name for consideration, or would he be able to move on to someone else?

Suppose that Republican members of Congress joined with Democrats to pass a law saying that the president could not place a gag order on employees in federal agencies. Or if the House of Representative rescinded its adoption on the Holman Rule which gives the president wide leeway in firing workers in the executive branch, or short of firing, actually reducing their pay down to $1 a year.

How big would the Trump tantrum be if Congress went against his will on any of these issues? What would it tell us about his stability, or instability, in situations where Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin would rattle his chain?

There certainly is good cause for Republicans to immediately stand up against Trump. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have both spoken of the need for the United States to stand strong against Russia. They both have expressed serious concerns about Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson’s close ties with Putin.

Surely there is someone else in the United States who could be a better Secretary of State than Tillerson. If either of these senators had constructed a “short list” of twenty possible nominees for Secretary of State, they would have had quite a few who were (a) far more capable than Tillerson, and (b) acceptable to Republicans, and perhaps even some Democrats.

McCain and others have to back Trump to the wall on non-nuclear issues to see how he responds. If he fails those tests, then serious consideration must be given to peaceful means to remove Trump from office.

The post The imperative to test Trump’s limits appeared first on Occasional Planet.