• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump crosses the rubicon

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

While not explicit in the statute, the obvious intent of the ICWPA was to create a channel through which intelligence employees could make disclosures of urgent concerns internally, securely, and anonymously (if they so choose),” McCullough wrote in an email. “That’s reinforced by the committee report’s recognition that whistleblowers could seek anonymous guidance from their home agency when making whistleblowing disclosures. The lack of whistleblowers’ right to enforce their confidentiality may be a loophole that Congress should correct.”

A House Democratic aide made similar points when we sought comment: “Congress has enacted laws that require agencies that are responsible for receiving whistleblower disclosures, including the inspector general for the intelligence community, have restrictions on revealing identities of whistleblowers. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has long recognized that right. Republican members are asking witnesses to reveal the identity of an anonymous whistleblower, which would violate the law by changing the working conditions for the whistleblower. Revealing the whistleblower’s identity would be an act of retaliation because it would cause a fundamental change in the individual’s working conditions.”
I agree with this interpretation, but, sadly, the "not explicit in the statute" part is the most relevant legally. Our laws and the Constitution simply failed to take into account that someone as shamelessly and ruthlessly CRIMINAL as Trump could ascend to the highest and most powerful office in our land, notwithstanding the DIRECT will of the people, THREE MILLION MORE of whom voted for Hilary.

Our founding fathers had to make compromises with the Southern, slave holding states, and ALSO instituted the Electoral College to prevent the common folks from ignorantly electing someone like Trump.

OH . . . MY . . . GOD! THE IRONY OF THE ORANGE ONE! 🙁😡🙁
 

While not explicit in the statute, the obvious intent of the ICWPA was to create a channel through which intelligence employees could make disclosures of urgent concerns internally, securely, and anonymously (if they so choose),” McCullough wrote in an email. “That’s reinforced by the committee report’s recognition that whistleblowers could seek anonymous guidance from their home agency when making whistleblowing disclosures. The lack of whistleblowers’ right to enforce their confidentiality may be a loophole that Congress should correct.”

A House Democratic aide made similar points when we sought comment: “Congress has enacted laws that require agencies that are responsible for receiving whistleblower disclosures, including the inspector general for the intelligence community, have restrictions on revealing identities of whistleblowers. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has long recognized that right. Republican members are asking witnesses to reveal the identity of an anonymous whistleblower, which would violate the law by changing the working conditions for the whistleblower. Revealing the whistleblower’s identity would be an act of retaliation because it would cause a fundamental change in the individual’s working conditions.”

You did not read your own article, which rates your claim as three Pinocchios, indicating 'significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of "mostly false."'

From your article:

Does the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump have a “statutory right” to remain anonymous, as Schiff claims?

It’s not a right spelled out in any statute. But national security experts warn that disclosing the whistleblower’s identity could expose him to danger and retribution, and chill whistleblowing in general.

Exposing him is something Trump should be impeached for and it's terrible for US governance. It does not violate the statute, however. This is a problem that Congress should correct because it appears when they drafted it they never considered that we would have an executive and/or Congress so corrupt that they would publicly attempt to do such a thing. So to be clear I think it's very wrong but much like many of Trump's other abuses of his office it doesn't violate a statute. This is of course why impeachment doesn't require any violations of statutes.
 
Remember how repugs lost control of their bodily functions when an ex-president had a chat with an AG in a parked plane?

Where is the outrage over....

This isn't even politics anymore. It is a raw contest for power. Nothing matters in Washington DC anymore except the acquisition of more power. To wrest it away from political opponents. This is the singular focus of this administration and their sycophants. Their lemmings (voters) even support the use of force to disenfranchise us.

American democracy has already fallen, but the consequences of "crossing the Rubicon" are going to take some time (years) in order to play out.
 
IMO, due to the Repub's stance toward defending Trump in spite of the laws he's broken and his insistence that he can do whatever the hell he wants "because he's the president you know?", there's nothing much that can be done to stop him from repeatedly violating his oath of office, from arrogantly defying the Constitution's powers defining the limits his office must adhere to, all of which he is committing in order to become the tyrant, the despot that is his preordained legacy. This due to his unfitness for office and his crippling personality disorders that mysteriously seems to be so endearing to his supporters.

Before anything can be done to prevent the kinds of egregious unethical and immoral criminal behavior he is regrettably now notoriously known for, he and especially so his enabler Moscow Mitch needs to be removed from office first and foremost.
 
IMO, due to the Repub's stance toward defending Trump in spite of the laws he's broken and his insistence that he can do whatever the hell he wants "because he's the president you know?", there's nothing much that can be done to stop him from repeatedly violating his oath of office, from arrogantly defying the Constitution's powers defining the limits his office must adhere to, all of which he is committing in order to become the tyrant, the despot that is his preordained legacy. This due to his unfitness for office and his crippling personality disorders that mysteriously seems to be so endearing to his supporters.

Before anything can be done to prevent the kinds of egregious unethical and immoral criminal behavior he is regrettably now notoriously known for, he and especially so his enabler Moscow Mitch needs to be removed from office first and foremost.

Yes, as I've said if I were Trump (or any future president) the lesson I would take from this is that I need to check every morning to see if my opposition has 67 senators yet. If not, I can do whatever I want.
 
I agree with this interpretation, but, sadly, the "not explicit in the statute" part is the most relevant legally. Our laws and the Constitution simply failed to take into account that someone as shamelessly and ruthlessly CRIMINAL as Trump could ascend to the highest and most powerful office in our land, notwithstanding the DIRECT will of the people, THREE MILLION MORE of whom voted for Hilary.

Our founding fathers had to make compromises with the Southern, slave holding states, and ALSO instituted the Electoral College to prevent the common folks from ignorantly electing someone like Trump.

OH . . . MY . . . GOD! THE IRONY OF THE ORANGE ONE! 🙁😡🙁

Pelosi should just 5150 Trump.


Nancy Pelosi has the right to submit Donald Trump to an ‘involuntary’ psych evaluation: Yale psychiatrist

A Yale psychologist who has repeatedly sounded the alarm about President Donald Trump’s mental health has cautioned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not doing enough to respond to the danger it poses.Bandy X. Lee, a professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine who serves as president of the World Mental Health Organization, began warning about the dangers posed by the president’s mental health before his election. Lee then edited the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President” and convened a conference on the president’s mental health at Yale shortly after the president’s inauguration. She was recently joined by psychiatrists across the country in calling for the Judiciary Committee to convene a panel of mental health experts to weigh in on the ongoing impeachment proceedings.

Lee also “translates” some of Trump’s tweets on her own Twitter feed, which she described to Salon as a “public service.” Lee said she wants her “translations” to help readers see past Trump’s efforts to muddle reality with his “negative influence.” She recently “translated” Trump’s scorching six-page letter to Pelosi accusing her of trying to “steal the election” ahead of the House vote to impeach him in a Medium post.

Arguing that the letter effectively serves as a “confession,” Lee said that Trump’s letter was an example of the president projecting his own motives onto Pelosi. But Lee warned that Pelosi has not done enough to respond to the president.

“As a coworker, she has the right to have him submit to an involuntary evaluation, but she has not,” Lee told Salon. “Anyone can call 911 to report someone who seems dangerous, and family members are the most typical ones to do so. But so can coworkers, and even passersby on the street. The law dictates who can determine right to treatment, or civil commitment, and in all 50 U.S. states this includes a psychiatrist.

“The advantage of a coworker starting this process is that a court can mandate a mental capacity evaluation before the dangerous person returns to work,” Lee continued. “The committing physician is preferably the patient’s treater, but does not have to be.”

While Lee added that Pelosi’s strategy of withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate has been effective, she also warned that the delay risks making Trump even more dangerous.

“I am beginning to believe that a mental health hold, which we have tried to avoid, will become inevitable,” Lee said.

In a recent interview with Salon, Lee discussed her “translation” of Trump’s letter, Pelosi’s relationship with him and the growing dangers posed by the president’s mental health with Salon:

What was your main takeaway when you first read Trump’s six-page letter to Pelosi?
First, he is highly unwell, which I am glad many finally seem to see now. More specifically, you can tell how unwell he is by the degree he cannot deviate from his defenses: mainly, denial and projection. We often say he is “doubling down.” A truly sick person will be unable to show any tolerance of ambiguity, doubt or flexibility in thinking. The letter, like his lengthy interviews or his chronic tweeting over years, is unable to show any variation from the characteristic rigidity of pathology.

Denial is when you shut out of consciousness things that are too painful to consider, such as the fact that he is incapable of serving as president. He “knows” this better than anybody, which is why he has to push down the truth by saying: “I alone can fix it,” or “I know better than anybody.” Projection is when you displace undesirable traits of yourself you are trying to deny onto others. Most people will see that he is projecting his own unacceptable thoughts and motives onto Pelosi.

Why go through the trouble of “translating” Trump’s lengthy letter?
I started “translating” Trump’s tweets as a public service sometime in the summer, because I could see his negative influence as he tries to reform others’ thoughts. Even for those who do not believe him, he pushes the needle. The impressive inefficacy of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and then the impeachment proceedings in changing people’s minds should convince people of how powerful these mechanisms are. I intend my “translation” to neutralize some of his effects, as well as to “immunize” readers by arming them with the right interoperation. For example, they can now see that his severe symptoms make it right to decipher up as completely down and black as completely white.

Without this, it is easy for people to get confused about what is reality, and all will become of equal validity without being testable, which is the purpose. If we read his letter correctly, on the other hand, it works as a confession.

Psychoanalysts will recognize the method. It is a very standard way of coming to understand someone. First, you arrive at a “formulation” of the person from detectable, external patterns — and many clinicians say that they know more about Donald Trump than any patient they have ever had in their careers, as he is extremely transparent from his unfiltered tweets and from the overabundant, high-quality information that is available, including sworn testimonies. Once you have a formulation, you keep testing it until you reach a reasonable level of certainty. Then, you can interpret what one is saying in light of one’s defense mechanisms. And the more impaired the person is, the more predictable the thoughts and behavior will be.

Some people will dispute the ethics of disclosing what I see, and my response is: danger. We are legally bound even to break patient confidentiality for safety reasons, and a president is not a patient.

What was Trump trying to tell Pelosi with the letter?
He was not telling her anything so much as telling himself and his “base.” He senses better than anyone that she sees through his façade and knows he is incapable — his biggest fear. And so he will wish to avoid her just as he does other healthy world leaders. He prefers to associate with his “kind”: those who are too deprived to notice, the uneducated, other incapable “leaders” such as dictators and those who successfully manipulate him.

You mention “shared psychosis” while “translating” the portion of Trump’s letter about law professor Jonathan Turley, who argued against impeachment. Are you implying that he suffers from shared psychosis? And can you elaborate on your “shared psychosis” description in general?
“Shared psychosis” is a phenomenon which happens in households or in nations when a sick person goes untreated and healthy members are in close contact. Rather than the sick person getting better, the otherwise healthy people take on symptoms of the sick person, as if they had the sickness themselves. It is a very dramatic phenomenon that equally dramatically disappears when you remove the sick person from contact or media exposure.

The severity by which others are affected is what induces me to believe that Trump is sometimes truly paranoid and delusional rather than merely lying. The difference is a matter of degree, and I have enough experience with this dynamic in prison settings to recognize that this is at pathological levels. In this context, almost anyone who actively takes the side of the president is likely to have some degree of the “shared psychosis.” If you were unaffected, you would be repelled. And this is why we often see a clear split, much like the binary division in our country.

Pelosi called the letter “really sick.” What did you make of her reaction?
She has said this a number of times, but I am not sure she is convinced of her own words. If she were, shouldn’t she be responding to it as an emergency? As a coworker, she has the right to have him submit to an involuntary evaluation, but she has not. There is also the common mistake to think that mental impairment and criminality are mutually exclusive, when they have nothing to do with each other, but happening in the same person can cause much greater danger.

Trump is reportedly angry that Pelosi is not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, where he believes he will be acquitted. How do you think the president will respond if she continues to delay the trial?
We have created one of the most dangerous periods by first delaying impeachment and allowing his false sense of impunity to swell and then proceeding. Impeachment is much needed as “limit setting,” and the House speaker has done well to set limits on the Senate by delaying the articles. But we simply cannot ignore the dangers. I am beginning to believe that a mental health hold, which we have tried to avoid, will become inevitable.
 
While I 100% agree that Trump is dangerously mentally unwell there is no way a court would be able to order the President to personally undergo any medical treatment or evaluation as that would be a violation of the separation of powers.

There is no special or sneaky way out of our predicament, there's no magic bullet that will get rid of Trump. We already HAVE a solution in the Constitution for how to get rid of a mentally ill president (we actually have two!) but our system is no longer working because the Republican Party has decided their party is more important than the Constitution and the country. Our system only works if people put the system first.

The choices for getting rid of Trump are voting him out or somehow convincing Republicans to put country before party. No medical evaluation or court will save us.
 
Remember NONE of Trump's behavior (from pee tape, to marrying a former prostitute, to paying $150K for sex, to fraud, to violation of emoluments, to inciting murder/violence, to treason, etc.) is an issue with conservatives.

So, we should no longer feel ashamed for Obama wearing a tan suit and using Grey Poupon.
 
Remember NONE of Trump's behavior (from pee tape, to marrying a former prostitute, to paying $150K for sex, to fraud, to violation of emoluments, to inciting murder/violence, to treason, etc.) is an issue with conservatives.

So, we should no longer feel ashamed for Obama wearing a tan suit and using Grey Poupon.

Sure, because conservatives never actually gave a shit about that stuff to begin with.

Don't worry, as soon as there is another Democratic president conservatives will go back to pretending to care about those things and sadly it is most likely that the media will go back to pretending to believe them in search of 'balance'
 
While I 100% agree that Trump is dangerously mentally unwell there is no way a court would be able to order the President to personally undergo any medical treatment or evaluation as that would be a violation of the separation of powers.

There is no special or sneaky way out of our predicament, there's no magic bullet that will get rid of Trump. We already HAVE a solution in the Constitution for how to get rid of a mentally ill president (we actually have two!) but our system is no longer working because the Republican Party has decided their party is more important than the Constitution and the country. Our system only works if people put the system first.

The choices for getting rid of Trump are voting him out or somehow convincing Republicans to put country before party. No medical evaluation or court will save us.

I beg to differ. The Republicans have been using the mantra:" take it to the courts when we disagree." The courts are the tiebreakers.

Democrats say that Trump is bat shit crazy.

Republicans say he's not.

The courts will commit him for an assessment in order to break the tie.
 
I beg to differ. The Republicans have been using the mantra:" take it to the courts when we disagree." The courts are the tiebreakers.

Democrats say that Trump is bat shit crazy.

Republicans say he's not.

The courts will commit him for an assessment in order to break the tie.

Sorry but that's extremely unlikely. While I think this interpretation is insane the current holding by federal law enforcement is that the president cannot be arrested or indicted while in office. If you can't arrest him or indict him, you can't put him in an involuntary mental health hold as that is...well... arresting him. Also as there is no statutory or constitutional authority for Pelosi to act under in order to involuntarily hold Trump that means this psychiatrist has exactly as much power to do this as Pelosi does. Why hasn't she yet?

If the president is thought to be mentally ill there are multiple mechanisms in the Constitution to remove him, the 25th amendment and impeachment. Despite abundant evidence of his mental illness those charged with policing that have chosen not to. The courts will not get involved. I really think we need to come to grips with the real issue here and that's that our institutions are failing and in a democracy the institutions are all you have.
 
Don`t put your head in the sand and look the other way!
We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the whistleblowers name was to be revealed that something bad would happen to the whistleblower!
Please don`t be ignorant and try to pretend that nobody would be harmed!!
If nothing else one of Trumps rabid minions would go after the whistleblower.....
 
Sorry but that's extremely unlikely. While I think this interpretation is insane the current holding by federal law enforcement is that the president cannot be arrested or indicted while in office. If you can't arrest him or indict him, you can't put him in an involuntary mental health hold as that is...well... arresting him. Also as there is no statutory or constitutional authority for Pelosi to act under in order to involuntarily hold Trump that means this psychiatrist has exactly as much power to do this as Pelosi does. Why hasn't she yet?

If the president is thought to be mentally ill there are multiple mechanisms in the Constitution to remove him, the 25th amendment and impeachment. Despite abundant evidence of his mental illness those charged with policing that have chosen not to. The courts will not get involved. I really think we need to come to grips with the real issue here and that's that our institutions are failing and in a democracy the institutions are all you have.

Our institutions aren't failing. They're being failed by Trump & the GOP. It's been part & parcel of every authoritarian takeover since forever.
 
As opposed to being mistaken and having hopefully now learned something have you considered that maybe conservatives never gave a shit about those principles to begin with?

Have you considered that some do? Take the recent discord within the evangelical community for instance, that seems decidedly about principles. Why were Fox polls supporting impeachment and removal? Seems odd for the monolithic homogeneous entity that conservatives are supposed to be.

Have you considered that not pointing out and deriding hypocrisy and projection allows a certain level of normalization to set in over this behavior? I have, and somehow I'm able to entertain that notion without ignoring the small but growing portion of conservatives that want off Team Treason's short bus. As I said before, it should have happened before 2016 but better late than never I guess. Nothing wrong in hoping a group of low information voters gets smarter, an informed electorate leads to better electoral outcomes. For the ones beyond hope with no shame over what they've enabled, oh well.

Can't really argue with the rest, that scans. Even the fervent "pro-life" movement, where a disproportionate amount of froth is created on the right, is a relatively recent addition to the roster and receives all kinds of 'exemptions' in the personal lives of conservatives and their cheating politicians. Kids these days can hardly believe there was a time when abortion was legal and it wasn't an issue.
 
Last edited:
This isn't even politics anymore. It is a raw contest for power. Nothing matters in Washington DC anymore except the acquisition of more power. To wrest it away from political opponents. This is the singular focus of this administration and their sycophants. Their lemmings (voters) even support the use of force to disenfranchise us.

American democracy has already fallen, but the consequences of "crossing the Rubicon" are going to take some time (years) in order to play out.

I don't disagree with a lot of that. American democracy was hobbled in 2016 by foreign interference, in addition to the normal amount of disenfranchisement caused by voter suppression efforts, gerrymandering and the EC. It's the 'someone is being blackmailed' effect wrt Putin that I find particularly new and disturbing. Trump's damage to the country and environment will be hard to quantify for sometime, I don't even want to think about it. It's all about 2020 right now.
 
Trump can't help himself. When you think you are above the rules and are too stupid to learn what the rules actually are this is what happens...again and again.
 
Trump also looks like a petty, vindictive, wanna-be despot in doing this. Naming the guy accomplishes nothing at all, other than using the implied threat of illegal retaliation by his supporters as a means of chilling free speech by any future whistleblower. Most of all it's consistent with Trump's incredibly fragile ego. Seems like it's all about personal psychological issues with him.

I think ultimately his obvious psychological weaknesses mean he'd never be the real-deal, even if the wider circumstances allowed it. He's not up there with the historical A-team of pyschopathic despots, he'd have ended up as one of Stalin's craven toadies, to be liquidated when convenient.

Yeah it always amazes me how the Trumpettes keep reminding everyone how half the horrible shit he does is not technically illegal. If that's your sole basis for cheerleading than your team doesn't deserve to be number one. It also ignores the fact about half the shit he does actually is illegal. And yet they keep whining the impeachment is a witch hunt.
Not to mention they flayed Obama for things like tan clothing, spicy mustard, and forgetting to salute cuz they could never make any alleged scandals stick to him.
 
Back
Top