>>I understand the Goldwater Rule, and sure they have not examined him in person, But you asked for an expert's opinion
>
>Victor, in the legal context of "expert opinion", the testimony is usually given by an individual recognized in a field, who has also evaluated the subject matter directly. Unless you show proof that one of these mental health professionals actually evaluated Trump, your answer doesn't hold water. It's not expert opinion - it's just another attempt at a self-service social media pile on.
>
>You're REALLY stretching the idea of "expert opinion"
>
>As much as I detest Trump (and I do, believe me, I do) - the more you throw bad (or specious) claims around, it *almost* makes me want to like Trump. I can level legitimate criticism at Trump with far fewer words than you can - your rambling on Trump just reinforces why HRC lost.

Ok that all makes sense. What if I called it "an experts opinion" instead of "an expert opinion"? Those folks are mental health professionals, so they're experts right? Wouldn't you value what they think more than most other people in regards to this? And why would he ask me for an expert opinion if he wasn't prepared to accept the opinion of an expert? Kind of a pointless thing to ask then wasn't it?