>>>Yeah those guys from Yale were not vague - but ok fair enough. I should say "based solely on his words and actions he appears to me and almost everyone else in the world including mental health experts to most likely be mentally unstable" instead of "he is mentally unstable".
>
>I did some checking up on "those guys from Yale" for a number of reasons. First, they're referred to as "mental health professionals" rather than MDs or psychiatrists. IME that term includes many people who aren't qualified to make any diagnosis, let alone a diagnosis based on MSM reporting. I was concerned that this might be a cynical "appeal to authority" fallacy, relying on public belief in "mental health professional" opinion even if they're not qualified to diagnose at all.
>
>Second, I was astounded to read "Dr Gartner's" comment "This notion that you need to personally interview someone to form a diagnosis actually doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. For one thing, research shows that the psychiatric interview is the least statistical (sic) reliable way to make a diagnosis."
>
>For anybody who understands how psychiatry operates and has to operate, this would be an unprofessional non sequitur as well as a brazen deviation from professional code- if you are a psychiatrist. Or even a clinical psychologist who is qualified to make a diagnosis. Which it turns out "Dr Gartner" is not. He's a retired psychotherapist, a perfect caricature of the "armchair psychologist" who thinks he can diagnose from afar.
>
>Meanwhile the expert opinion seems unified. From Paul Appelbaum MD, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and Director, Division of Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia: "[Remote assessments are] so likely to be wrong, so likely to be harmful to that person, and so likely to discourage people from seeking psychiatric treatment, that psychiatrists should just not engage in that behaviour.”
>
>From the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK: "We want to be positioned in the public mind as being a calm, authoritative voice, and speculating on the mental health of celebs does exactly the opposite. It’s usually also facile and stating the obvious, unless it’s based on real, serious, inside information; in which case you should and will be struck off before nightfall. And deserve to be.”
>
>Oh I do like the Brits. Speculating is the correct word. Facile and stating the obvious unless based on inside information- which you are not allowed to reveal. Bravo.

Look those were just the first two links I found - I'm sure if I dug deeper I could easily find psychologists or psychiatrists who based upon the information at hand would at least say there are plenty of red-flags. But none of this really matters does it? Is he a habitual pathological liar? Yes obviously - no question about that. Does he see things that are not there? Yes no question about that either. Does he send out bizarre tweets at strange hours? Yes no question about that. Can he be trusted? Based on all of this - hell no. Is it dangerous to have such a person in such a powerful position? You bet it is. Combine all of this with a person who doesn't know how government works and is, for the lack of a better word here, pretty much what you would call a "stupid" person in general - you have a real threat to not just our country but yours and every other one on the planet too. Now tie all that in with some illegal activities with the Russians and his family violating the Logan Act and profiting from whatever policies he puts forth --- dude you have to see this is bad right? I mean if you sit here and rationalize this to the point where you've convinced yourself it's all either OK or a bunch of fake news then....then I dunno.