Dems MUST demand Mental health and Tax Records on Trump...

[eniwetok]

What do we really know about Trump? There are old rumors of his use of amphetamines back in the 80s and 90s which may have led to his financial collapse around 1992. And his behavior on the campaign trail has similarly been erratic. Is Trump mentally fit to be president? No doubt many people feel he's mentally ill. Is there any mandatory mental health security screening for the presidency?

And we know next to nothing about his foreign business entanglements. How many of these arrangement pose a not just a conflict of interest, but a real security threat? What is the Trump/Putin connection?

We know the GOP will not raise any of these question. They need to protect Trump even if he's just a figurehead, to push through their agenda.

But where are the Dems on these issues? Why aren't they demanding these records... and if they have to have their own unofficial House or Senate hearings... so be it. If Dems can't stand up for something as vitally important as insuring we don't have a madman or one fatally compromised as president... who will?

[TheDebbieDee]

1. It's way too late for that! He's won the election - there's no reason for him to do anything

he doesn't want to do. Besides, there aren't enough Democrats in the House or Senate to do anything but show up for congressional hearings and be put on "ignore". The republiCANTS don't need Democratic votes to do a darn thing...

For the Dems to ask Trump for anything just gives him another opportunity to TROLL them...

[eniwetok]

2. It's never too late...

It's never too late to keep this issue in the spotlight.. not for cynical political purposes... but simply We The People need to know whether Trump poses a real threat to national security. And if the red flags aren't waving and the alarm bells aren't wailing for Trump... then it's clear all the safeguards have broken down... and we may have a mentally disturbed person with their finger on the button.

I know this issues was raised during the campaign... and it may be responsible, in part, for HRC 2.9 million vote lead. But we have the EC... a mindless, antidemocratic vote rigging formula at work... and mindless formulas have no ability to discriminate who's mentally unbalanced and who's not.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. If u need tax returns or medical exams

To prove that Trump is a threat to our country then you (not you but anyone) haven't been paying attention...

[True_Blue]

3. Absolutely!

At the very least a mandatory mental health screening. There needs to be some kind of a safety net in place that would prevent an insane sociopath from having absolute control over the most powerful military & weaponry on the planet.

[Calista241]

5. or what?

what does he have to gain by releasing such records?

Dems would have to offer a GIANT carrot, a carrot he cannot get anywhere else. I'm not sure a trade of that magnitude would be a good thing for our party or our country.

[Uggwearingdad]

6. Let alone the Constitutionality....

[eniwetok]

13. what are the constitutional issues?

What are the constitutional issues you see here if Congress, or congressional Dems start an investigation into whether Trump poses a security threat to the nation? Whose job do you see this falling to? The 25th speaks about a president unable to perform his duties. But that leaves it to political partisans appointed by the president.

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.

Since we're not talking about any crimes, it would seem the House Oversight Committee might have some role in such an investigation. But it's controlled by the GOP. So what options do the Dems have except to hold minority hearings... which may not have subpoena power but still can wield a punch.


https://www.bna.com/why-companies-should-take-seriously-minority-party-led-congressional-investigations/

[Calista241]

14. Minority hearings look like hyper partisan witch hunts. n/t

[eniwetok]

18. examples?

I don't know of an instance where the Dems ever used these minority investigations to create a circus... but then Dems aren't the partisan wackos some GOPers are. Either way, these issues are legitimate... and if an ultra partisan and disciplined GOP will try to bury these issues... what alternatives do Dems have? IF Trump's mental health AND his finances are potential threats to national security... who else is going stick their heads out to look into it? Some in the press might... but look how long it took the Watergate story to get traction with the MSM. Democratic led hearing might speed that up... after all... as citizens we NEED to know.

[Uggwearingdad]

34. This is as viable as your Cailifornia succession threat....

with ZERO ability to make it happen....
Anyone can investigate....that doesn't change the Constitutional standard for running...apparently winning.... per the laws, to be elected POTUS.

You are no more going to force the freak to submit to a mental health eval or see his taxes than California is going to threaten to leave the Union... but you know that.

[eniwetok]

35. Here's what I KNOW...

Here's what I know... nothing happens when people do nothing. In politics if you're not constantly on the offensive you're side, your cause, your leverage for tomorrow, is losing ground. I don't buy the idea some delusional Dems have that demographic trends will doom the GOP... and Dems can prevail even in an antidemocratic system.

OF COURSE Trump isn't going to release his full medical and financial records. SO FUCKING WHAT. God, you can be such a whiner. The idea is to keep these issues... (and do you agree THEY ARE VALID ISSUES?) in the spotlight... so Dems can frame these issues in ways most advantageous to them. It's a tool... and it's not a whiny ass issue... we're talking about national security at a time when we have a clearly deranged candidate about to assume the office of president? If you're not shit scared, you're in a coma.

As for CA... is it a longshot? Sure... though the odds might grow as the illegitimate Trump Junta starts to dismantle what Dems hold dear.

Is there any other way to force reform on an antidemocratic and reformproof system... then tell us your brilliant ideas.

I won't hold my breath.

[eniwetok]

9. why offer a carrot?

Of course Trump won't release these records... and the GOP will back him... but maybe only to a point. I see this as a potential wedge issue. But the bottom line should be no president who refuses to release these records should be exempt from constant questioning about his fitness to be president.

[Uggwearingdad]

7. I understand your reasoning...

Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't see a legal ability to do it.
Seems like efforts/funds wasted that can be better be put towards upcoming midterms

[eniwetok]

11. I don't expect Trump to release these records...

But the bottom line should be no president who refuses to release these records should be exempt from constant questioning about his fitness to be president.

[Calista241]

22. Demanding medical and mental health records probably violates HIPAA.

Especially if they are released.

[eniwetok]

36. Sure... if a CAREGIVER violates HIPPA...

Trump, as a patient, can grant access to his records if he wants.

But you're missing the point. If Trump has something to hide... and we clearly know he does financially... we'll never see any of these records. But that shouldn't make the issues go away. Even if he was never institutionalized he's clearly mentally unstable. His mental health and finances NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED. And even if Dem get nothing... THIS IS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. It has potential to undermine Trump and those who support him... and be a wedge issue. Dems throw this issue away at their own risk because in politics if you're not constantly on the offensive... you're losing ground.

[dumbcat]

8. Yes, we must demand them!

I feel better now. Do you?

[eniwetok]

10. thanks for another content-free post!

No doubt you do feel better.

Maybe one of these days you'll find it in yourself to compose a thoughtful, substantive post.

But given your recent responses... I won't hold my breath.

[dumbcat]

15. Hey! I agreed with you ...

What else do you want? Yes, we should demand these things. Many will. What else was the purpose of your post? Are you looking for agreement? Accolades? K&Rs?

Similarly, your post about reforms needed to the Constitution to match your idea of an ideal democracy. Yes, there are provisions in the Constitution that do not conform to your definition of democracy. Most of us already know that, and why they are there. When posters tried to tell you that maybe they disagreed with your extreme definition, or that reality differed from your view, you just dismissed them with your superior attitude, and insist that your view is the only correct one. It seems to me you are just looking for complete agreement and adoration for your superior intellect.

So from now on I will merely state if I agree with you. Maybe a little less patronizing tone on your part would encourage discussion.

[eniwetok]

17. sorry, I never have extreme positions...

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Sure, there was nothing sarcastic in that or your other posts to me. Now to the topic.

The one person, one vote and all votes weigh the same standard IS THE LAW for all states and municipalities. This principle is NOT extreme. That you think it is, is a reflection on you. And if you disagree and feel it's common in the advanced industrial democracies...please SHOW US where other nations allow for elections to be STOLEN from someone who won an election... or that allows for 18% of a nation's population to get a majority in one chamber that has a veto over the other... or where amendments can be ratified by states with 40% of the nation's population.

Put up or smell the roses. It's the US with the extreme system.

And yes, I KNOW why we have the system we have. My point is so what. You and others seem to believe if someone merely disagrees with 1787 rationale for our system... even if many desirable principles were compromised away, they can't really understand it so they must be dismissed. That view is both intellectually insulting and obnoxious. I'm merely trying to reconnect with democratic principles... and you're trying to say that's unacceptable... the Constitution replaced those principles... even the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

Sorry... this ain't religion and if the Bush and Trump Juntas can't wake you out of your coma... nothing will.

[myohmy2]

12. maybe...

...Hillary and Bill will bring it up in 2020?

[MineralMan]

16. Making demands when you have no standing to enforce those demands

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

ends up weakening you. Since no laws require such documents to be released, there are no grounds on which to make demands. We should not be demanding what we cannot demand with success.

[eniwetok]

19. OK... you don't like the word "demand"

I don't want to play semantics. If knowing about these issues are of VITAL importance to the nation... who else can raise these issues? Certainly there's an immediate need to see what Trump's financial ties are. As for possible mental health records... we don't even know if there are any since we don't know if he was institutionalized as Kurt Eichenwald hints at. But certainly Trump does show clear signs of mental instability.

In the end all we have are the Dems in Congress and the press. And sure, there are some reporters out there looking into these issues... but it really should be a two front offensive.

Your suggestions?

[MineralMan]

20. My suggestion is that we let our members of Congress do

whatever they can to block Trump's initiatives and defang the Republican majority. But, for the rest of us, we should focus on the 2018 elections and make our very best effort to retake at least one house of Congress. Nothing else will be as important. That is what we, as voters and party activists can do. That is pretty much we can do. Posturing with "demands" and other such things will accomplish nothing but to distract us.

[eniwetok]

21. Are you suggesting Dems can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Are you suggesting Dems can't walk and chew gum at the same time? That they can't oppose the GOP agenda... and go on a Finance/Mental health offensive at the same time?

Are you suggesting raising issue of Trump's fitness could serve NO political purpose?

And why are you conflating what activists do with what Dems in Congress can do?

Sorry, I don't consider activism on matters of national security to be mere "posturing". But you're free to believe it. I believe every legitimate political weapon should be brought to bear in this fight... because I can't remember a time when the position of Dems and what they claim to value, was in such peril.

[Calista241]

23. Apparently not, since we find ourselves locked out of the federal gov't

And with 1/3 of state governorships, and significant minorities in most state houses.

I'd like them to focus on one thing and do it well, while the party as a whole focuses on 2018 and 2020.

[eniwetok]

24. Undermining Trump doesn't help the Dem agenda?

You can get voters to vote for X and against X... throw in more letters and it's no longer a binary choice. But a big issue in 2018 WILL BE TRUMP... even if he's not running. Some GOPers could be vulnerable if they don't take seriously the potential security threat a president in debt to shady nations or who may (sic) be mentally ill poses to the nation. The GOP certainly ginned up votes by demonizing Obama with bogus issues. At least with Trump there are real reasons to go after the national security issue. It's low hanging fruit. So is delegitimatizing him at the Loser In Chief. It wouldn't hurt Dems to start building a case that our system has proven now twice in 16 years that it can't provide the nation a morally legitimate president based on a core founding principle of the nation: government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.

[RB TexLa]

25. No officeholder ever has to release any private medical information

[meadowlark5]

26. He has admitted he drinks no alcohol

Not that that's a bad thing, but why would a hob-knobbing aristocrat not drink? No champagne? None of the finest wine? Seems odd for someone like him and his status to not drink even socially. So why is that? Alcohol would interfere with his antipsychotic meds? Or was he an addict in the past with some substance and is a recovered addict? Not that that's bad either. But if any of these things are in our president's past, I think the public deserves to know.

[JHan]

27. He used to hold coke and sex parties in the 90s..

with under-aged models, so there's that.

[tammywammy]

28. His brother was an alcoholic.

Trump has said that's why he doesn't drink - he saw what alcohol did to his brother.

[Takket]

29. anyone else notice that the media completely stopped asking for his tax returns?

[eniwetok]

33. It's shameful...

Like with his mental health records... those crucial questions needed for vetting him as a candidate have been dropped because he's president elect. But those questions of his mental health and financial ties are now ever MORE important... and with the exception of a few reporters... we know his own administration won't look into this matter unless he shows undeniable signs of mental illness that can't be concealed. So it's really up to the Dems. And it not that this can't be framed as a sour grapes effort when our nation's security... maybe our survival, is at stake

[liberal N proud]

30. Those demands should have been made in July

I doubt there was ever a mental evaluation of the orange one.

[eniwetok]

31. Catch 22 of the vetting process....

Some mental health professionals have made observations that Trump has problems. Trump certainly fits the DSM clinical definition of a narcissist and I've heard suggestions that he's a sociopath. But the vetting process, to the extent there was one, has proven woefully inadequate. The press could ring alarm bells and he SHOULD have been weeded out as unfit by the GOP. But no one could make him undergo psychiatric testing while he was running... and once in office I think it's too late unless those in the new Junta declare him unfit under the 25th amendment... and we know that's not going to happen.

Hang on kiddies... we're in for a rough ride.

[eniwetok]

32. TRUMP ON THE COUCH!! Inside the mind of a sociopath?

Dr Justin Frank on the Thom Hartman show...

Here's the author of an upcoming book Trump On the Couch