Google, Facebook, and Twitter Release Data on Political Ads (More or Less)

When it Comes to Political Ads, President Trump, Texas Senate Candidate Beto O'Rourke, and Senate Republican PAC are Big Spenders (Image via LoupDargent.info)

Using cutting-edge machine learning and data scraping tools, computer scientists at the New York University Tandon School of Engineering today released the first database and analysis of political advertising based on more than 884,000 ads identified by Google, Twitter, and Facebook.

The team launched their user-friendly Online Political Ads Transparency Project in July with data from Facebook, which was the first company to provide it. But the researchers were forced to switch techniques when Facebook blocked their data collection two weeks later. 

⏩ Today's report is the first to include not only Facebook (including Instagram), but also data newly shared by Twitter and Google.

Although they found numerous roadblocks to meaningful transparency – ranging from faulty archives constructed in haste by the social media giants to varying definitions of "political advertising" and throttling of data collection by Facebook – NYU Tandon Computer Science and Engineering Assistant Professor Damon McCoy and his team nonetheless reported meaningful insights:

• President Donald Trump and his PAC registered the largest number of ads of any candidate, due in large part to the preponderance of small, micro-targeted advertising. Virtually all were aimed at raising funds during the study period, September 9-22, 2018. The researchers found similar dominance by President Trump in their initial, Facebook-only, analysis. 
                                                 
• The Democratic candidate for Senate from Texas, Beto O'Rourke, continued to be the apparent largest spender, mostly seeking small donations from outside his state via Facebook and Twitter. Although O'Rourke was the rare federal candidate unaffiliated with a PAC, he was like other candidates in using social media to raise funds outside their districts, McCoy noted.    
                                              
• The Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican Super PAC, was the largest spender on Google and across all three platforms combined.
                                        
• Priorities USA, a left-leaning PAC, was among the big spenders, but exact figures are not available because it collaborated on ad placements with other PACs. 
       
• Left-leaning organizations are the big spenders on Facebook and Twitter; on Google, the trend is reversed. 
                                                    
• Facebook apparently carries the most political ads, but Google apparently ranks higher in impressions and spending. This is due, in part, to the large number of small, micro-targeted ads on Facebook (60 percent) and because the majority of spending on Google (61 percent) is by PACs, which are more like to have large budgets. But analysis is muddied by the fact that both Google and Facebook disclose only ranges; only Twitter discloses exact spending and impressions. Each of the giants also defines "political advertising" differently. For example, Facebook alone includes non-media for-profit companies promoting slanted political content, companies selling merchandise with political messages, and solar panel firms with environmental messages. Google and Twitter, meanwhile, limited their reporting to only federal candidates, at least initially. 
                                                    
• PACs accounted for 23 percent of the spending on Facebook during the study period. 
                                                 
• The very top spenders during the study period on Facebook, though, were Facebook itself and its own Instagram – Facebook to publicize its responses to Russian election hacking and Instagram to spread a get-out-the-vote message. But the researchers pointed out that the company seemed to overcharge itself, based upon impressions.

Ads that appeared on Facebook and Twitter were more often left-leaning and those on Google right-leaning during the study period. (Image via NYU Tandon School of Engineering)

Collaborators on the Online Political Ads Transparency Project are NYU Tandon doctoral student Laura Edelson, NYU Shanghai visiting undergraduate student Shikhar Sakhuja, and Ratan Dey, a former NYU doctoral student studying under Professor Keith Ross and now an assistant professor of practice in computer science at NYU Shanghai.

McCoy conceived the project to build easy-to-use tools to collect, archive, and analyze political advertising data. Although Facebook became the first major social media company to launch a searchable archive of political advertising, for both Facebook and Instagram, in May 2018, McCoy found the archive difficult to use, requiring time-consuming manual searches. He decided to apply versions of the data scraping techniques he had previously used against criminals, including human traffickers who advertised and used Bitcoin.

Despite the difficulty the team subsequently encountered accessing Facebook data, they report it has by far the most comprehensive political archive among the three social media companies. The report outlines problems with the API – an interface with other platforms – introduced in beta form by Facebook to allow researchers access to its archives.

Google's data is the easiest for the public to access, as a BigQuery dataset, available in its entirety via the Google Cloud service. But it is updated in real time, with no archiving, so the NYU researchers are capturing the data daily, to share and archive.

Twitter has no easily accessible political ad archive, so the NYU research team is scraping all political advertising data identified by Twitter and sharing and archiving for the public, as well.

Although the researchers used the September period for comparison purposes, they have now compiled data from late May through October 3, with a gap of about six weeks while Facebook blocked its data scraping. 

⏩ They praised the social media companies for implementing fixes they recommended and continue to work toward transparency.

NYU Tandon School of Engineering Logo (PRNewsFoto/NYU Tandon School of Engineering)

The work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation under a grant to McCoy for research that explores bias and the manipulation of online data.

Visit the project and download data at: online-pol-ads.github.io.

SOURCE: NYU Tandon School of Engineering

"Enemy of the Human Race" Highly Explosive, Revealing and Thought-provoking Book by Henry I. Balogun

"Enemy of the human race" - Book Cover

The root of hate runs deep says Henry I. Balogun author of "Enemy of the human race." This new book provides the strongest, most damning and unambiguous response to the demeaning and insulting derogatory "shithole" remark allegedly made by Donald J. Trump about Africa. 

It also highlights resentment for the revival of hate orchestrated by Trump supporters in response to his presidency. The President's inability to condemn hate gave new credence to the idea of "us versus them" along with the false and delusional hope of creating isolated enclave exclusively for "us" because this is "our world," "our cities" and "our streets." 

The President's inability to condemn hate is now providing unhealthy platform for "left" against "right" and "conservative" against "liberal" all around the world.

Henry Balogun, in this eye-opening piece of excellent literary work entitled "Enemy of the human race," went deeper to expose and unearth hidden root of division and unprecedented discord that has turned the human family against one another. 

Those who believe that they are completely unaffected by the unfortunate stories of the past need to realize that "the bell tolls" for them as well.

Balogun's desire to agitate the sleep of evil led him to look into histories that are historically false, and poke into legislation written, passed, adopted, signed into law and acted upon but intentionally ignored, tramped over and pushed into oblivion by historians and legal scholars in the interest of making human tragedy and the shameful story of the past look like something unique to the only vulnerable segment of the human family.

There is also a candid look at the new United States in the age of Donald J. Trump known as "United States 2.0." The need to understand the person at the Oval Office led Henry Balogun to carefully examine the life and personality of Donald J. Trump.

"Enemy of the human race" started by uncovering the only engine running and keeping division alive – hate. The footprint of hate is everywhere. Open the book and read about concealed and gratuitous hate historically inscribed in religion, politics, news media, educational institutions, history, government, business, law and every aspect of human existence. Balogun, in this incredible work did not shy away from providing full analysis with regard to series of induced behaviors as well as many unhealthy expectations responsible for the exponential growth of hate..

Finally, "Enemy of the human race" opened the curtain to show us the ever glowing work of those agents of light whose courageous life and work helped those affected by hate to find credible, civilized and peaceful way to resist, thereby regain lost glory and pride in a non-passive but serene way of invoking civility.

Dr. Henry I. Balogun

Published by New York City-based Page Publishing, "Enemy of the human race" is expected to be available on Oct. 12, 2018 on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple and Google Play. 

⏩ Login to NetGalley.com to preview the book in its entirety at no cost to you!

SOURCE: Dr. Henry I. Balogun

Herrera Wins Ruling That San Francisco's Sanctuary Policies Comply With Federal Law

San Francisco City Attorney's Office's official seal. Dennis Herrera, City Attorney. (PRNewsFoto/City Attorney of San Francisco)

City Attorney Dennis Herrera released the following statement in response to today's ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that declared San Francisco's sanctuary ordinances are lawful, and invalidated grant conditions that the Trump administration tried to use to deny law enforcement funding to sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco:

"Once again, the rule of law has carried the day. The Trump administration should spend less time villainizing immigrants and more time reading the Constitution. Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. These unconstitutional grant conditions were yet another example of presidential overreach.  They were also just a bad idea. The Trump administration attacks immigrants and claims to be fighting crime but then seeks to take away money for police, prosecutors and courts. That makes zero sense.

By trying to coerce San Francisco into abandoning sanctuary laws that make our city safer, the Trump administration has been undercutting local law enforcement and endangering our communities by withholding funds for programs that reduce crime.

We're pleased the court has recognized that San Francisco's sanctuary laws and policies comply with federal law. Not only that, the court found that the federal law that the Trump administration has been trying to use as a hammer against communities is itself unconstitutional. Here's the bottom line: there is no law requiring state or local governments to participate in immigration enforcement. Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government alone. Federal officials can do their job in San Francisco and anywhere else in the country. San Francisco is not stopping them. San Francisco is not impeding them. But our police, firefighters and nurses are not going to be commandeered and turned into the Trump administration's deportation force. Communities are safer when residents aren't afraid to take their children to the doctor, call the fire department in an emergency, or go to the police if they've been the victim of a crime. We prioritize our limited law enforcement resources to fight actual crime, not break up hardworking families. "

City Attorney Dennis Herrera (image via U.S.News)

About the Ruling

Today's ruling from Judge William H. Orrick found that the conditions the Trump administration was trying to place on certain law enforcement grants are unconstitutional, that San Francisco is in compliance with 8 U.S.C. section 1373, and that 8 U.S.C. section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The court granted an injunction prohibiting the grant conditions from being applied in San Francisco and California. He also noted that a nationwide injunction was justified in this case, but stayed its application in places outside of the California pending review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case Background

Herrera filed the lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2017 in a coordinated approach with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The state of California filed suit shortly after.  

Today's ruling covers grant conditions for fiscal year 2017 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. Herrera filed a separate case on Aug. 22, 2018 over similar conditions the Trump administration is trying to place on fiscal year 2018 grants.

Impact on San Francisco

San Francisco faced the prospect of losing more than $1.4 million in Byrne JAG funds for fiscal 2017.  A similar amount is at stake for fiscal 2018. The federal government has not disbursed San Francisco's 2017 funds yet. San Francisco uses these funds for a variety of important law enforcement purposes, including programs designed to reduce recidivism, provide alternative forms of prosecution and enable treatment for underserved populations.

The cases are: City and County of San Francisco v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:17-cv-04642, filed Aug. 11, 2017, and City and County of San Francisco v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:18-cv-05146-JCS, filed Aug. 22, 2018, and additional documentation is available on the City Attorney's website.

SOURCE: San Francisco City Attorney's Office

McClelland & Stewart to Publish the Explosive Thriller "The Kingfisher Secret" in October

The Kingfisher Secret (CNW Group/McClelland and Stewart)

McClelland & Stewart has announced that it will publish the political thriller The Kingfisher Secret by Anonymous. 

Ripped from the headlines and inspired by tales, speculation and whispers from within the intelligence community, the highly charged novel of intrigue and deception will be published simultaneously by McClelland & Stewart in Canada and the United States, Heyne in Germany and Century in the United Kingdom on October 16, 2018. 

In addition, rights have been sold to Longanesi in Italy and Planeta in Spain who will publish The Kingfisher Secret in 2019.

On the eve of the 2016 American election, journalist Grace Elliott has been working tirelessly on a story involving the controversial and wealthy tycoon who is running for President of the United States and a former porn star who is ready to go public with details of their affair. Yet, for political reasons, the publication that Grace works for decides to bury the story.

She is then sent to Europe to resume her work as a ghostwriter for the candidate's ex-wife, a no-nonsense Czech businesswoman who "writes" a column for the publication. Grace soon stumbles on a shocking story about how the man who is about to be president has made it as far as he has, and the threat his election victory poses to the western world.

"It is a pleasure to publish this provocative book, which manages to be a great deal of fun while also asking important questions about how power and politics are shaping our global future," says Jared Bland, Publisher of McClelland & Stewart. "We hope readers around the world find the story as exhilarating as we do."

The author is a bestselling novelist and respected journalist. 

Late last year, the author was introduced to a successful international businessman who became a source for insights into the world of espionage. The author learned that the businessman had worked as an operative for intelligence organizations to infiltrate spy networks. Through his activities within the intelligence community, the businessman heard stories about Donald Trump and his ex-wife, Ivana. 

Some had speculated that Ivana might have been part of the "swallow" program; a documented Cold War tactic used to entrap and compromise men of influence and power, not only to gather information but to encourage behaviour that would fit the long-term goals of the Russian government. 

With that background, the businessman suggested the following premise for a novel to the author: There's a spy in the White House. 

Intrigued by the idea, the author travelled to Prague to visit the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes and other archives to research Ivana Trump and her family, only to learn that many of the files had been stolen or destroyed. 

At that point, the author's imagination took over and The Kingfisher Secret came to life.

⏩ In publishing The Kingfisher Secret, the author has decided to remain anonymous in order to protect the source's identity.

SOURCE: McClelland and Stewart

Related Stories:

• Super LTD Acquires ACTIVE MEASURES - A Film That Reveals Putin's Long Game With Trump
• Book Release: Satirical Novel from 2076 Describes America's Self-Destruction
• New Poll Reveals Majority of Americans Are Not Convinced Trump is Doing Enough to Protect US from Putin Threat

More Donald Trump Related Stories:

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

Women's Rights Organisations Speak Out in Defence of Sexual Assault Survivors

#WhyIDidntReport

The following is a press release from Equality Now:

"International women's rights organization Equality Now has joined forces with 80 leading women and human's right groups* to place a full page advert in The Washington Post expressing collective concern about attacks on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford since her story of sexual assault was shared.

It takes great courage for survivors of sexual assault to come forward, especially in public circumstances, and we must recognize the high cost that women pay for speaking out about their experiences.

As an organization working for women's and girls' rights in the US and globally, Equality Now understands how difficult it is for victims, given that they are often shamed and blamedby society and sometimes by the legal system itself.

Such difficulties have been highlighted by the many thousands who have given their own deeply personal accounts using the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport.

There are numerous reasons why someone doesn't report a sexual assault, including fear of not being believed, of retaliation, or mistrust of authority. Victims frequently face blame and interrogation for what they were wearing, what they were drinking, or how they did or didn't behave.

All too often, when a victim does find the strength to confide in someone they are told not to pursue things any further.

And then there is the knowledge that justice is rarely served as the vast majority of perpetrators do not go to prison.
In the wake of #MeToo, this is a landmark moment for how accusations of sexual assault are handled.

There can never be equality in a culture that normalizes or trivializes sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Dr. Blasey Ford is sharing the experience of a 15-year-old adolescent girl that was subjected to a sexual assault. We must think about what message we are sending to girls and boys across the country about whether or not they too would be heard or believed.

This is not a partisan issue. We all have a responsibility not to silence survivors, to guarantee that laws and legal systems are based on equality, and that victims have access to justice.

In addition, we need to ensure that schools, communities and organizations do not promote or tolerate a culture where such behaviour is normalized or trivialized.

By giving survivors the space to be heard we can change the status quo. We remain committed to achieving equality in laws, policies and legal processes and to supporting survivors of sexual assault and harassment.

Shelby Quast, Equality Now's Americas Director, says: "We all have to work together to ensure those who have experience sexual assault and harassment are supported, protected and given access to fair legal process. Never should they be subjected to further attack, irrespective of whether or not the perpetrator is a public figure or in a position of power."

Now more than ever we must all work together to build a more equal world in which women and girls can be safe, fearless and free."

*Click here for details of signatories

Sexual violence takes many forms (Via Equality Now)

President Donald Trump And Attorney General Sessions Lack Support For Breaking Up Tech, New NetChoice Survey Finds

Americans Prefer Ad-Supported Online Services Instead of Paying for Them (Infographic via NetChoice)

Americans overwhelmingly value the contributions of the technology industry and do not support antitrust enforcement, despite aggressive rhetoric from President Trump, a new NetChoice survey of 1,200 U.S. consumers found.

President Trump's draft Executive Order would put tech in the crosshairs of U.S. antitrust authorities. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is also holding a meeting with several State Attorneys General today to discuss accusations of social media bias. 

⏩ But Americans don't support an antitrust crack down on America's most innovative businesses.

New polling shows that only about 5% of Americans (on both sides of the political aisles) say the federal government should focus anti-competitive enforcement on the tech industry. 

Further, just 1 in 5 Americans say the break-up of big tech would most benefit consumers.

No Support for Heavy-Handed Government Intervention on Tech Platforms (Infographic via NetChoice)

The value of tech to consumers and businesses is clear.

Over 70% of Americans say that digital advertising platforms like Google and Facebook are valuable to both small businesses and the national economy. 

Just 13% say that they have had a negative experience with large Internet platforms and 72% say that services like Facebook, Google, and Amazon make it easier for them to connect with people in their community.

Consumers Are Empowered with Social Media Choices (Infographic via NetChoice)

"President Trump's fixation on breaking up tech platforms lacks support from Americans," said Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice. "Antitrust policy needs to be guided by facts, not emotional outbursts. The government cannot violate the First Amendment by forcing Internet platforms to suppress negative news. Internet platforms are a boon for American consumers, businesses, and, in turn, the U.S. economy. The President should listen to regular Americans and allow U.S. tech companies to continue to thrive and innovate."

Americans Believe Online Platforms Empower Business Advertising and Community Engagement (Infographic via NetChoice)

About the Survey:

From August 6-8, 2018 Zogby Analytics conducted an interactive survey of 1,222 adults focused on consumer attitudes toward Internet platforms and government regulation. 

⏩ The survey, commissioned by NetChoice, has a margin of error of +/- 2.8%.  It is available at NetChoice.org/TechlashPoll

SOURCE: NetChoice

US Senators to Betsy DeVos: Stop Violating Workers' Rights

The union representing nearly 4,000 Department of Education employees nationwide, the American Federation of Government Employees, is echoing a call from three U.S. Senators for the department to return to the bargaining table and negotiate a fair, just, and legal contract

Three U.S. Senators are calling on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to stop denying workplace rights and protections to nearly 4,000 Department of Education employees who are represented by the American Federation of Government Employees.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, joined with Sen. Kamala Harris of California and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in sending the Sept. 20 letter to Secretary DeVos.

They urge Education to comply with a July finding of a Federal Labor Relations Authority investigation that the department violated federal labor law by failing to bargain in good faith with AFGE and unilaterally imposing its own proposal on 3,900 federal employees represented by AFGE.

"It is in the best interest of the U.S. Department of Education to have a positive and constructive working relationship with its workforce," the senators wrote. "Therefore, we urge you to return to the negotiating table to work in good faith with the employees' union to reach a fair and equitable contract, and to adhere to the 2013 collective bargaining agreement until negotiations are complete."

After months of anti-union proposals and hostile behavior at the bargaining table, Department of Education management told AFGE in March that it would not negotiate and would instead implement its own terms. The so-called "collective bargaining agreement" imposed by management is an illegal management edict that guts employee rights, including those addressing workplace health and safety, telework, and alternative work schedules.

President Trump issued three executive orders in May that largely aimed to expand Education's anti-union proposals governmentwide. In August, however, a federal judge ruled in a lawsuit first brought by AFGE that the administration's actions violated the U.S. Constitution and laws providing checks and balances in the federal government by attempting to deny more than 2 million federal workers their legal right to representation.

"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this Administration as a whole does not take seriously its bargaining obligations under the Statute, evidenced by the issuance of the illegal, anti-bargaining Executive Orders together with the growing prevalence of bad faith bargaining behavior across federal agencies," the senators wrote.

AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. thanked the senators for their leadership and echoed their call for Education to return to the bargaining table.

"Secretary DeVos' anti-worker crusade has not slowed down one bit since the FLRA's ruling and the judge's decision – if anything the department is more resolved than ever to keep denying workers their rights," Cox said. "I urge Secretary DeVos to order her management team back to the table so we can negotiate a fair, just, and legal contract, which all employees deserve."

AFGE logo. (PRNewsFoto/American Federation of Government Employees)

⏩ The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 700,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.

SOURCE:  American Federation of Government Employees

Thousands Of Mental Health Professionals Agree With Woodward And The New York Times Op-ed Author: Trump Is Dangerous

President Donald Trump, August 30, 2018. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Bob Woodward’s new book, “Fear,” describes a “nervous breakdown of Trump’s presidency.” Earlier this year, Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” offered a similar portrayal.

Now, an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior White House official” describes how deeply the troubles in this administration run and what effort is required to protect the nation.

None of this is a surprise to those of us who, 18 months ago, put together our own public service book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

My focus as the volume’s editor was on Trump’s dangerousness because of my area of expertise in violence prevention. Approaching violence as a public health issue, I have consulted with governments and international organizations, in addition to 20 years of engaging in the individual assessment and treatment of violent offenders.

The book proceeded from an ethics conference I held at Yale, my home institution. At that meeting, my psychiatrist colleagues and I discussed balancing two essential duties of our profession. First is the duty to speak responsibly about public officials, especially as outlined in “the Goldwater rule,” which requires that we refrain from diagnosing without a personal examination and without authorization. Second is our responsibility to protect public health and safety, or our “duty to warn” in cases of danger, which usually supersedes other rules.

Our conclusion was overwhelmingly that our responsibility to society and its safety, as outlined in our ethical guidelines, overrode any etiquette owed to a public figure. That decision led to the collection of essays in the book, which includes some of the most prominent thinkers of the field including Robert J. Lifton, Judith Herman, Philip Zimbardo and two dozen others. That decision was controversial among some members of our field.

We already know a great deal about Trump’s mental state based on the voluminous information he has given through his tweets and his responses to real situations in real time. Now, this week’s credible reports support the concerns we articulated in the book beyond any doubt.

These reports are also consistent with the account I received from two White House staff members who called me in October 2017 because the president was behaving in a manner that “scared” them, and they believed he was “unraveling”. They were calling because of the book I edited.

Once I confirmed that they did not perceive the situation as an imminent danger, I referred them to the emergency room, in order not to be bound by confidentiality rules that would apply if I engaged with them as a treating physician. That would have compromised my role of educating the public.

Author Bob Woodward’s new book on Trump. (AP/Mark Lennihan)

The psychology behind the chaos 
The author of the New York Times op-ed makes clear that the conflict in the White House is not about Trump’s ideology.

The problem, the author sees, is the lack of “any discernible first principles that guide his decision making … his impulsiveness [that] results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back, and there being literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next.”

These are obviously psychological symptoms reflective of emotional compulsion, impulsivity, poor concentration, narcissism and recklessness. They are identical to those that Woodward describes in numerous examples, which he writes were met with the “stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters.”

They are also consistent with the course we foresaw early in Trump’s presidency, which concerned us enough to outline it in our book. We tried to warn that his condition was worse than it appeared, would grow worse over time and would eventually become uncontainable.
What we observed were signs of mental instability – signs that would eventually play out not only in the White House, as these accounts report, but in domestic situations and in the geopolitical sphere.

There is a strong connection between immediate dangerousness – the likelihood of waging a war or launching nuclear weapons – and extended societal dangerousness – policies that force separation of children from families or the restructuring of global relations in a way that would destabilize the world.

Getting worse 
My current concern is that we are already witnessing a further unraveling of the president’s mental state, especially as the frequency of his lying increases and the fervor of his rallies intensifies.

I am concerned that his mental challenges could cause him to take unpredictable and potentially extreme and dangerous measures to distract from his legal problems.

Mental health professionals have standard procedures for evaluating dangerousness. More than a personal interview, violence potential is best assessed through past history and a structured checklist of a person’s characteristics.

These characteristics include a history of cruelty to animals or other people, risk taking, behavior suggesting loss of control or impulsivity, narcissistic personality and current mental instability. Also of concern are noncompliance or unwillingness to undergo tests or treatment, access to weapons, poor relationship with significant other or spouse, seeing oneself as a victim, lack of compassion or empathy, and lack of concern over consequences of harmful acts.

The Woodward book and the New York Times op-ed confirm many of these characteristics. The rest have been evident in Trump’s behavior outside the White House and prior to his tenure.

That the president has met not just some but all these criteria should be reason for alarm.

Other ways in which a president could be dangerous are through cognitive symptoms or lapses, since functions such as reasoning, memory, attention, language and learning are critical to the duties of a president. He has exhibited signs of decline here, too.

Furthermore, when someone displays a propensity for large-scale violence, such as by advocating violence against protesters or immigrant families, calling perpetrators of violence such as white supremacists “very fine people” or showing oneself vulnerable to manipulation by hostile foreign powers, then these things can promote a much more widespread culture of violence.

The president has already shown an alarming escalation of irrational behavior during times of distress. Others have observed him to be “unstable,” “losing a step” and “unraveling.” He is likely to enter such a state again.

Violent acts are not random events. They are end products of a long process that follow recognizable patterns. As mental health experts, we make predictions in terms of unacceptable levels of probability rather than on the basis of what is certain to happen.

Trump’s impairment is a familiar pattern to a violence expert such as myself, but given his level of severity, one does not need to be a specialist to know that he is dangerous.

President Donald Trump holds a ‘Make America Great Again’ rally in Evansville, Indiana, Aug. 30, 2018. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

What next? 

I believe Woodward’s book and the revelations in the New York Times op-ed have placed great pressure on the president. We are now entering a period when the stresses of the presidency could accelerate because of the advancing special counsel’s investigations.

The degree of Trump’s denial and resistance to the unfolding revelations, as expressed in a recent Fox interview, are telling of his fragility.

From my observations of the president over extended time via his public presentations, direct thoughts through tweets and accounts of his close associates, I believe that the question is not whether he will look for distractions, but how soon and to what degree.

At least several thousands of mental health professionals who are members of the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts share the view that the nuclear launch codes should not be in the hands of someone who exhibits such levels of mental instability.

Just as suspicion of crime should lead to an investigation, the severity of impairment that we see should lead to an evaluation, preferably with the president’s consent.

Mental impairment should be evaluated independently from criminal investigations, using medical criteria and standardized measures. A sitting president may be immune to indictments, but he is subject to the law, which is strict about public safety and the right to treatment when an individual poses a danger to the public because of mental instability. In the case of danger, the patient does not have the right to refuse, nor does the physician have the right not to take the person as a patient.

This evaluation may have been delayed, but it is still not too late. And mental health professionals have extensive experience assessing, restraining and treating individuals much like Trump – it is almost routine.

About Today's Contributor:
Bandy X. Lee, Assistant Clinical Professor, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

⏩ This is an updated version of an article originally published earlier on September 7, 2018; it reflects new information about the author’s contact with White House staff.