Dr. Bandy Lee (2:31)

I think the problem is that it was the first organization to capitulate to the pressures of this administration or during the first administration when it recognized the psychiatric aspects of the administration would be actually the number one main feature that would be problematic to bring awareness to the public. And so they made a decision to simply pull out of any discussion and to misguide the public into believing that anyone who would speak about these issues were being unethical. Whereas, in fact, it is one of our primary duties, outlined, in fact, as an obligation through the Declaration of Geneva after the Nuremberg trials.

Ralph Nader (3:20)

And you also met many times with members of Congress, and the influence of the reticent American Psychiatric association began to affect your access to members of Congress, is that correct?

Dr. Bandy Lee (3:33)

Yes.

Dr. Bandy Lee (3:33)

In fact, I was quite impressed in.

Dr. Bandy Lee (3:36)

The beginning that there were almost no.

Dr. Bandy Lee (3:38)

Barriers in terms of the news media, the public, and Congress members in terms of discussing the issue in psychiatric terms. And I believe when my book was first published in late 2017, it was an instant New York Times bestseller, and members of the public were driving long distances to try to get the last.

Dr. Bandy Lee (4:00)

Copy and the one remaining bookstore in.

Dr. Bandy Lee (4:02)

Their area that had a copy, because Macmillan, one of five big publishers, did not print enough copies. It was so unexpectedly explosive, and people were hungry for the information. I was invited by all the major news networks, cable as well, and all the major news programs, and the Congress members. I met with over 50 of them in large groups or in private. And they have consistently told us that.

Dr. Bandy Lee (4:30)

They were actually depending on us to.

Dr. Bandy Lee (4:32)

Educate the public medically so that they could intervene politically. And they had a bill in Congress to move ahead with the 25th Amendment advancing very rapidly. And that was when the American Psychiatric association stepped in very aggressively in ways that I had never seen in my professional career. And I do firmly believe that the 25th Amendment had a good chance of moving forward had the APA not stepped in.

Ralph Nader (5:02)

Well, you also saw the influence of the American Psychiatric association on your status at Yale Medical School, where you worked. Pretty soon, the climate for you staying there began to sour. What happened?

Dr. Bandy Lee (5:15)

Yes, I mean, that was very strange as well. The head of my division and chair of psychiatry, whom I had known for years, just simply stopped responding to me. And they had in mind my dismissal, but they could not really give a reason for the dismissal. It was only after the American association of University Professors pressured them, wrote a letter to them, that they needed to give a reason for my dismissal, that they cited the Goldwater Rule and the American Psychiatric Association. But that, of course, didn't make sense. As you mentioned, I was no longer a member of the American Psychiatric Association. Their Guild rule, I would emphasize that categorization, the Goldwater Rule could not be admitted by the licensing board, had not been adopted by any other mental health association because it conflicts with the First Amendment, and many people considered it a political compromise rather than an ethical guideline based on scientific research and modern practice. In fact, all those things go against the Goldwater Rule, and they had no other way of enforcing it other than by pressuring the university.

Ralph Nader (6:29)

How do you explain the independent press like the Nation magazine, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, why haven't they had you on? Why are they ducking this issue as well?

Dr. Bandy Lee (6:40)

I believe they too have been influenced by the American Psychiatric association, because Amy Goodman had me on twice before the APA intervened, and she even promised to come to the National Press Club conference in 2019, but then she cancelled and lots of others cancelled, and the reason they gave was the Goldwater Rule. Chris Hedges also once invited me and then canceled. And I don't quite understand the reasoning behind it, but he would join the company of many very respectable journalists who decided not to because the public isn't on board. And that's where I would say that the public was shut down and shortchanged in the area of mental health, because we were the number one topic of national conversation within three months of the publication of our instant New York Times bestseller, which was unprecedented of its kind, being of specialist knowledge by multiple authors, and yet the public was told over and over that mental health experts have no place in a mental health discussion in public. And actually we know that the public was not on board because for many, many years we've gotten numerous messages, inundations of messages. Where are the psychiatrists, where are the psychologists? And producers have invited me to shows, major shows on cable and network television, and over 70 of them were canceled at last minute. Only one eventually was aired and the host was fired soon after.

Ralph Nader (8:17)

Let me suggest why the progressive media is avoiding your type of elaboration and explanation. They do not want to be accused of what? The communist regime in the Soviet Union.

Dr. Bandy Lee (8:31)

That's right.

Ralph Nader (8:31)

To dissenters, Stalin and his cohorts would basically say that dissenters are insane, they have mental impairment, and they should be sent to prisons in Siberia. And progressives throughout the decades have been very fearful of being tainted with that accusation about dissent.

Dr. Bandy Lee (8:52)

But that's because that's an erroneous fear, because what needs to be illuminated is what actually is mental illness and to educate people on its characteristics. What happened with Soviet psychiatry and Chinese psychiatry? Communist psychiatry has been an extremely cynical interpretation of psychiatry, basically stating that it's an area where anything goes. We can label anyone with a psychiatric illness, whereas that's really not true. It's. Psychiatry is an area that is scientifically founded just as much as the rest of medicine. In fact, there's no difference whatsoever. And the public needs to be educated that it simply is the mind being affected, and we can tell signs, and there are definite signals toward it. And in fact, especially when people are accusing them of psychiatric labeling, there's a likelihood that the other side has something psychiatric they need to hide. This is an area where the public often retreats when there are threats or intimidation, even in terms of intervening with this administration. And what needs to be clear is that with the personalities involved, a lack of intervention capitulating to their demands does not diminish. Danger will not keep us safe. In fact, it will dramatically increase the dangers. What is necessary is for us to actively and aggressively intervene, according to the science, according to standards of practice. Psychiatry has its own standards of practice, and to do so is to affirm reality, affirm norms and standards, and to set limits on personalities who cannot set limits on themselves.

Ralph Nader (10:41)

What's interesting, Dr. Lee, is that Trump himself accuses dissidents, people who disagree with him politically, as lunatics. His words, insane. His words, wackos, insane, deranged, insane. He's used those words against Jack Smith, who is a career prosecutor moving toward indicting and convicting Trump on a number of felonious violations. He does what the Soviets do. When Mamdami won the primary in New York City, he immediately issued a tweet calling Mamdami, quote, a communist lunatic, end quote. So he and more than a few of his cohorts are using this psychiatric pejoratives in their own interest.

Dr. Bandy Lee (11:29)

And the reason for doing so is for people to fear that they would be labeled as doing the same thing as he is if they were to correctly point out psychiatric issues in him. And so we should not capitulate to that, but rather to point out why he's doing these things and what that says about him, which is actually a very dangerous indicator.

Ralph Nader (11:54)

I want for our listeners to have a little patience here and listen to the list that Dr. Lee has compiled that would describe the sociopathic personality, the antisocial personality of Trump. One, failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, such as performing criminal acts that are grounds for arrest. We've shown that he's violated criminal statutes regularly and obstructed justice as a way of life in the White House, as chronicled by his former National Security assistant, John Bolton, in Bolton's book, after he left the first Trump administration. And as people know, Trump has gone after Bolton and had him indicted recently. The second is deceitfulness, repeated lying, conning others for pleasure or personal profit. Well, you know, Trump just hands that on a lying platter. To the public. He's not trying to say that he's a truth teller. 3. Impulsivity or failure to plan? Well, it's pretty chaotic in the White House and he's spreading chaos throughout our political economy. And the way he's cutting programs, canceling programs, other things we'll get into shortly. Four, Irritability and aggressiveness. And he's certainly shown this in his up and down meetings with heads of state like Zelensky in Ukraine. And he certainly has shown this with his domestic opponents, Democrats in Congress and elsewhere. 5. Reckless disregard for the safety of others. Well, he's cut so many health and safety programs and canceled regulation of toxic chemicals in the workplace and in the environment. And he keeps saying this is only the beginning. Notice how many times when he issues a wrecking executive order that affects millions of innocent people, he says this is only the beginning. It's hard to compare any politician with that kind of commentary. And then consistent irresponsibility, failure to sustain consistent work behavior and uphold presidential obligations. 7. Lack of remorse, indifference or rationalizing, having hurt and mistreated or stolen from another person or another nation. Well, he never has admitted a mistake. In fact, he boasts about he's right all the time. He uses words like I've been right all the time. He also has said that he knows more about specific topics than bankers, than renewable energy experts, than people who are knowledgeable about construction. This is a megalomaniacal syndrome. So with that background, let me ask you the following question. Let us say he is impeached in the House, removed in the Senate. How will he react?

Dr. Bandy Lee (14:58)

Well, he will react very belligerently, as violently as possible, as we've seen from his loss of the first attempt to be re elected. But it also depends on how we handle him. We've seen from how dictators of the world who understand his psychology much better because it's similar to theirs can manipulate him and cause him to do all kinds of things that ordinary presidents would never do. And so I would say that he's still very malleable and it depends on how we handle him and manage him. And that's why mental health consultants would be very important. But unfortunately, because of the way the APA set up the rhetoric, it has been implanted in the public's mind that mental health experts are not to be consulted on mental health issues.

Ralph Nader (15:49)

Well, to be fair to you, I've asked this question to some congressional staff and members of Congress over time and most of them say if he's impeached and removed from office. He won't leave. He'll create a crisis.

Dr. Bandy Lee (16:03)

That's right.

Ralph Nader (16:03)

Federal marshals, under the Constitution would have to remove him from the White House, but he controls the federal marshals through the Justice Department and his compliant Attorney General, Pam Bondi. So they expect a crisis. And in expecting this kind of crisis, and who knows what the military would do, they don't like the Secretary of defense, the military, they're retired and active, that they've been abused, slandered, pushed around by Trump's Secretary of defense. So they're using this prediction as a reason for not pushing Trump up against the constitutional wall.

Dr. Bandy Lee (16:41)

That's exactly why we have responded to his outrageous actions in the exact opposite way we ought to be responding.

Ralph Nader (16:50)

So how would you, with your colleagues and those who support you, influence Congress?

Dr. Bandy Lee (16:56)

You're right in that impeachment is a solution for high crimes and misdemeanors. And historians and legal experts have said that this kind of mental impairment would count as misdemeanor, and that would be a provision. Several Congress members have reached out to me privately and new members, not the ones who had consulted us before, and I actually commend them highly for taking the courage for doing so. But even after being thoroughly convinced and on board and actually appreciative of our explanations and our recommended solutions, they don't feel that they can get other Congress members on board, partly because, in part because the language has gotten so much to the point where, as I've mentioned, mental health professionals have been blacked out from the major media for seven years now, and the public believes that mental health issues are not to be dealt with through the mental health profession. And mental health professionals also have responded with capitulation and acquiescence in the sense that even when they see clear situations where what is wrong is very clear to them and they could recommend solutions, they don't speak up. So I feel that it is Congress. But what surprised me when I did enter the halls of Congress was that Congress members were depending on the people, on citizens and Americans who could contribute their own voices and gifts. And I believe that it still applies that all these fields should be speaking up. The bar association, the legal profession, universities, in particular corporations, and mental health professionals. We should all still be speaking up all the more, because what Donald Trump uses is threats and intimidation when he tells a lie. The reason why it's countered very little is because he tells big, enormous, gigantic lies that inundate and bulldoze over people so that you can barely recuperate yourself, let alone Counter the lie. And he's doing this with his destructive acts on the country.

Ralph Nader (19:15)

So just to illustrate your point, in 2016, even after he narrowly won the election over Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College, he claimed that there were 3 million illegal aliens brought into the US to vote for Hillary Clinton. Just recently, when he's blowing up these boats, which have been called murder by criminal law specialists in the Caribbean, he said that every boat that he blows up was going to kill 25,000Americans with fentanyl. Well, you know, they're not disclosing what was on the boats, what direction they were going. Some of them were going away from the US and that's not the route that fentanyl gets into the US by the way. His lies are enormous. And when they're countered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he fires the head of the Labor Statistics Bureau, and he's fired tens of thousands of federal workers, disrupted the lives of their families, as well as federal contractors who cannot conduct business when these Department of Education Aid, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and others are essentially shut down. And other programs under epa, like the Scientific Research Wing, is being shut down. But to give you an opening on Capitol Hill, let me tell you what Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee with a safe seat from Maryland, told the friend when the friend asked him, why don't you have shadow hearings? You've already had informal hearings among Democrats. They take out a committee room and they have witnesses and invite the media. They're not binding hearings, they're not official, but there's nothing can stop the Democrats from doing that. And he was urged to have a informal hearing on impeachment. And he said, quote, that's a very good idea, end quote. But then nothing happened in subsequent weeks because he consulted with Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democrats in the House, who was adamant about never moving toward impeachment, not laying the groundwork, not educating the public, not creating any activity that might lead national pollsters to ask the question of the American people, do you think Trump should be impeached? Well, I think that's where your group can find a potential wedge, is to get in the Senate and the House, the Democrats, to have informal educational hearings about the impeachability of Donald Jerry Trump.

Dr. Bandy Lee (21:50)

Yes. And the necessity of it, because what.

Dr. Bandy Lee (21:53)

We'Re dealing with is a situation that.

Dr. Bandy Lee (21:55)

Will get more and more dangerous the less we intervene. And at this point, we need quite aggressive intervention in order to stabilize things. What people don't recognize is that not doing anything is Perhaps the most dangerous route, and yet they're intimidated because of his threatening ways. But as you outlined with the what was the Psychopathy Checklist, the checklist for the most dangerous psychiatric condition in existence that's responsible for far more death and destruction than all other psychiatric conditions combined, that he meets criteria not just to meet the diagnosis, which is 30 out of 40, each item scoring up to two of two points. He scored 36. So I'm sharing this with you to simply illustrate the level of dangerousness we're dealing with. And if I mean the choices, do we act or do we allow for the destruction of our country, which is what it has come to. Destruction, perhaps even of the world. Pathology leads to death and destruction.

Ralph Nader (23:05)

Give our audience your substack.

Dr. Bandy Lee (23:07)

It's bandixlee.substack.com People can go to my website, bandylee.com and just click on the newsletter to subscribe to it.

Ralph Nader (23:18)

Dr. Lee, I want to read a section in your first article in a series of four articles on your sub stack which I think is extremely concrete. You say, quote, we were aware that all persons who have any involvement with nuclear weapons are required to have a yearly thorough mental health evaluation. Except for one. The Commander in Chief, who has sole authority with the nuclear football constantly at his command to order their use has no such requirement. And alerting against this glaring and dangerous omission was part of our duty to the public as well as our conscience as citizens. End quote. So, for example, in all the bases around the country where we have these underground missile sites, nuclear weapons, all the officials, the skilled people, the operators, have to go through a rigorous mental examination. And the only one who doesn't is the President of the United States.

Dr. Bandy Lee (24:19)

That's correct.

Ralph Nader (24:19)

Why isn't more made of that?

Dr. Bandy Lee (24:21)

Well, in fact, all military personnel, before even taking their posts, need to pass mental health fitness exams. Those who deal with nuclear weapons are actually required to pass very rigorous psychological testing every year. And the public needs to know that it's a glaring omission that the person who commands nuclear weapons is not even required to pass the most basic exams that his subordinates all are required to pass.

Ralph Nader (24:52)

In other words, all the men and women in nuclear subs around the world, US Nuclear subs are always patrolling in the ocean around the world. They have to have a regular mental health evaluation. All the pilots and the crew of these B52 bombers that are in the air 24 hours a day with nuclear weapons have to pass a mental health evaluation. Do you know anybody calling for the President of the United States, regardless whether it's Trump, to have a similar evaluation over the years. Has anybody made that point that you've been making?

Dr. Bandy Lee (25:31)

Well, that's one of the reasons why Representative Janie Raskin, in fact, was trying to pass a bill to form a congressional commission that the 25th Amendment allows for, where a number of members appointed by both parties would assess the need for a presidential examination, which would include psychiatrists and neurologists, by the way. And he was gaining grounds on that bill just when we were consulting with him.

Ralph Nader (26:03)

Well, there have been a couple of authors of the Horrors of Nuclear War, issuing books and getting press recently, and they do not run away from that problem. Just think it just needs a mentally aberrant operator of a nuclear sub. And the question is, do the safeguards protect if one person goes awry and starts pushing the mechanisms to release a nuclear missile, are the subsequent safeguards sufficient? And these authors have raised very serious questions, and one of their conclusions is we've been very, very lucky over the decades, including not experiencing the culmination of an accidental release of nuclear weapons by Russia in the U.S. i believe that's.

Dr. Bandy Lee (26:52)

One of the most urgent questions of our day. And even without a mentally impaired president, would we be in a critical situation of nuclear danger? In fact, as a violent scholar, that's one of the main issues I have focused on, even in my textbook violence, that it's an urgent issue humanity needs to address to curb our own collective suicidality. And having a commander in chief such as Donald Trump, of course, is contributing vastly to that collective suicidal tendency.

Ralph Nader (27:25)

We've been talking with Dr. Bandy Lee, and we're going to go to Steve to start the questioning from our colleagues here. Before we do give your website again.

Dr. Bandy Lee (27:37)

Yes, my website is bandylee.com and my substack is bandixlee.substack.com and she's put out.

Ralph Nader (27:45)

Four articles in October to make the case that we've been discussing.

Steve Scrovan (27:50)

Steve, Dr. Lee, surrounding Donald Trump or people like Russell Vogt and Stephen Miller. Would you characterize them the same way that they have mental health issues? And if so, how do you distinguish between mental impairment and just radical ideology?

Dr. Bandy Lee (28:08)

Well, you simply need one mentally impaired person in an influential position for the impairment to spread, whether it be those.

Dr. Bandy Lee (28:19)

With the same condition or those who.

Dr. Bandy Lee (28:22)

Are simply predisposed or even normal individuals. In fact, I outline those categories in my book the Psychology of Trauma Contagion, that in the research which has been done for the last 150 years on this phenomenon of contagion of mental symptoms is that there are four types of contagion. It is the amplification of those with the same impairment. The second is those who are personality wise predisposed to having the impairment. And once they meet a dominant person with that impairment, they too manifest. So it activates what was dormant within. And the third category of persons is normal individuals. Through length of time and persistence of exposure, they come to take on the symptoms, eventually to appear as if they have the full blown impairment themselves. And the fourth category is those who resist. Those who resist when they eventually succumb.

Dr. Bandy Lee (29:28)

Which time and pressure, and especially in.

Dr. Bandy Lee (29:32)

The setting of isolation, will do, they are the hardest to turn around. Now, the difference between individuals who actually have the impairment and those who are simply, who have simply adopted the symptoms through contagion is that once you remove the primary individual with the impairment, the others return to baseline, that is back to normal, except for the fourth group which may need extra treatment or even may never convert back.

Ralph Nader (30:03)

What about Steve's point, Dr. Lee, about people who are just ideologically committed to what many people think are very wrong headed and harmful policies?

Steve Scrovan (30:13)

Because it seems like Stephen Miller in Russell Vogt came to Trump for those qualities were already there, they weren't infected.

Dr. Bandy Lee (30:21)

That's right. Yes, I do believe that they found synergy rather than contagion from de novo. But that doesn't mean that they would have been as severe without Donald Trump, without such a president. And they themselves will activate others through their advancement and success in their own positions.

Steve Scrovan (30:41)

No, Trump talks about the lunatic left. Why couldn't he just say like somebody like AOC is mentally impaired because her ideology is radical?

Dr. Bandy Lee (30:52)

Well, he would like to assert mental labels. They're not really mental health labels. But he even called Nancy Pelosi crazy. Or he's given lots of labels that have to do with mental illness. And that is because he's projecting what is happening in him. He will see it in his opponents a lot more than a normal person would, for example. And so that's one way in which we can gauge the level of his impairment.

Dr. Bandy Lee (31:24)

In fact, I have often said that.

Dr. Bandy Lee (31:27)

Every accusation is a confession that whatever he says of others will quite accurately portray what is happening in him because of the level of symptomatology and projection.

Ralph Nader (31:41)

You know, I think I know what some of our listeners are thinking now listening to all this, Dr. Lee, that we put it this way. Trump is bad enough with his programs and policies. He's pursuing dictatorial programs that harm women, children, minorities, workers, communities to favor the Further concentration of, of corporate power, corporate welfare, immunity from corporate crime and self enrichment at the expense of tens of millions of Americans, including small taxpayers. So why do we need all this psychiatric analysis when he has condemned himself in all kinds of ways that are jeopardizing people's livelihoods, their health insurance, their food supply, their government contracts, their freedom, their ability to voice their grievances. And that's enough. He indicts himself by his own programs. Why do we need psychiatric language? And I would answer, and I'll have you answer, because when you understand his dangerous unstable personality, given all these programs he's cut and initiated and closed down and given corporations free sway in Washington, etc. Cut their taxes. Further, that if you understand his dangerous unstable personality, you will be more aware of what it's going to take to change his mind or to remove him from office. That if he's not exposed to rational calculations, evidence, proof, facts, reality, then the response by the public has to be adjusted accordingly compared to what they would respond to a normal president whom they disagree with. Seriously, like Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. How would you answer that question?

Dr. Bandy Lee (33:35)

I think that's a great answer. I would add to that in that, well, mental health professionals have a role in everyday life where law enforcement intervenes after the actions have happened. Mental health professionals try to predict and to assess probabilities of actions that will happen based on their psychological state. And in fact, if the course is inevitable enough, it allows for intervention and therefore prevention. I believe we have entered an unprecedented era where mental pathology is used as a weapon for domination, control and takeover by political faction. And it is important for the people to understand these dynamics. Knowledge is power. And if the people are excluding one area of knowledge because of conditioning, I would say by the that started with the American Psychiatric association, that has stigmatized the entire field. We are limiting the resources by which we could act. And another aspect of mental health is that we get to the source of the problems. Yes, he's acting as a dictator. Yes, he's taking away all these consumer rights and citizen rights, constitutional rights and human rights. But why is this occurring and where is the source of this occurring? How bad is it? Can we quantify clinically and can we intervene against it with the just proportions? Those are the kinds of things that mental health professionals can bring. Because this is what we do measure and deal with on a daily basis, no matter what the setting. So if we get to a level deeper than what we're seeing on the surface, then we will be able to meet the moment more effectively rather than just observing it and recording it.

Steve Scrovan (35:31)

It seems like this administration is grounded. And I'm talking about Vote Miller, Vance, Trump. It's all grounded in white supremacy and Christian nationalism. Would you consider white supremacy a mental impairment?

Dr. Bandy Lee (35:45)

It couples with certain, especially developmental impairments.

Steve Scrovan (35:50)

I mean, that irrational reaction to a demographic inevitability, that the dominant tribe is feeling threatened and so they are doing everything they can to control the levers of power that will keep them in dominance. And that is actually, under those circumstances, a rational reaction, as odious as it may seem.

Dr. Bandy Lee (36:12)

Well, that is what they would say. But if you go deeper, it will not really be about that. It will be about their feeling of their inability to feel that they belong, their inability to adapt to changing circumstances, their inability to respond productively to situations, but rather be attracted to and led by destructive, maladaptive and self destructive approaches. And that's what I would categorize as lacking in mental health. Regardless of ideology. It doesn't matter what ideology you attach to it. If one is mentally resourceful and psychologically well balanced, then they can find more productive solutions rather than destructive ones that lead to destructive policies that actually worsen the situation rather than improve it.

Ralph Nader (37:05)

Steve, I think elaborating what you're saying is that we're really talking about the most powerful person in the world and he's willing to use it regardless of legal and constitutional restraints or social norms. But the issue of social pathologies everywhere, it doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion. For example, the spread of gambling in the US now, where the company's promoting gambling among youngsters, especially sports gambling. And they say, you know, you've got the casino in your pocket and you can gamble on certain plays in certain games. And this is resulting in tremendous dislocation of these youngsters, some committing suicide and breaking up families. So you see, that's a social pathology and it's not linked to any ideology or political viewpoint. But I think this program is focusing on Trump and the enormous power that the Congress has given him and the courts have given him, especially the Supreme Court with its immunity decision in June 2024.

David Feldman (38:14)

David Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernay, is considered the father of public relations. And some would say he used the teachings of his uncle for bad tricking people into smoking cigarettes, getting us into wars, propaganda. So Trump, we all know, is in desperate need of psychiatric help. Do you ever wonder if he's actually getting psychiatric help not for his own well being, but in terms of how to control the masses. He seems psychologically savvy, doesn't he? Do you ever wonder if an evil psychiatrist or psychologist or someone schooled in Freud is helping him manipulate?

Dr. Bandy Lee (39:03)

Well, Adolf Hitler was said to be a seismograph of crowds. He could sense better what was happening psychologically with the crowds and how to manipulate them far better than anyone else could. In fact, psychologists and psychiatrists would struggle to keep up with especially psychopaths, who are especially skilled in imitating human emotions in order to present the perfect profile of a person for any kind of position or job or even the presidency. But none of those qualities are real. And so I would say he does not need psychiatrist or psychologist. He, in fact, would instinctively and has spent a lifetime honing those skills because he doesn't have the real. The actual qualities that most human beings have. What a psychopath lacks are empathy, compassion, a conscience, remorse, things that ordinary people have developed, he has not been able to develop. And that's why these personality disorders are so dangerous. And yes, and mental health professionals try to deal with these individuals, and it takes that level of training to be able to deal with them or even to recognize them. One needs not only to finish psychiatric training, but forensic psychiatric training. That is psychiatry at the interface of mental health and the law, and then additional training to be able to detect psychopaths because they are so skillful. But once you do, you recognize how dangerous they are. In fact, it's a regular feature of our dangerousness risk assessment, which is what we did on Donald Trump when we were recommending it for Judge von Merchand before his sentencing. Of course, we know what happened with that. The sentencing kept being delayed and the Supreme Court decision essentially annulled any kind of effect of his conviction.

Ralph Nader (41:09)

David, just taking off from your observation, there's no doubt there's a certain unparalleled genius in the cunning of Donald Trump and his understanding of. Of a large segment of the population in our country. I think he knew more about the susceptibility of tens of millions of voters, many of whom were susceptible enough to choose him as president, than all of us put together. For example, if we were asked 10 years ago that there's going to be a presidential candidate who was a flamboyant abuser of women and is being accused by numerous women of sexual assault, would he become nominated by a major party to be president? I think most of us say no. I think if we were asked, well, someone who's a failed businessman, especially a failed gambling czar, and has gone bankrupt as A technique of evading creditors and payments to workers and treatment of consumers. Would that person have been nominated by a major party? And I think most of us would say no. If we were asked, well, what about a candidate who's a daily liar and creates fantasies to replace realities and makes crazy promises about paradise on earth if he's elected? Would we think that millions of people would believe that? So let's give Donald Trump credit. He knew more about the weakness of our democratic society than all the political scientists put together and all of us put together because he was elected.

Dr. Bandy Lee (42:51)

That is exactly why we as mental health experts felt the need to come forward in the very beginning, because we don't think of this as simply a normal political situation. It goes beyond corruption, although those things serve as fertile ground for mental impairment to flourish. But ultimately, this is largely a mental health issue because of Trump contagion, that the mental impairment of one individual, by virtue of his position and influence, would come to influence society in ways that psychosocially, it would become impaired in rationality and ability to be informed or to even allow that information to matter. That has been greatly impaired by the mental health pandemic that I sometimes call it that Donald Trump unleashed on our society.

Ralph Nader (43:57)

What's interesting, Dr. Lee, is people who gave Trump a pass on all these and other negative attributes I just mentioned would never do that with a neighbor. They would never associate with a business partner who lied and who enriched himself unethically, who made promises that were obviously going to be broken to induce the person's advancement. They would never fraternize with a neighbor who had those characteristics. Yet when it comes to the most powerful person in their lives, the President, United States, who could deny them all kinds of conditions for a decent livelihood for themselves and their family, they accepted it. And so you got to credit his insight. And you remember once he said that he could, in the middle of Park Avenue, shoot someone and he wouldn't lose any of his voters. So he understood susceptibilities. He understood the psychology of many voters who were turned off by the Democratic Party, like blue collar workers who were betrayed by the Democratic Party. He understood the rootlessness and the lack of traditional allegiances and replaced his Persona in that vacuum. Mental health professionals need to recognize that and study that.

Dr. Bandy Lee (45:18)

Yes, we were hoping that he would become a subject of study, but that was quickly blocked off, as you know. But when he was making those comments, such as that he could shoot anyone on the street and not lose voters, that he himself was impressed at the power of his own pathology. And that is why mental symptoms cannot be diminished as simple debilitation. Some actually advance to the point where the person can become very powerful and very destructive.

Ralph Nader (45:51)

David and Steve, do you have any wind up comments before we conclude?

David Feldman (45:57)

What about fear of him as opposed to contagion? When you see people in the Republican Party who get in line, is it contagion or fear and ambition?

Ralph Nader (46:10)

I think what David is alluding to is what has happened again and again to get those extra votes in Congress on Trump's legislation. Physical threats by the network of Trumpsters around the country directed toward lawmakers and their families. And they've actually talked about it. Senator Tillis from North Carolina has mentioned that as well as other senators. So I think David's making an important point. What's the difference between contagious and fear?

Dr. Bandy Lee (46:39)

Well, for contagion to occur, there have to be three factors. There's the offending agent who is the primary person with the symptoms. There are those who are infected, such as his followers, who ordinarily we would think of it in terms of strength of immune system or resistance. And the third factor is the environment. So the threats and fear and actual consequences to those who do not capitulate, those would count as part of the environment that facilitates the contagion.

Ralph Nader (47:12)

Well, we're out of time. Thank you very much, Dr. Bandy Lee. And before we close, if you can give your substack contact once more to read more details about what Bandy Lee and her colleagues in the area of independent thinking, psychiatrists and psychologists are committing themselves to as citizens, not just professionals in terms of their duty to call out what they believe is dangerous, unstable behavior in the White House.

Dr. Bandy Lee (47:43)

Thank you very much, Ralph. Always a pleasure. My website again is bandilee.com b a n d y l e e.com and my substack is B A N D Y X L e e@substack.com.

Ralph Nader (48:01)

Thank you very much, Dr. Bandy Lee.

Dr. Bandy Lee (48:03)

Thank you.

Steve Scrovan (48:04)

Again, we've been speaking with Dr. Bandy Lee. We will link to her work@ralphnaderradiohour.com up next, we'll get Ralph's take on last week's no Kings rally. But first, let's check in with our corporate crime reporter, Russell Mulcaiber from the.

Russell Mokhiber (48:18)

National Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime report on MORNING minute for Friday, October 24, 2025. I'm Russell Mulcaiber. A new report from the Economic Policy Institute and the Century foundation details the Trump administration's unprecedented assault on independent agencies and the consequences for workers and the public. With the Supreme Court announcing it, we'll hear a case that could give Trump unchecked power over independent agencies. The report details the important role their independence has played in protecting the US Public and how their functions would be compromised if brought under the direct control of the Trump White House. Since taking office, President Trump has fired board members and commissioners of independent agencies, despite explicit legal prohibitions. He's politicized agencies rulemaking processes and brought the functions of certain agencies to a halt. For the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mulkhyber.

Steve Scrovan (49:18)

Thank you, Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman and Ralph. Ralph, this past week there was another no Kings rally which 7 million people estimated reported, which is 2 million more than the first no Kings rally. What is your take in general on what's going on there?

Ralph Nader (49:39)

I think it was an extraordinarily organizational achievement as we have tried to put on organized rallies over the years. This is really an enormous numerical achievement and it brought together people who cannot feel alone when they're part of mass rallies in 2,600 communities from Big cities to smaller towns. But having said that, I think they lost some opportunities. First of all, they should have called it, you're fired, no Kings, you're fired. There has to be an affirmative demand, and that was not part of the declaration, although there were signs up impeach and convict and stop fascist Trump and so forth in the various rallies. The second thing I would recommend if they do it again, is they hold up pictures of their senators and representatives who are knuckling under to Trump and abandoning their constitutional duties as members of the congressional branch. And third, and this is an amazing deficiency that applies to all progressive rallies. They could have easily raised millions of dollars and established a powerful lobbying force in Washington to pursue. After the rallies and the echoes of the chants evaporated, for example, they could say, pull out your phones. We want 100 lobbyists full time on Congress to hold Trump accountable and send in your contributions. Well, you know, with 7 million people, even if it's a $5 average, that's $35 million. And they would have to prepare the audience for it and make sure it's honest and accountable and open. But then, you see, they would have a tremendous impact on Congress and rally after rally over the years. Progressives have not done that. When we had the anti nuclear rallies in the 1970s, this is before, obviously, the Internet, we would pass around Bags for people to throw in, five or ten dollars. And we raised substantial money to support the anti nuclear drive after the chants and the crowds dissipated. And then the final bit of praise I have is they've actually innovated, starting in Portland with inflatable animals, you know, and that has flummoxed the aggressive ice agents. They don't know how to deal with that because, you know, you can't really accuse someone who's dressed up as a flamingo or as a duck. It's pretty hard to accuse them of aggressive interference with the ice operations. So it's now spread all over the country. And I want to applaud that innovation, which we need many different innovations in the operation of mass rallies in an Internet age.

Steve Scrovan (52:37)

Yes, it's hard.

Ralph Nader (52:38)

What's your response?

Steve Scrovan (52:39)

Well, it's hard to wrestle down Snuffleucabus and handcuff them on the ground.

David Feldman (52:44)

Steve, you were saying that this has been done before.

Steve Scrovan (52:48)

Well, yes, Ralph, you know about inflatables and your colleague Gene still, who use them in rallies, so.

Ralph Nader (52:55)

But they didn't have human beings.

Steve Scrovan (52:57)

Right, Right. So specifically, when they are at these ice detention centers.

David Feldman (53:04)

Yeah.

Steve Scrovan (53:04)

Being naked on bicycles and dressing up in inflatable and other costumes kind of makes it ridiculous to crack down on them.

Ralph Nader (53:14)

What do you think, David?

David Feldman (53:16)

Well, I almost was moved to tears when I saw the frog standing up to the ice agents. Not to trivialize the man who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square.

Dr. Bandy Lee (53:27)

The.

David Feldman (53:27)

But it was iconic and it kind of revealed that these silly costumes are no less silly than what these ice agents wear. I think it's been a stroke of genius and I've been humbled by it. And they remind all of us that there's room for joy in a protest, that there's catharsis and joy.

Ralph Nader (53:50)

And there's also room, David, for these rallies having legs and building lobbies as a result of the massive congregation of people who want a different kind of society and world in peace and justice. And that is where these mass rallies have failed. I think the organizers think that there would be too many suspicions and accusations and how the money is used. But I think they haven't paid enough attention to how to collect that money in a trustworthy and open manner in order to build the lobbying force days and weeks after the marches. And then you really get an escalating intensity that can result in real change.

Steve Scrovan (54:34)

Well, they're already accusing George Soros, who is the go to Bete Noire for the right of financing, of course, with no evidence. And claiming that he, you know, his organization is paying for this. The signs.

David Feldman (54:48)

There is financing behind this. You can't have 300,000 people show up in Times Square without money being spent to make sure they show up and they're safe. Right, Ralph? I mean, there is financing behind.

Ralph Nader (55:04)

Oh, no, of course. And the first big no Kings rally was heavily funded by a Walton Air. The Walton family of Walmart.

David Feldman (55:13)

I think it's Chrissy Walton.

Ralph Nader (55:15)

Yeah. And that was open. She was not secretive about it.

Steve Scrovan (55:18)

Yeah.

David Feldman (55:19)

The Rockefeller foundation, the Ford Foundation, Warren Buffett and George Soros. I think he kicks in a couple of million dollars. But the Tea Party was getting funded by the Koch brothers. Jane Mayer writes about this over at the New Yorker. Both are somewhat astroturf. It's politics. You can't do politics without money.

Ralph Nader (55:41)

Exactly. You have to hire organizers. You have to prepare the sites. You have to deal with the law enforcement. You have to create the evocative placards and messaging. You have to provide for security. You have to provide for amenities and necessities for people who might have emergencies. Of course, the other side knows how to raise big money. But it's rather new for these progressive rallies on the scale of the Walton eras. And we hope it continues.

Steve Scrovan (56:13)

And when it does, we'll cover it again. So thank you, Ralph, for that. I want to thank our guest again, Dr. Bandy Lee. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show for you podcast listeners, stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap Up Featuring Francesco de Santis with In Case youe Haven't Heard. A transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted.

David Feldman (56:36)

To order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. It's at Capitol HillCitizen.com and remember to.

Steve Scrovan (56:45)

Continue the conversation after each program. You can go to the comments section@ralphnaderradiohour.com and post a comment or question on this week's episode.

David Feldman (56:54)

The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt. Hannah Feldman and Matthew Marin are. Executive producer is Alan Minsky.

Steve Scrovan (57:02)

Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon.

David Feldman (57:08)

Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph.

Ralph Nader (57:12)

Thank you, everybody.

John Crumshow (57:45)

This is John Crumshow with a special politics or pedagogy education report. On the line is Tom Radzio. He's an environmental scientist who is going to talk with us about the importance of science. Welcome to politics or pedagogy.

Tom Radzio (57:59)

Hi John. Great to be here.

John Crumshow (58:00)

You have a special interest in science and you got into the field because you felt there was something about science that spoke to you.

Tom Radzio (58:10)

Yeah, I started college as a business major and took up an intro class in biology. And what really pulled me into it was the way the teacher spoke about science really carefully and with really emphasis on trying to get at the truth of things. Just really careful. I'd always been interested in animals. I spent a lot of time playing in creeks, chasing turtles, fish whatever I could around my house. But I didn't really connect it to a career until I had this professor.

John Crumshow (58:36)

So what is it he said that inspired you?

Tom Radzio (58:39)

It wasn't so much any one thing he said, as I recall, but it was just a way he talked about it. In a world where a lot of information gets thrown around, it felt to me that the information was being put out very carefully. There was a certain method to it, and it turns out, you know, it was a scientific method was behind a lot of what we learned in that class.

John Crumshow (59:01)

Now in science you're used to having people disagree with you and having to prove your point.

Tom Radzio (59:06)

Oh yeah, yeah. I mean, you go into things generally with the expectation that you're initial idea is going to change. And sometimes it can change a lot. And that can be the exciting thing. You know, you may have some data in front of you and you think you know where you're going to go with it, but the data is taking you in a different direction and the story becomes much more interesting. You often work with a lot of different collaborators and there isn't a right or wrong answer oftentimes. That's not to say that things aren't fact based, but things can be nuanced in how you look at them. But ultimately what we're trying to do is we're trying to find that signal in the data that drives us in the direction of new understanding that other people can build upon and possibly in the future refute and change. So you definitely have to or you benefit a lot from not being tied to your idea.