Didn't read the OP (on ignore) but the article seems to be a violation of the Goldwater Rule. may give opinions on public figures The original piece in Fact magazine which prompted the introduction of the Goldwater rule. Likely costing Barry Goldwater a large number of potential votes, this practice was later deemed unethical by the APA. The Goldwater rule is section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,[1] which states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.[2] It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[3][4] The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater".[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about US Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[6][7] Goldwater sued magazine editor Ralph Ginzburg and managing editor Warren Boroson, and in Goldwater v. Ginzburg (July 1969) received damages totaling $75,000 ($512,000 today).[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule
Honestly, if the dems are actually considering nomination Biden, Sanders or Warren, do they really want to start a pissing contest about mental health?
Goldwater was dangerous... Not because he was going to nuke somebody. Not because he was crazy or anything untoward. Goldwater was dangerous because he would have scared the living shit out of the chinese and russians. That is dangerous. I'm a Goldwater arch-conservative.