Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee has long been a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump, going so far as to tell Capitol Hill lawmakers in 2018 that the then president was close to a mental breakdown.
However, some of her activities were too much for her superiors at Yale University and resulted in her being removed from the institution. What’s more, a federal judge just said that she isn’t coming back.
Bizarre claims
According to Hot Air, U.S. District Judge Sarah Merriam moved last week to dismiss Lee’s lawsuit for wrongful termination.
While Lee was a voluntary, unpaid staff member, she nevertheless sued Yale in March of last year, claiming that her dismissal represented a breach of contract while also violating her right to free speech and professional obligations.
In 2017, Lee wrote a book titled, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”
“Trump is now the most powerful head of state in the world, and one of the most impulsive, arrogant, ignorant, disorganized, chaotic, nihilistic, self-contradictory, self-important, and self-serving,” she argued.
What’s more, Lee has also publicly gone after the former president’s supporters, accusing them suffering from “mass psychosis” and being prone to violence.
Supporters of Donald Trump who have adopted his delusions, paranoia, violence-proneness, and entitlement are likely suffering from shared psychosis, which has now turned into mass psychosis. Hence, as with any severe psychopathology, those afflicted will deny what they have.
— Bandy X Lee, MD, MDiv (@BandyXLee1) January 2, 2022
“Armchair psychiatry”
Hot Air noted that Lee was reprimanded by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for diagnosing people she had never met, an example of “armchair psychiatry.”
Lee was also admonished by Dr. John Krystal, who served as chair of Yale University’s Psychiatry Department. The Blaze reported that Kyrstal sent Lee a letter saying her actions were unacceptable.
“I want to emphasize that you did not make these statements as a layperson offering a political judgment; you made them explicitly in your professional capacity as a psychiatrist and on the basis of your psychiatric knowledge and judgment,” he wrote.
“For that reason, the committee decided it was appropriate to consider how these statements reflected your ability to teach trainees.”