Trump’s future foretold

President Trump lands near the White House on Saturday night, joined by golf greats Gary Player and Bryson DeChambeau plus DeChambeau’s girlfriend, model Mikayla Demaiter. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images President Trump feels and acts invincible: He acts on whims, however he pleases, precedent and restraints be damned, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in a “Behind the Curtain” column. But Trump’s vincibility is being exposed. Courts restrain him more. GOP candidates criticize him more. The public turns on him more. Why it matters: Time, power and support wane for all lame-duck presidents. But it’s new for Trump and will only grow more true and more torturous, assuming Democrats win Capitol power in the midterms, 43 days from now. This is what the beginning of the end looks like, which is what scares Trump advisers and confidants most. Trump often retreats to his worst impulses when he feels most powerless. That helps explain Trump’s decision to ban three news organizations from the White House for the sin of reporting what he doesn’t like. Trump lashed out at the outlets (which vow court challenges) after a weeklong string of losses: The Fed raised interest rates against his will … The Supreme Court rejected his plan to restrict mail-in ballots … A federal judge blocked him from putting his name on the Kennedy Center … A Florida Republican, Rep. María Elvira Salazar, bought a campaign ad saying ICE has gone too far and Hispanic voters “feel betrayed” … A gallon of gas was up $1.24 from a year ago … Diesel set a record. How Trump’s brain works: The skeleton key for unlocking Trump’s mind is understanding that he thinks constantly about exercising power, and believes power is a zero-sum game — a winner and a loser. Exercising power is the explanation for banning the media, for unpopular tariffs, for bombing Iran, for demolishing the East Wing, for obsessing about a new ballroom and gilding D.C. Trump announced at 7:30 a.m. yesterday that he wants his planned golden arch to have G.I. Joe-style capabilities “to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.” There’s a method to it all: If the Arc de Trump is for national security, the courts and Congress will have a tougher time reining in the executive. Later yesterday morning, the president of the United States decided to engagement-farm on Truth Social by boosting a poll asking whether people think AI should be rebranded as either “Superior Intelligence” or “Extreme Intelligence.” (You know he’s gonna pick “superior,” which of course will do nothing to calm Americans creeped out by the technology.) Expect more of this. Trump will act out to exert what control he can because he’s lost the political argument — if not the military one — as his Iran war constantly puts the lie to his claims, raises fuel costs and, in tandem with his unpopular tariffs, saddles voters with inflation. The Fed’s decision to hike interest rates can be read as a vote of no confidence in the president’s economic agenda. The decision could raise mortgage rates, already at a 19-month high. Behind the scenes: Trump advisers and confidants describe him as generally in a good mood. But some privately confess he can get too cranky too quickly sometimes and that he’s showing his 80 years on Earth. Senior administration officials, steeled by seasoned vets accustomed to the wild ride on the Trump crazy train, are officially acting as if it’s just another day on the tracks. To them, Trump should ban more news organizations that agitate him; the Fed rate hikes aren’t his fault (it’s somehow Joe Biden’s); the president will exert power as he sees fit; and his ballroom obsession is charming. “No Panicans Allowed,” one official, using the Trumpworld version of Democrats’ “bedwetters,” told Axios’ Marc Caputo. Between the lines: House Dems can practically taste the majority, and they’re showing signs of just how much they’ll investigate Trump’s administration and family. As is customary, staff is leaving as Trump approaches his final midterm. It’s unclear who’ll come after and how experienced they’ll be. You can bank on this: Trump will issue blanket pardons to those who stay and those he perceives as loyal. Podcaster Katie Miller, a Trump 1.0 vet and wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, wrote Saturday on X in response to a post about looming pardons: “After the first Trump administration, my family spent money we did not have on lawyers because of multiple partisan Democrat led investigations into President Trump.” “I watched as many of my friends also had no idea how to pay expensive legal bills because they simply served their country,” she added. “You can’t convince me Democrats won’t do this again.”As the first president who was impeached twice, Trump began war-gaming last year for an impeachment fight in 2027-28. As long as the GOP maintains Senate control or as long as there isn’t the threat of removal by a two-thirds Senate vote after an impeachment, Trump is signaling he’s ready for battle. “The president can count to 67,” a longtime adviser told Caputo. “And he has bigger balls than anyone in D.C. “The bottom line: Yes, Trump commands loyalty or at least blind silence from most elected Republicans. They fear him. But with each passing day, Democrats, the courts, critics — even some congressional Republicans — feel more capable of restraining Trump and are starting to think about what comes after him.Share this column … Axios’ Marc Caputo contributed reporting.

SEP21

Choose another dateOK

September

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	1	2	3	4	5

1780

Benedict Arnold commits treason

HISTORY.com Editors

Getty Images

Published: November 24, 2009Last Updated: September 16, 2025

On September 21, 1780, during the American Revolution, American General Benedict Arnold meets with British Major John Andre to discuss handing over West Point to the British, in return for the promise of a large sum of money and a high position in the British army. The plot was foiled and Arnold, a former American hero, became synonymous with the word “traitor.”

Arnold was born into a well-respected family in Norwich, Connecticut, on January 14, 1741. He apprenticed with an apothecary and was a member of the militia during the French and Indian War (1754-1763). He later became a successful trader and joined the Continental Army when the Revolutionary War broke out between Great Britain and its 13 American colonies in 1775. When the war ended in 1783, the colonies had won their independence from Britain and formed a new nation, the United States.

Bet You Didn’t Know: Founding Fathers

Our Founding Fathers were responsible for a lot more than the Declaration of Independence. Learn about their legacy of innovation.

1:25m watch

During the war, Benedict Arnold proved himself a brave and skillful leader, helping Ethan Allen’s troops capture Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 and then participating in the unsuccessful attack on British Quebec later that year, which earned him a promotion to brigadier general. Arnold distinguished himself in campaigns at Lake Champlain, Ridgefield and Saratoga, and gained the support of George Washington. However, Arnold had enemies within the military and in 1777, five men of lesser rank were promoted over him. Over the course of the next few years, Arnold married for a second time and he and his new wife lived a lavish lifestyle in Philadelphia, accumulating substantial debt. The debt and the resentment Arnold felt over not being promoted faster were motivating factors in his choice to become a turncoat.

In 1780, Arnold was given command of West Point, an American fort on the Hudson River in New York (and future home of the U.S. military academy, established in 1802). Arnold contacted Sir Henry Clinton, head of the British forces, and proposed handing over West Point and his men. On September 21 of that year, Arnold met with Major John Andre and made his traitorous pact. However, the conspiracy was uncovered and Andre was captured and executed. Arnold, the former American patriot, fled to the enemy side and went on to lead British troops in Virginia and Connecticut. He later moved to England, though he never received all of what he’d been promised by the British. He died in London on June 14, 1801.

Timeline

Also on This Day in History

Discover more of the major events, famous births, notable deaths and everything else history-making that happened on September 21st

Know Your Drugs

• About
• Consent
• Question
• Research
• Report
• Alternatives
• Talk
• Misdiagnosis
• Polypharmacy
• Tapering
• Presentation
• Contact
• Donate

IT COULD BE A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH

Adverse Drug Reactions are a Leading Cause of Death

©2026. All rights reserved.

DonateDonor Login

English

Mad in America SCIENCE, PSYCHIATRY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Clancy’s Lawyer Blew the Chance for Lindsay to Go Free

David Carmichael

September 15, 2026

In my July 17, 2026 post “In the Lindsay Clancy Case, Polypharmacy Will Be on Trial,” I included a question that I hoped the jury in Plymouth County, Massachusetts would ultimately address:

Is there any possibility that Lindsay Clancy, known by her friends and co-workers as a loving mother, would have killed her children if not for the intoxicating effects of the multiple psychiatric drugs she was on?

In 2023, I talked with Lindsay and her now ex-husband Patrick, and they’re both adamant that their three children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan would still be alive if she never took that first pill, Zoloft, which was prescribed by a psychiatrist to help her deal with anxiety about returning to work as a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital after her maternity leave ended.

Lindsay and Patrick strongly believe that the side effects of Zoloft, and side effects from 10 other different medications Lindsay was prescribed over the four months leading up to homicides, caused her to take the lives of their three young children on January 24, 2023.

On July 27, I was at Lindsay’s first-degree murder trial for the opening statements by Jennifer Sprague, assistant district attorney, and Lindsay’s defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington. The number of prescription drugs Lindsay was taking in the four months leading up to the homicides was an important part of both statements, and central to Reddington’s opening.

During the trial, however, Reddington didn’t call a psychopharmacologist or neurotoxicologist as an expert witness to put polypharmacy on trial, so no credible evidence was presented to support an involuntary intoxication acquittal. The only toxicologist called as a witness was by the prosecution, who talked about the drugs that were in Lindsay’s blood at the time of her arrest.

The involuntary intoxication defense offered Clancy the possibility of a not-guilty verdict that would let her return to the community, and without state oversight. A successful involuntary intoxication defense is a “complete acquittal,” as the intoxication is judged to have been a transient event, with the jury thus finding that the defendant did not act with intent. In contrast, a successful not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense will then lead to commitment to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation and treatment, without any specific end date for that commitment.

On August 20, after the jury left the courtroom, Reddington tried to influence Judge William Sullivan to include an involuntary intoxication option in his instructions to the jury. Sprague, who spoke first, argued against including that instruction:

Sprague: “In terms of the criminal responsibility instruction, we’re asking that the instruction regarding intoxication not be given because from our perspective there’s been no evidence of intoxication by drugs and/or alcohol during the killings.”

Reddington: “I don’t know if the government has been listening to the same evidence in this case. This is clearly an involuntary intoxication defense at least as far as the judge’s charge to the jury based upon the evidence that’s been presented, whether or not we would argue is the over-prescription of the medications, whether or not it’s the side effects of the medications, whether or not it’s the titration or the termination or the immediate cessation of the medications against what normal medical advice would be. All of those factors contributed to the state of mind of Ms. Clancy that was expressed to a lot of people.”

To support his involuntary intoxication argument, I thought Reddington was going to call a psychopharmacologist or neurotoxicologist as a witness, and then, on August 21, he rested his defense case. I was then hoping that he was being strategic and would call a psychopharmacologist or neurotoxicologist as a surrebuttal witness on August 26, and that didn’t happen.

On August 27, the day that the 12-person jury (9 women, 3 men) started deliberating, Judge Sullivan provided this instruction to them, which didn’t include an involuntary intoxication option:

“In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill the deceased, and whether she formed the intent with deliberate premeditation, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment or was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs. A defendant may form the required intent and act with deliberate premeditation even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs.”

This instruction prevented the jury from considering the verdict of involuntary intoxication, which could have acquitted Lindsay.

During his closing argument on August 27, Reddington referred to one of his expert witnesses, Dr. Donald Condie, who is a forensic psychiatrist, also as a psychopharmacologist. From what I could find, Dr. Condie has never completed a fellowship, conducted research or published articles in psychopharmacology. He was not a credible expert witness on psychopharmacology, in my opinion.

Based on my understanding of Massachusetts law, if Reddington had called a psychopharmacologist or neurotoxicologist as an expert witness, Judge Sullivan would have had to include the option of an involuntary intoxication acquittal in his instructions to the jury because there would have been credible evidence, even if the prosecution had its own expert witness with an opposing view.

On September 4, after the jury had been deliberating for seven days and more than 38 hours, Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial because of a hung jury; 11-1 in favor of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

If there is a second trial for Lindsay, which we’ll probably find out about on September 29 at a court hearing, I hope Reddington or another trial lawyer, if she decides to change lawyers, puts a psychopharmacologist or neurotoxicologist on the stand.

Only with a credible expert witness will there be credible evidence.

***

Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

Previous articleThe Hearing Voices Movement: A Movement of Stories, a History of the Movement

Next articleWhen Stopping Prescription Drugs Is Hard: Alicia Martin and the TaperMate Story

David Carmichael

David Carmichael took the life of his 11-year-old son, Ian, in 2004, three weeks after starting the SSRI antidepressant Paxil. He was judged not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. In May 2023, David compared his story to Lindsay Clancy’s in the MIA blog post SSRIs, Lindsay Clancy, and Me. In October 2023, he provided some of Lindsay’s family, friends, former colleagues, and former neighbours with insight into his homicidal psychotic episode during a presentation in Duxbury, Massachusetts. David currently manages the Know Your Drugs global awareness campaign.

By

Jennifer Hough

–

September 13, 2026

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on our affiliate site, Mad in Ireland. Mad in America will be publishing further blogs about the ODDESSI results in the coming days.

Anon-medical approach to mental health treatment—Open Dialogue—can reduce hospital admissions and improve satisfaction with care, new research has found.

The ODDESSI trial, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, involved 494 people presenting in crisis to mental health services in England. It compared Open Dialogue with treatment as usual and found that people’s reported recovery, quality of life and satisfaction with services improved with OD.

The findings are from the first randomised controlled trial of Open Dialogue, a model of mental health care developed in Finland which places relationships, continuity and shared decision-making at the centre of care.

Researchers found that people receiving Open Dialogue had more than three times higher odds of avoiding psychiatric inpatient admission altogether during a two-year follow-up period.

They were also less likely to be referred back to crisis care or secondary mental health services and reported better recovery, health-related quality of life and satisfaction with services.

Open Dialogue differs substantially from conventional mental health service provision as it takes an approach involving the person, members of their social network such as family or friends, and OD practitioners who remain involved throughout their care. Meetings aim to develop a shared understanding of what the person is experiencing, while supporting personal agency and maintaining important relationships.

The study’s findings are particularly significant given concerns about the potentially traumatic and coercive nature of psychiatric hospital care.

In a press release, Professor Russell Razzaque, Consultant Psychiatrist at North East London NHS Foundation Trust and a co-author of the study, said currently mental health services are increasingly characterised by a “revolving door” of crisis care and hospital admissions.

He said that when care is structured around relationships and shared decision-making, people report better recovery and quality of life while making “far less use of inpatient or crisis services.”

The study does, however, contain some caveats. OD did not perform better than treatment as usual when comparing time to relapse following initial recovery. Relapse was determined to mean the return of significant symptoms and deterioration of social functioning

Dr. Tomi Bergström is a prominent Finnish clinical psychologist, researcher, and a leading expert on the Open Dialogue (OD) approach to psychiatry. He recently published an invited commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry regarding the ODDESSI trial.

He contends that “although no statistically significant difference was observed in the prespecified primary outcome of time to relapse, in the 2-year follow-up, Open Dialogue was associated with lower probabilities of psychiatric inpatient admission and re-referral to secondary mental health services, as well as better self-rated recovery, health-related quality of life, service satisfaction, and fewer adverse events.”

He further wrote that while the trial used time to relapse, which is a well-established outcome in psychiatric research and was important for the trial’s credibility within so-called mainstream psychiatry, “its construct validity as the primary endpoint for evaluating Open Dialogue deserves further consideration.”

It’s also important to note that the UK version of Open Dialogue tested in the trial differed from the model developed in Finland. For example, it did not include family interventions or some psychological interventions that are incorporated into Open Dialogue practice elsewhere. Family and friends were also involved in network meetings less frequently than researchers had intended.

Also quoted in the press release, Rachel Banister, who sought OD support after years of trying to obtain appropriate help for her daughters, described conventional services as leaving her family excluded from decisions while her daughter repeatedly had to retell her experiences to different professionals.

“Open Dialogue has completely changed that. For the first time, we were all in the room together, being listened to and heard. It allowed us to be honest, to be upset, and to start understanding each other in a way we never had before,” she said.

Researchers are now working to expand access to Open Dialogue in the UK while continuing to examine its effectiveness, particularly its potential to reduce reliance on psychiatric inpatient beds.

***

Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

Previous articleMental Health in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Next articleInvisible by Jasmine Marshall

Jennifer Hough

Jennifer Hough is a PhD researcher at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway, where she is examining coercion in EU asylum law. Previously, she worked as a journalist for 15 years, writing extensively on mental health, human rights and social issues. She is a writer and editor with Mad in Ireland, where she continues to challenge dominant approaches to mental distress and psychiatric practice. Her engagement with these issues is deeply personal, having lost her sister following years within a system centred on psychiatric labels, diagnoses and medication. Her aim is to challenge systems and practices that subvert people’s human rights, dignity and agency, and to examine how such practices are sanctioned and legitimised through law.

Crude has pushed back above $100 a barrel, but diesel has surged past $200 in the U.S. and Europe.

The gap between the price of oil and the price of the fuel made from it has become huge. And that’s because the problem isn’t only oil supply anymore. It’s refining. Russian refinery output is down around 30% from a year ago after repeated Ukrainian drone attacks.

Middle Eastern diesel exports fell to roughly a quarter of their prewar level by August, while China has also cut refinery production and restricted fuel exports.

Put it all together and global production of refined fuels was more than 4 million barrels a day lower in August than a year earlier. So even if there is enough crude around, the world is struggling to turn enough of it into diesel, petrol and jet fuel and then get those fuels where they’re needed.

That’s how you end up with crude around $100 to $110 while diesel blows through $200. And diesel is a particularly painful place to have a shortage. It keeps trucks moving, powers industry and is used for heating, accounting for roughly a third of global oil demand. Source: Financial Times / Writer: Julie

2 of 1,947

Stay Mentally Sharp as You Age — Practical Memory-Boosting Tips from Harvard Doctors

Inbox

Harvard Medical School <healthbeat@mail.health.harvard.edu> Unsubscribe	Sun, Sep 20, 8:14 PM (11 hours ago)
to me

Discover the latest strategies for fighting age-related memory loss Dear Reader, Have you ever walked into a room and forgotten why you went in? Misplaced your keys — or struggled to recall a name that was just on the tip of your tongue? If so, you’re not alone. And more importantly, you’re not powerless. Thanks to years of groundbreaking research into how the brain works, we now know a great deal about how memory changes with age — and, even better, what we can do about it. The experts at Harvard Medical School have gathered the most powerful discoveries into one practical guide: Improving Memory — a Special Health Report designed to help you fight age-related memory decline and stay sharp for years to come. With it, you’ll learn how to: Sharpen long-term memory with an easy “rehearsal” trick. Make names and faces unforgettable (Using THIS technique is like hitting the “save button” in your mind. Find lost items faster with the “Look, Snap, Connect” technique. Memorize long lists with an ingenious reading method that “locks in” key information. Eat for a healthier brain with dietary discoveries that really work/ Hidden causes of dementia Six reversible causes your doctor may not have mentioned. Improve cognitive performance with simple lifestyle tweaks Discover which medications may affect memory — and possible substitutes And more!LEARN MORE When is memory loss normal — and when is it not?By age 50, many of us notice changes in our powers of recall. If you’ve wondered whether memory lapses are part of aging or a possible sign of something more serious, this guide offers expert insight to help you find the answers you need. You’ll discover:How to distinguish age-related memory changes from more concerning symptoms. What doctors look for when evaluating memory problems. The types of tests used and how to prepare for them. Key differences between Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementiaThe latest treatments for memory loss—what they can and can’t do. Don’t accept memory decline as inevitable. Your brain is constantly changing. With the right support, you can give it every chance to stay strong, sharp, and resilient.Let the doctors at Harvard Medical School be your guide. Improving Memory is filled with useful, easy-to-follow advice you can start using right away.Order your copy now, and you’ll save 30% off the cover price!Sincerely,Howard E. LeWine, M.D. Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing LEARN MORE & GET STARTED TODAY!

NEW: The Trump administration is preparing sweeping sanctions against the International Criminal Court that could severely restrict its access to the global financial system.

The measures would ban most transactions with the ICC after a six- to seven-month grace period and could prevent it from conducting U.S.-dollar transactions.

The move would go much further than existing sanctions on individual ICC officials and follows the court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Marco Rubio has said the U.S. could dismantle the court “brick by brick,” arguing that prosecutions of officials from nonmember states threaten U.S. sovereignty.

A decision could come as soon as this week around the UN General Assembly.

Source: WSJ

https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/2101749031408160779/video/1

https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/2101763655876423936/video/1