Connect with us

Trump

Trump Medical Records Show Worrisome Addiction to Drug

Kurt Eichenwald

Published

on

The following text was removed by Newsweek in a recent article about Trump — and “hidden” by their editors for some reason. We are publishing it in full, as we feel its information that is urgent for the public to know — and fair use.

According to medical records obtained by Newsweek but not published, Trump “metabolic imbalance” in 1982 by Dr. Joseph Greenberg, a Manhattan endocrinologist. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know the full meaning of Greenberg’s findings. “Metabolic imbalance” is a catch -all phrase for different conditions and, in itself, is equivalent of a diagnosis of “heart problem.” There are electrolyte insufficiencies, anaerobic imbalances, acid imbalances, and an assortment of related disorders that can have serious health consequences. According to a 2007 peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Managed Care, patients with underlying mental illnesses have a higher incidence of this syndrome.

During the campaign, Trump released a letter from Dr. Harold Bornstein stating that he had been the then- candidate’s physician since 1980 and that there had been no significant medical problems throughout that time. The letter did not reveal that Trump had a second doctor during that time who had diagnosed him with a potentially serious condition.

The medical records and interviews with former officials with the Trump Organization reveal that Greenberg gave Trump a prescription for amphetamine derivatives in 1982 to treat his metabolic problem; the records show that Trump continued taking the drugs for a number of years and the former officials said that Trump stopped using them in 1990 at the latest.

The derivatives were diethylpropion, known under its brand name as tenuate dospan. These drugs are designed for short-term use; studies have concluded that patients can avoid developing a dependence on the drug if they take it for 25 weeks or less. But Trump continued downing the pills for years. According to two people -someone who said Trump would consider him a friend and a former Trump executive – the then-real estate developer boasted that the diethylpropion gave him enormous energy and helped him concentrate. A former Trump executive claimed to have picked up the medication while running errands for the boss. This person said the prescription, for 75 milligrams of diethylpropion a day, was filled at least for a time at a Duane Reade drugstore on 57th Street in Manhattan, a few blocks from Trump Tower. The executive said, like many celebrities, Trump used an alias for the prescription.

According to the Toxicology Data Network at the National Institutes of Health, diethylpropion has a high risk of dependency and chronic abuse- such as taking it for years – can cause delusions, paranoia, and hyperactivity. Studies in medical journals also report it can result in sleeplessness and impulse control problems, characteristics Trump demonstrated throughout the campaign and in the weeks since his inauguration

Hope Hicks, a White House spokeswoman, acknowledged that Trump used them as diet pills for a few days in the early 1980s. However, the medical records contradict the assertion of the length of time Trump used the drugs and photographs of Trump from 1982 show him to be quite slender. In a telephone call from Newsweek , Bornstein, Trump’s current doctor, said he could only answer questions if I could identify the location of Mount Sinai.

Assuming he was referring to the world- renowned hospital, I replied “Manhattan.” He said that was incorrect, and asked the question again.

I asked if he meant the actual Mount Sinai and he said he had not specified anything. I replied Mount Sinai was in Egypt, in the Sinai Peninsula. He said that was wrong and hung up. (While Mount Sinai is in Egypt, the location of the Mount Sinai described in the Bible as the location where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, if that is what Bornstein meant, is the subject of debate among religious scholars.)

According to the former Trump executives and the person Trump considers a friend, his drug use was widely discussed within the company as symptoms of possible abuse began to emerge. Trump had always been aggressive and sometimes brutal in business as well as loose with the truth, but in the late 1980s, things had become much worse. While former employees said he had often been thoughtful and caring to his staff, he suddenly exhibited abusive behavior that at times seemed irrational. His self-aggrandizement grew to delusions of grandeur, his thin skin thinned more, his decisions grew more reckless. While he had always been a liar when it was convenient, he sputtered greater numbers of falsehoods at an alarming rate and seemed to believe them. When previously he would speak in sexist ways that were fairly typical in businesses during the early 1980s, toward the end of the decade he seemed to have no filter and openly said far more inappropriate things about women.

The worst impact of this recklessness may have been on his business; before the late 1980s, Trump usually focused on one major project at a time to ensure everything met his exacting standards. By the end of the decade, his reckless shopping spree was legion: he borrowed billions to open one Atlantic City casino after another, launching another one before any had turned a profit and ultimately creating a business model where he was competing with himself. As the scaffolding under his gaming business started collapsing, he borrowed even more money to buy his own airline. All of those late-1980s businesses flopped, sending Trump companies into multiple bankruptcies.

Kurt Eichenwald is a New York Times bestselling author of three books. He previously worked for twenty years at the Times as a investigative reporter, columnist and senior writer. He is a two-time winner of the George Polk Award for excellence in journalism and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2000 and 2002. His second book, The Informant, was called “one of the best nonfiction books of the decade” by The New York Times Book Review and made into a major motion picture starring Matt Damon. He lives in Dallas with his wife and three children.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trump

Trump Ordered Melania to Make Salads for Clemson Players

Polipace Staff

Published

on

President Donald Trump says he had ordered Melania Trump to make Salads for the hungry Clemson football players salads prepared by the first lady but decided to purchase them McDonald’s Hamburgers instead when he realized it would be more expensive to provide fresh food.

Trump paid for the $2,000 of fast food to the Clemson Tigers when the 2018 College Football Playoff champions visited the White House on Monday evening.

“We ordered American fast food. Paid for by me. Lots of hamburgers, lots of pizza, I think they’d like it better than anything we could give,” Trump told reporters as he arrived at the White House after an out-of-state speech.

“We have some very large people that like eating, so I think we’re gonna have a little fun,” Trump claimed.

President Trump later teased in his remarks that the players “wiped out more food than any human has ever seen before.”

Continue Reading

Trump

Crazy Evidence that Trump is Working with Russia

Will Bunch

Published

on

The Wall Street Journal’s influential editorial board is known for being hard on presidents … OK, just the even-numbered ones, in recent years. That would be Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The bible of American finance — whose conservative editorial writers never met a corporate tax cut they didn’t like, or a Democrat that they did — could be ruthless toward the 42nd and 44th presidents, even encouraging some of the loopier conspiracy theories of the Whitewater era.

That’s why it was so jarring last week to see the Rupert Murdoch-owned broadsheet publish an editorial stating, “We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President” — when that president is a Republican, Donald Trump. The WSJ — which maybe isn’t as pro-Trump as that diner in southern Ohio that the New York Times has reported from 6,784 times now, but which generally likes POTUS 45 as long as he’s reducing marginal tax rates or dropping napalm on the Environmental Protection Agency — ripped the current commander in chief in a piece headlined, “Trump’s Cracked Afghan History.”

Yes, it’s a little weird that an editorial board that was nonplussed (or sometimes mildly “concerned”) about Trump’s 7,000-plus other lies, firing of Jim Comey, shredding of the emoluments clause, etc., etc., would wig out about the president’s strange thoughts on an invasion exactly 40 years ago by a country, the USSR, that technically doesn’t exist. But anticommunism both was, and is, central to the Wall Street Journal brand. Let’s hear them out on this one.

The editorial bashed Trump for asserting that Leonid Brezhnev’s USSR was justified in 1979 when it invaded Afghanistan, a move that was so vehemently opposed by the U.S. government that Jimmy Carter imposed an Olympic boycott and reinstituted draft registration for 18-year-olds. That, the Journal argued, was “ridiculous, adding: “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defining event in the Cold War, making clear to all serious people the reality of the communist Kremlin’s threat.”

Here’s the thing. Trump says crazy stuff every day of his presidency. But the Journal was absolutely right to home in on the weirdness and disturbing nature of this particular statement. For one thing, it’s surprising that the usually assertively anti-intellectual Trump has deep — albeit historically incorrect — thoughts about foreign policy in the late ’70s and ’80s, the decade he was busy trying to promote Herschel Walker and bed Marla Maples. Second, not one other person on this side of the Atlantic Ocean holds that notion advanced by the president: that the USSR invasion of Afghanistan was justified or was about anything other than world domination.

But now here’s where it gets much, much weirder — and much more disturbing. Because it turns out there is one prominent set of voices who — just in the last few months — started making the argument that the USSR was right to send those troops into Afghanistan, an action that even Russian higher-ups have conceded even before the USSR’s 1991 collapse was a horrible mistake, politically and morally.

That would be Vladimir Putin and his allies in the Russian government.

It’s doubtful that either you or Donald J. Trump read this online Washington Post opinion piece from Dec. 4 that outlines an otherwise little-reported push by Russian lawmakers allied with Putin for a resolution that would justify their country’s 1979 invasion and reverse an 1989 vote backed by then-USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev that had condemned it. The Putinists’ goal is to pass the resolution by the 30th anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal, in February.

OK, maybe it’s a coincidence that a babbling Trump — who certainly gives the appearance of saying whatever pops into his mind — just happened to make the same obscure argument as Putin’s minions halfway across the globe. But on Thursday night, I and a couple of other million folks saw a remarkable report by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that tied together some wild threads (for which she credited other journalists such as Vladimir Kara-Murza, author of that Post op-ed, and New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, as well as her own Steve Benen).

It turns out Trump’s bizarre, historically incorrect Afghanistan riff is part of a pattern in which either the president or his administration has mimicked obscure foreign-policy points linked directly to Putin and/or Russian intelligence ops, and to virtually no one else — certainly not anyone in the American diplomatic community.

The most bizarre such episode happened early in Trump’s presidency. When Mike Flynn — who would later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his phone calls with Russia’s ambassador — was still Trump’s national security adviser in the first weeks of the new administration, there was this little noticed report from the AP.

“According to one U.S. official, national security aides have sought information about Polish incursions in Belarus, an eyebrow-raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist,” the AP reported. “Poland is among the Eastern European nations worried about Trump’s friendlier tone on Russia.” Meanwhile, Putin’s interest in swallowing up Belarus — possibly using the fake “Polish incursions” as a pretext — has only intensified in the two years since the 45th president was sworn in.

Then there’s the strange matter of U.S. policy toward the tiny Balkan nation of Montenegro, which in 2017 became the first new member of NATO in a decade. A few weeks later, Trump caused a lot of head-scratching when he went on Fox News with Tucker Carlson and the president (echoed by Carlson) lashed out at the idea of defending his new NATO ally. “You know, Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. … They are very aggressive people,” Trump said. “They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War III.”

Actually, when it comes to Montenegro, Trump was arguably the “aggressive” one — with the viral clip of POTUS shoving aside the Montenegrin prime minister at a summit meeting two months earlier. Most viewers watched the clip for a laugh. What’s not so funny is that Russian intelligence officers had been involved in a 2016 plot to assassinate Montenegro’s leader — so determined was Putin to prevent the expansion of NATO. A goal that seems to have been shared by the current president of the United States.

These obscure Putin-flavored U.S. maneuvers have happened amid the highly publicized probe by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is tasked with finding out if the Trump campaign somehow colluded with Russia’s spies as they sought to interfere with and alter the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Although arguably a strong case for collusion has already been revealed, we won’t know the full extent of what he’s uncovered until later this year. None of Team Trump’s arcane moves on Belarus, Montenegro or Afghanistan is conclusive proof of a vast Trump-Russia conspiracy, but …

There’s a famous scene in All the President’s Men where Robert Redford as Bob Woodward says: “If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, when you wake up there is snow on the ground, you can say it snowed during the night although you didn’t see it, right?” When it comes to U.S. policy toward Russia under Trump, we are waking up to find 6-foot snow drifts outside. Beyond the bizarre echoes of Belarus, Montenegro and Afghanistan, we’ve watched the White House kowtow to Team Putin every chance it gets, from leaving Syria to dropping sanctions on Paul Manafort’s favorite Russian oligarch.

Thursday’s Maddow report was so alarming because it revealed the deep extent to which Trump — at least on Russia policy — is acting as a kind of “Manchurian Candidate” inside America’s seat of power. We don’t know the mechanics of how the Trump administration is receiving and absorbing these ideas like “Polish incursions into Belarus” or “aggressive Montenegro,” but the fact that he’s parroting the Putin line should be alarming enough. It’s one more reason why the nightmare of the Trump presidency needs to end long before January 20, 2021.

Look, I don’t want to see another Cold War, nor do I believe that’s necessary. That said, even those of us who prefer peace to rampant militarism can see that Putin keeps testing the limits of European expansionism — the same kind of aggressive fantasies that brought disastrous consequences within the last century. Putin is also not as strong as he likes the world to think he is. His ambitions can be contained — but only with U.S. policies that support our democratic allies and not the Russian dictator. If we’re not careful on this one, America could wake up from a long slumber with snow up to the second-floor windows, and then congratulations, you’re in World War III.

Continue Reading

Trump

Trump Fires Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke on Twitter After Ethics Investigations Launched

Polipace Staff

Published

on

Ryan Zinke is out as Secretary of the Interior.

Zinke will be leaving the Trump administration at the end of the year; his successor is expected to be announced next week.

On Saturday morning President Trump tweeted that Zinke is leaving after serving for almost two years. He said Zinke has accomplished much during his tenure, and thanked him for his service.

Zinke’s departure comes after a tumultuous two years at the department, marked by mounting allegations of misconduct in office. He also faced the prospect of congressional probes after newly-elected Democrats take majority control of the House.

The former Navy SEAL and one-term Montana congressman showed up for his first day at the Interior Department on horseback, promising to model himself after Theodore Roosevelt, the famed conservationist and 26th president.

“I shall faithfully uphold Teddy Roosevelt’s belief that our treasured public lands are ‘for the benefit and enjoyment of the people’ and will work tirelessly to ensure our public lands are managed and preserved in a way that benefits all Americans for generations to come,” Zinke said in a statement, released during his swearing in.

Zinke’s tenure has been  marred by mounting ethics inquiries into his travel and personal financial dealings, among others.

He was vindicated in some cases, including investigations into his use of chartered and military aircraft, whether he improperly attended a GOP fundraiser in the Virgin Islands and whether he shrank the boundaries of a national monument in Utah to help a local Republican official. Others were closed because of lack of cooperation from his agency.

Still others remained, becoming sore points for the administration.

The most glaring centered on a land deal in Zinke’s hometown of Whitefish, Mont., that involved an organization run by Zinke’s wife and the chairman of Halliburton, a giant in the oil and gas industry.

Democrats contend that the land deal constituted a conflict of interest for Zinke.

Mary Kendall, the acting inspector general at Interior, opened an investigation into it last summer, looking at Zinke’s involvement in the deal and whether any taxpayer resources were used to advance the development.

Zinke’s lawyer and spokeswoman have both said that he did nothing improper.

The inspector general is also looking at whether Zinke blocked a proposal from two Connecticut Native American tribes to expand a casino because of political pressure and lobbying from MGM resorts.

Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, a lawyer and longtime lobbyist for the oil and gas industry, is expected to take Zinke’s place.

Bernhardt worked at Interior under George W. Bush as the department’s solicitor. He’s expected to pursue a similar agenda of deregulation on the nation’s public lands.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Recent Posts

Advertisement

What's Hot

Copyright © 2017 Pace Lattin Inc. powered by WordPress.