EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: The New York Times has changed its stance!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2025

Planet of the Humans: Is President Trump a "sociopath?" Almost everything is possible, but a language problem intrudes:

As we've noted in the past, "sociopath" isn't a clinical term within the current realm of medical science. Adjusting for technical language, our question turns out to be this:

Is it possible hat President Trump is afflicted with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), a type of condition which was once described as a "mental illness?"

(As we've also noted, the language of "mental illness" seems to be losing favor too.)

At any rate, is President Trump afflicted with ASPD? Almost everything is possible! And as we've noted in the past, his clinical psychologist niece asserted this in her 2020 best-seller:

Prologue: Too Much and Never Enough (2020)

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists, and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as “malignant narcissism” and “narcissistic personality disorder” in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label gets us only so far.

[...]

Does Donald have other symptoms we aren’t aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for.

Oof! Of course, as we've noted in the past, the fact that she said it doesn't mean that it's true. But just within the past week, the president has chosen to bigfoot the honored dead by sticking his name on the Kennedy Center, and he has now affixed his name to a new group of battleships.

At one time, he was restricted to naming nondescript entities like Trump Steaks and Wine. Also, to placing his name on the Donald J. Trump Foundation, an alleged charity venture which was "dissolved by court order in 2018 after various legal violations came to light." 

With his ascent in the realm of elective politics, the naming—and the ugly name-calling—moved to a  higher level. But why does he behave in these ways? More specifically, how should wonderful people like us understand his endlessly unfortunate conduct?

As part of the overall package, empathy seems to be missing here, some observers have said. But setting niceties of language to the side, is it possible that this man is actually in the grip of an actual illness—an illness which may have been passed on through the genes from his "high-functioning sociopath" father?

(We're quoting his niece again.)

Almost everything is possible! We'll try to finish these ruminations tomorrow—and given the date which now approaches, we'll even ask this question about President Trump:

WWJD? What would Jesus Christ (think and) do about this president's conduct?

We'll try to speed through this general topic tomorrow. For today, let's consider the latest turmoil at the New York Times, as conveyed by this "Political Memo" in today's print editions.

Lisa Lerer wrote the piece. We're inclined to regard her essay as an ill-advised, unbalanced attack on Bill Clinton.

That said, the issue on which we'll focus involves the inability of us the humans to handle the challenge of reporting known relevant facts. Inevitably, our story starts with the apparent sociopathy of the sitting president. 

We'll try to address the larger mess at the end of the week. But for today, let's focus on two different accounts concerning the aforementioned Clinton.

The first account was written by the New York Times' Annie Karni. It appeared in a news report in the December 15 print editions.

Did Bill Clinton ever visit Jeffrey Epstein's private island? Here's what Karni's news report said:

Inside the Clintons’ Fight to Avoid Testifying in the House Epstein Inquiry

[...]

Mr. Clinton was acquainted with Mr. Epstein—an association the former president described in his memoir—but never visited his private island and cut off contact with him two decades ago. Mr. Clinton took four international trips on Mr. Epstein’s private jet in 2002 and 2003, according to flight logs, and an undated photograph of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Epstein signed by the former president was part of a batch of images released by House Democrats last week highlighting Mr. Epstein’s ties to powerful men.

Bill Clinton never visited Epstein's private island! So reported the New York Times, exactly eight days ago.

At this site, we'd be inclined to assume that Karni's statement is accurate. That said, it's famously hard to prove a negative—in this case, to prove that something never happened. 

For that reason, we were surprised to see that flat assertion in that news report. We were especially surprised given some irresponsible journalistic conduct in earlier New York Times reports on this general subject.

At any rate, Bill Clinton never visited Epstein's island! So said the New York Times, or so it said until this morning, when Lerer—in what strikes us as an unfortunate piece—offered this alternate account:

POLITICAL MEMO
Bill Clinton, a Main Character in the Epstein Drop, Just Can’t Escape Scandal

[...]

In 2019, hours after Mr. Epstein was found dead by suicide in his prison cell, Mr. Trump posted a conspiracy theory on social media claiming without evidence that Mr. Clinton had been connected to his death.

Since then, Mr. Trump has maintained a steady drumbeat of claims that Mr. Clinton spent significant time visiting Mr. Epstein on his private island—an accusation Mr. Clinton denies. Those claims have also been undercut by Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, and Ms. Maxwell.

As always, President Trump has been spouting inflammatory claims "without evidence." 

That was true about what he said back in 2019. It's also true about the claims he spouted this summer, in which he repeatedly claimed that Bill Clinton went to the island 27 or 28 times.

Back in the summer, we thought the Times refused to push back against those unfounded claims. But now, the Times can't seem to make up its mind:

Last week, it said those claims were false. Eight days later, the paper's not sure.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we humans simply weren't built for this type of work. Our anthropological finding is this:

As a species, we're surprisingly good at building buildings and at creating technologies. We're surprisingly good at those tasks—but we're poorly equipped for almost everything else.

What's the truth about the matter in question? Did Bill Clinton ever visit Epstein's island?

Through a spokesperson, and in his own voice, Clinton has said, again and again, that the actual answer is no. But it's famously hard to prove a negative, and there exists a blizzard of accusations and claims about this matter which will almost surely never be unscrambled by our tiny human minds.

On Friday or Saturday, we'll try to sort this mishegas out to some minor extent. For today, we almost thought we heard the voice of the old New York Times, the paper which created the poisonous Whitewater pseudo-scandal way back in the winter of 1992.

Mainly, though, we saw the Times contradicting itself—sliding away from an earlier claim. There's a dirty little secret lurking here—a secret the Times and its Timespeople aren't inclined to report. 

It concerns the basic question of human capability. As such, it's an anthropological secret. The dirty little secret is this:

We're fairly good at building things, unskilled at everything else!

Tomorrow: What goes through the head of a sociopath? Also, what goes through the heads of people more like us?