What specific passages or incidents do the authors of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump cite as evidence of dangerousness?

1. Specific personal-conduct incidents the authors cite

Several chapters catalogue long‑standing allegations and public statements about Trump’s personal conduct—sexual‑misconduct lawsuits and his own boasts about sexual assault and financially exploiting vendors—which authors treat as evidence of a bullying, predatory personality that has public consequences ^{[1] [7]}. Contributors argue these documented behaviors are not isolated private scandals but consistent patterns that inform how he wields power, and they use them as concrete touchstones for clinical judgments about risk ^[1].

2. Public statements and behavior as clinical evidence

A central strand of the book is that observable public behavior—repeated impulsive statements, inflammatory rhetoric, and apparent disregard for diplomatic norms and classification protocols—amounts to clinically relevant evidence of dangerousness when it occurs in a chief executive, because it can produce real‑world harms ^{[2] [8]}. The editors and authors rely on widely reported episodes of erratic or reckless public conduct to make the case that these are not mere style but can escalate into national security risks and diplomatic damage ^[2].

3. Societal consequences cited: the “Trump effect”

Multiple contributors document what they call the “Trump effect”: measurable increases in bullying, hate incidents, and re‑traumatization of vulnerable patients and communities after Trump’s campaign and inauguration, including spikes in anti‑Jewish and anti‑Muslim incidents immediately following January 2017, which the book links to emboldened perpetrators and a shift toward “malignant normality” in public life ^{[3] [1] [9]}. These social‑behavioral patterns are used as indirect but consequential evidence of dangerousness—that presidential behavior reshapes norms and increases harm beyond the White House ^[3].

4. Institutional risks and legal mechanisms emphasized

Several essays treat systemic and institutional pathways to harm as central evidence: chapters examine mental incapacity arguments, the Electoral College, and the Twenty‑fifth Amendment, and offer a clinical case for invoking constitutional or legal safeguards if incapacity or dangerousness is demonstrated ^[4]. The book frames these legal analyses as responses to observed behaviors and as concrete mechanisms that would be engaged if the clinical conclusions were accepted ^[4].

5. How the book marshals expert consensus—and the limits critics note

Editors gathered 27 psychiatrists and mental‑health professionals to build a composite case, and reviewers note a clear consensus among contributors that Trump’s behavior posed grave risks to democracy and public welfare ^{[3] [9]}. At the same time, serious critiques—reflected in professional reviews and scholarship—warn of methodological issues (reliance on secondary sources, historical analogies) and ethical tensions with the Goldwater Rule, arguing that assessment without direct clinical examination remains contested ^{[5] [6]}.

6. What the sources do and do not provide

The available reporting and reviews summarize the book’s use of specific events (hate‑incident spikes, public admissions/boasts, alleged assaults, breaches of diplomatic norms) and structural legal chapters as evidence of dangerousness, but the sources do not reproduce large verbatim passages from every contributing chapter; therefore this account relies on published summaries, table of contents entries, and contemporary reviews to enumerate the incidents and argument lines the authors present ^{[4] [8] [10]}. Where critics exist, the sources explicitly record their objections—ethical controversy and methodological caution—so the book’s claims must be read as a strongly argued professional warning rather than an uncontested clinical diagnosis ^{[5] [6]}.