Niagara Falls Underground Railroad Heritage Center wins 2020 JUST COMMUNITIES of WNY ORGANIZATION Award

Criticism of Donald Trump's remarks regarding Rob Reiner's death intensified on Tuesday morning when a prominent conservative columnist questioned the aging president's mental fitness.

In a notably direct column for conservative publication The National Review, Jim Geraghty asserted that Trump's statements suggest "something deeply wrong." He proceeded to question whether "psychopath or sociopath" better characterizes the president's behavior.

Acknowledging the tragedy of Reiner and his wife Michele, who were reportedly killed by their son, Geraghty suggested that Trump's actions reveal long-standing indicators of instability. He characterized the president as consistently "obsessed with grievances; vindictive and prone to posting late-night tirades on social media; uninterested in details; erratic, impulsive, spiteful."

Geraghty argued that Trump lacks the capacity to assess moral character through objective standards. Instead, he wrote, "Donald Trump's entire worldview of whether someone is a good person or a bad person depends entirely on whether that person offers praise or criticism of Trump."

The columnist raised concerns about Trump's access to nuclear weapons while simultaneously pursuing aggressive military policies globally, suggesting his emotional state presents a national security concern.

Geraghty acknowledged that Trump supporters could defend his policies or express satisfaction with their electoral choices. However, he concluded, "But what you can't say is that Donald Trump is a good and decent human being."

He further contended that Trump's inability to empathize with the Reiners' tragedy mirrors his disconnect from Americans struggling with cost-of-living concerns. "This is why his approval rating on the economy hit 31 percent. There are far-reaching consequences of having a president who is emotionally broken," Geraghty wrote.

You can read more here.

Despite having about a year's worth of interviews — 11 to be exact — for an in-depth Vanity Fair story, White House insiders scrambled on Tuesday, suggesting to CNN that President Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Susie Wiles may not have known she was on the record.

The bombshell story prompted a White House meltdown and plenty of chatter in Washington, D.C.

"But obviously this has really left the White House and not just the White House, but Trump world as a whole in a state of shock," CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes said. "I cannot tell you how many conspiracy theories I've heard about how this interview got published, whether it was the idea that she thought she was talking off the record, whether it was the idea that she was sitting for some kind of other interview that wasn't going to be published immediately, that it has something to do with the 2028 campaign, because Susie Wiles is a calculated and political figure. Everything she does has meaning."

The interview was an unusual move for Wiles, who generally has stood guard behind the scenes.

"She is not somebody who seeks the limelight," Holmes added. "She doesn't get out there in the press and do interviews. So the fact that she did this to so many people who are close to President Trump say that it must mean something. Now, of course, again, Wiles has said that that's not the case, that it was just taken out of context. There was an omission in much of what she said. But again, this has caused quite a stir here at the White House."

Social media users responded to the story and Wiles' accusations that she might not have known the interviews were to be included in the story.

"Susie Wiles: What’s that recorder for? Reporter: Recording your answers. Susie Wiles: Right, like I’m going to say anything that’ll come back to bite me in the a--. Ha!" Chris Robinson, former referee and manager, wrote on X.

"Why would a chief of staff agree to an interview that she may now be saying she thought was off the record???. Under those circumstances it's not an 'interview,'" Duff Montgomerie, who described himself as a retired public servant, wrote on X.

"If you give multiple interviews to Vanity Fair and don’t know whether or not you are on or off the record - then you are not qualified to be a chief of staff. Speaking as a chief of staff," Dj Omega Mvp wrote on X.

"Translation: CNN can't believe Wiles would be that dumb," college instructor Anthony M. Hopper wrote on X.

"Haha! So now Wiles & the White House want to follow the rules," social worker and gerontologist Dolly Madison wrote on X.

"She’s been around long enough," retired attorney and professor Howell Ellerman wrote on X.