Editorial: Injecting Disinfectant: Trump’s Comments Need a Warning Label

Donald Trump didn’t “recommend” injecting disinfectant, per se, but he didn’t need to go as far as recommending it. All he had to do was wonder out loud about its possible effectiveness against COVID-19 for some of his supporters to jump on board, and the rest to make excuses for him. Are disinfectants destined to be the new hydroxychloroquine in the eyes of Trump’s base? the rest of us wondered.

Trump had just heard a presentation by undersecretary for science and technology William Bryan, of the Department of Homeland Security. Bryan was discussing a study that found that exposure to the sun and the use of disinfectants such as bleach can weaken or kill the virus. Bryan was referring to the use of disinfectants as cleaning agents on surfaces and as aerosol sprays, not as treatments to be ingested or injected into the body.

During his April 23 coronavirus press briefing, Trump mentioned the possibility of “bringing light inside the body” as a possible way to eliminate the virus from patients. He then embarked on a riff about perhaps injecting disinfectant to treat COVID-19.

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”

Understandably, many Americans were aghast. Certainly, we’ve developed a degree of numbness to Trump’s absurd statements, to his often ignorant pronouncements, and his presumption to know more than the experts on…well, just about any topic. But Trump’s conjecture about the possibility of using cleaning agents internally to fight COVID-19 likely shocked even many six-year-olds who were taught by their parents that you mustn’t ever, ever, ever drink such things.

With each of Donald Trump’s increasingly preposterous and unhinged statements or actions, many Americans have said, time after time, “This one is it. Surely, this time is the last straw. No one can possibly believe/support/excuse this.” This was another one of those times.

And yet, as the story spread through the news outlets, Donald Trump’s supporters rushed to clarify, defend, or deny Trump’s words.

Those of Trump’s base who didn’t interpret Trump’s words as a recommendation rallied around him to defend what he said as “not what he said.”

Many of Trump’s defenders immediately took to social media, spending the weekend posting articles and comments “pointing out” that those who vaccinate “already inject disinfectants,” and touting all manner of related unproven and fringe treatments. As if this somehow meant that it might actually be ok to try injecting a home cleaning agent. As if this somehow made it ok for Trump to plant the idea into the malleable heads of some of his followers.

Trump apologists such as Breitbart and Fox, followed by all who only get their news from those sources, attempted to “clarify” Trump’s remarks, yet did nothing to effectively explain what he might have meant.

Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart wrote, “Trump used the word ‘inject,’ but what he meant was using a process — which he left ‘medical doctors’ to define — in which patients’ lungs might be cleared of the virus, given new knowledge about its response to light and other factors.”

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham blamed the media for misrepresenting what Trump had said. Notably, Ingraham did not replay what Trump actually said so that her audience could hear for themselves. Instead, she played clips of the shocked responses by CNN and MSNBC journalists.

“So was he telling Americans to drink Clorox? Really?” Ingraham sneered.

“Absolutely not,” responded Fox contributor Sara Carter. “These are journalists that don’t let the facts stand in the way of their lies. They hate Donald Trump, the president, so much that they will twist his words whenever they can at the expense of the American people.”

What of the Trump devotees who did listen to Trump, and who interpreted his words as a possible recommendation? And what of the manufacturers of Lysol and other disinfectants who were so alarmed by Trump’s comments that they immediately issued warnings against taking their products internally?

As for Donald Trump, himself, he claimed a day later that clearly he was being sarcastic.

“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen,” he said to reporters on Friday.

Breitbart’s Pollak, who had earlier attempted to “clarify” what Trump meant, subsequently changed his position, siding with Trump that Trump was just being sarcastic.

The idea that everyone should have understood Trump’s speculation to be mere sarcasm, if it was, ignores the fact that New York City poison control centers reported an increase in calls in the 18 hours following Trump’s speculation about injecting disinfectants to treat coronavirus.

The most shocking and irresponsible defense of Trump came from infectious disease specialist Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House pandemic response coordinator. When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper for her opinion about Trump’s remarks, she didn’t give a medical opinion, but instead defended Trump’s words as a harmless “dialogue” with health professionals, saying he was just “wondering out loud” about the possibility of using disinfectants internally.

Americans knew that they could count on Trump’s base and his loyal news outlets to defend, explain, and justify his every word and action. But when one of the medical experts we count on to keep us safe declines to acknowledge the recklessness of Trump’s words, and instead, as Birx did, blames the furor on the media for replaying them, it seems as if we’re running out of options for whom we can look to for our well-being.

If it’s true that Trump was just misunderstood, it’s also true that no leader should ever have casual “dialogue” with medical professionals in front of the public about the possibility of using harmful chemicals internally as a treatment. If the truth is that Trump was just being sarcastic, that, too, was reckless in light of the fact that some might take Trump’s “musing” as a recommendation (and some apparently did). Every possible spin by Trump and his supporters on Trump’s feckless speculation is simply a defense of the indefensible.

“When the person with the most powerful position on the planet is encouraging people to think about disinfectants, whether it was serious or not, people listen,” said Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.

Americans poison themselves after Trump’s ‘disinfectant injection’ suggestion | City News Toronto [2020-04-26]

Trump: Disinfectant comments were ‘sarcastic’ | Associated Press
[2020-04-24]

Impeachment Trial Begins, Lev Parnas Surfaces with New Damning Evidence

With 290 days until the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the impeachment of President Donald Trump dominates the news. On Wednesday, January 15, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the two articles of impeachment against Trump, who is charged with abuse of presidential power, and obstruction of Congress.

Prior to signing the articles, Pelosi announced the names of the seven impeachment managers she has chosen to present the case for impeachment to the Senate. They are House Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Val Demings (D-Fla.), Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Jason Crow (D-Colo.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas). After the signing of the articles, Pelosi and the impeachment managers walked across the Capitol to the Senate chamber to deliver the articles, per protocol.

The articles charge that Trump abused his power by withholding already-approved military aid to Ukraine, as well as the promise of a White House meeting with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy in order to pressure Zelenskiy to announce an investigation of Democratic primary candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who held a high-paying job as consultant to Burisma, Ukraine’s largest energy provider. The articles further charge that Trump obstructed Congress by blocking key evidence and testimony.

The Senate formally accepted the articles on Thursday. On Thursday afternoon, Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial in the Senate, administered the jurors’ oath to all 100 senators, to swear to deliver “impartial justice.” It should be noted, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already openly promised not to be impartial.

“This is an example of all of the president’s henchmen,” Pelosi reflected, “and I hope that the senators do not become part of the president’s henchmen.”

The actual trial is expected to begin on Tuesday, January 21.

Meanwhile, The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, has determined this week that Trump’s hold on the military aid to Ukraine was a violation of federal law governing how the White House may disburse funds approved by Congress.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Though impeachment does not require violation of a federal law, this development will no doubt be significant as the impeachment trial plays out. Republicans are already trying to point out that the GAO is pointing the finger at the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), not at the president. It was the president, however, who ordered that the military funds be put on hold.

And as impeachment trial preparations were brewing this week, additional evidence was unearthed, appearing to confirm the nature of Trump’s motivation in his plan to have the Bidens investigated.

Trump maintains that he was simply motivated by his concern about corruption in Ukraine for the sake of “the American people.” Strong evidence indicates, however, that Trump was motivated purely by personal gain — uncovering dirt on the Bidens, or, at the very least, stirring up controversy and casting doubt on Joe Biden’s integrity as he runs for president.

Lev Parnas, a former associate of Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has provided documents and granted interviews containing information that indicate that Donald Trump was directly involved in the Ukraine pressure campaign, and that his motivation was for personal gain, not for the good of the U.S. Further, Trump’s intent was to investigate the Bidens, not to investigate general corruption in Ukraine.

James Hohmann of the Washington Post writes, “Evidence of the president’s hands-on role bolsters the Democratic case that Trump himself abused his power, not outside advisers who were pursuing personal interests in the president’s name.”

Included in Parnas’ documents was a message thread from March 2019 between Parnas and Robert Hyde, a current Republican candidate for Congress in Connecticut. The subject of the messages was former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her post by the Trump administration in May 2019. In his interviews with the media this week, Lev Parnas confirmed that Yovanovitch was seen as an obstacle to Trump’s plan for investigation of the Bidens.
The messages suggest Hyde and others may have been following the diplomat in Kiev. “They are moving her tomorrow,” Hyde wrote to Parnas. “The guys over there asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them.”

He then noted that Yovanovitch turned off her phone and computer.

“They are willing to help if we/you would like a price,” Hyde said. “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money … what I was told.”

“Lol,” Parnas responded, indicating “laugh out loud.”.

Several days later, Hyde wrote: “It’s confirmed we have a person inside.”

Though the U.S. State Department continues to remain silent about the exchanges and the possibility of unauthorized surveillance of Yovanovitch by associates of Trump, Ukraine has announced that it will launch an investigation.

“Ukraine’s position is not to interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States of America,” Ukraine’s Interior Ministry stated. “Ukraine cannot ignore such illegal activities on the territory of its own state.”

Parnas has since said that he didn’t take the exchange seriously. Hyde, too, dismissed it as a joke.

Though some of Parnas’ new information still needs to be corroborated, other portions of it support the existing evidence against Trump and his associates. It’s yet to be determined whether, or if, this new evidence will be used in the Senate impeachment trial.

On the other side of the world, Russia’s entire cabinet resigned on Wednesday. Russian president Vladimir Putin had, earlier on Wednesday, announced that he would be pushing through reforms to the constitution. The changes would redistribute power so that parliament and the prime minister would have more power, but Putin’s successor as president would be considerably weakened. Putin, whose term as president ends in 2024, could then take on a new role and continue to be a powerful figure in the Russian government. (Speaking of abuse of power…)

Putin simply thanked his former government and said that “not everything worked out.”

Given what our president has successfully been able to get away with, given his statement, “Then I have an Article 2 (of the U.S. Constitution), where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” and given that our current GOP largely disregards the checks and balances system of our three-branch government, we can only hope that Election 2020 eliminates the possibility of something similar happening in the U.S.

Impeachment process moves ahead amid new revelations from Lev Parnas | CBS News [2020-01-16]

Trump reacts to photograph of him with Lev Parnas: “I take thousands of pictures” | Global News [2020-01-16]