What Trump Actually Said About the Use of Disinfectants as a Potential Cure to Coronavirus

Why is it that so many on the political left feel the need to twist Donald Trump's words or even tell lies about what Trump said in order to attack him? On April 24th, the Internet blew up after Trump discussed the potential use of disinfectant to treat people suffering from COVID-19 infections. Many FB and Twitter posts falsely claim or suggest that Trump told members of the public to drink disinfectant or inject themselves with disinfectant. Trump did not say or suggest either of these things.

Before I proceed, I should make clear what I think of the President.  In my opinion, Donald Trump is a pathological liar.  He is a proudly ignorant. He is a xenophobe and a narcissist. He is modern day philistine. He lacks empathy for real people and he is a bully with mob boss tendencies. His ignorance, lies, inaction and incompetence throughout the month of February failed the American people as the Corona Virus to spread throughout the United States. I've seen ample evidence to prove all of these things. These are some of the many reasons Trump will go down in history as an abysmally incompetent politician.

That said, here are Trump's actual words regarding disinfectant:

"So I asked Bill a question some of you are thinking of if you're into that world, which I find to be pretty interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether its ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said, that hasn't been checked but you're gonna test it. And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting. And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you 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 you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it goes in one minute, that's pretty powerful."

[As he made his statement, Trump repeatedly looked at Bill Bryan, the head of the science and technology directorate at the Department of Homeland Security]

Over the past months, Trump has shown hostility to science. On April 4, Trump brashly touted the use of a malaria drug for COVID-19, even though the drug had never been subject to double-blind studies. Despite these serious shortcomings regarding science and medicine, Trump did not suggest that people should ingest or inject disinfectant.  Trump was wondering out loud whether coronavirus could be cured using disinfectant. He said (looking at Bill Bryan), "So it'd be interesting to check that." He wasn't telling people to get treated using disinfectant, as he recklessly did regarding Hydroxychloroquine.

Here is my suggestion: Whenever people on the political left concoct or embellish facts as they attack Trump, they lose credibility. When they do this, they open themselves up to accusations that they have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most importantly, when they take liberties with facts, they are doing the same thing Trump often does and this risks losing potential November votes from people from the political center and right.

It is my hope that we on the left would become more self-critical about our own reckless use of accusations. Truly, there are plenty of good reasons for condemning Trump without making shit up.

Continue ReadingWhat Trump Actually Said About the Use of Disinfectants as a Potential Cure to Coronavirus

Never Must a Pandemic Crisis Be Wasted

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine in action. Never should a crisis be wasted. The Economist explains:

Where does this lead? Covid-19 will make people poorer, sicker and angrier. The coronavirus is impervious to propaganda and the secret police. Even as some leaders exploit the pandemic, their inability to deal with popular suffering will act against the myth that they and their regimes are impregnable. In countries where families are hungry, where baton-happy police enforce lockdowns and where cronies’ pickings from the abuse of office dwindle along with the economy, that may eventually cause some regimes to lose control. For the time being, though, the traffic is in the other direction. Unscrupulous autocrats are exploiting the pandemic to do what they always do: grab power at the expense of the people they govern.

Klein's Shock Doctrine is summarized by Wikipedia:

[The Shock Doctrine] centers on the exploitation of national crises (disasters or upheavals) to establish controversial and questionable policies, while citizens are excessively distracted (emotionally and physically) to engage and develop an adequate response, and resist effectively.

Continue ReadingNever Must a Pandemic Crisis Be Wasted

The Death of “I Don’t Know.”

It’s rather amazing. In this age of Coronavirus, we are grappling with hyper-complex problems involving epidemiology, efficaciousness of pharmaceuticals, economic projections and social stability. We are each part of an enormous complex adaptive system, yet it’s difficult to find anyone who lacks a complete understanding of the situation or who lacks detailed opinions about what should be done.

Apparently, it’s not good manners to say “I don’t know” in public any more.

Continue ReadingThe Death of “I Don’t Know.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Target on the Back of Roe v Wade

In the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ramos v. Louisiana (decided April 20, 2020), Justice Kavanaugh looks like he's putting a target squarely on the back of Roe v Wade.  The decision focuses on the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a doctrine with a troubled legal history and a fascinating concept for those willing to view it through the lens of cognitive science (as I recently did in this article for the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis). The Kavanaugh Concurrence is getting lots of attention for his treatment of stare decisis.

It goes with out saying that the official Roman Catholic position is that abortion is a form of murder.  This view is embraced even by the current leader of the Catholic Church, Pop Francis.  See here.  Kavanaugh is one of five men on the Supreme Court who are practicing Roman Catholics (Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas and Alito) or who were (in the case of Justice Neil Gorsuch) were raised Roman Catholic. Justice Sotomayor is also Roman Catholic.

Here are a couple excerpts from the Kavanaugh concurrence:

The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents. All Justices now on this Court agree that it is sometimes appropriate for the Court to overrule erroneous decisions. Indeed, in just the last few Terms, every current Member of this Court has voted to overrule multiple constitutional precedents.

Continue ReadingJustice Brett Kavanaugh’s Target on the Back of Roe v Wade

New Podcast for Trial Lawyers: “The Jury is Out” Featuring John Simon and Erich Vieth

For ten years I had the privilege of working as a trial attorney with John Simon. I learned firsthand why John and his team so often won substantial verdicts for their clients on high profile cases. The “secrets” turned out to be nonstop hard work and a recognition that law school is only the beginning of one’s legal education.

About five years ago, I branched off into my own law practice, but I continued working with John on a variety of projects. A few months ago, John invited me to be his co-host on a podcast to teach trial law skills to lawyers and law students. Both John and I teach law students at Saint Louis University School of Law and we both present at legal seminars. Offering a podcast was thus a natural extension of our interests in legal education. We named our new podcast “The Jury is Out” and we released the first five episodes to the public a few days ago. We record our podcasts at a dedicated recording studio at the Simon Law Firm in downtown St. Louis.

John and I will be passing on what we've learned over the years, including lessons we’ve learned from hard experience. Our trial law episodes are geared to particular skills, including multiple episodes on the topics of “Opening Statement,” “Voir Dire” and “Expert Witnesses.” We will also offer interviews with prominent attorneys from St. Louis and beyond. Our guests on upcoming episodes include Hon. Mike Wolff (persuasion), Yvette Liebesman (intellectual property issues of concern to artists), Amy Gunn (efficiencies in the practice of law) and Hon. Glenn Norton (mediation).

You’ll quickly see that our approach for each episode is to roll up our sleeves and get right to it. After you listen to a podcast or two, we would appreciate if you would take a moment to rate this new podcast. And feel free to send us an email with suggestions you might have for future episodes.

You can find “The Jury is Out” wherever you get your podcasts. We’d be honored to have you join us.

Continue ReadingNew Podcast for Trial Lawyers: “The Jury is Out” Featuring John Simon and Erich Vieth