Dan Crenshaw’s defense of Trump’s coronavirus has false claims, wrong choices


The video is pinned to the top of Trump’s thread, and the White House released it to Republican members of the House and the Senate on Monday.

In the videos, Crenshaw is restrained and calm, posing as a reasonable defender of Trump rather than a fire eater. He is careful to say that he is simply defending Trump rather than blaming Democrats and the media.

But if the video is Trump’s best defense, it says a lot about Trump’s state of defense – because it includes false statements, incorrect and contextless allegations and false choices.

Let’s break down the video of Crenshaw promoted piece by piece by Trump.

January 31: Crenshaw says Trump enforces travel restrictions to China “even if things like the World Health Organization said” no need to limit trade and movement “, and they widely criticized the travel restrictions of the President Trump. ”

This is an incorrect summary of the WHO comments on the travel bans. The title on the screen comes from Reuters on February 3 and says, “The head of the WHO says that large-scale travel bans are not necessary to defeat the Chinese virus.” In the story, the head of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, does not say that there is “no need” for a travel ban; rather, he said that there was no need “to interfere unnecessarily with international travel and trade.” He quotes: “We call on all countries to implement evidence-based and consistent decisions.” This does not mean that there should not be a ban, but rather that countries should be wise with them.

Crenshaw also reiterated Trump’s claim that the WHO “widely criticized” the president’s travel restrictions; STAT News has found no evidence to support this claim.

Crenshaw adds that it was “the same day, January 31, that Nancy Pelosi proposed the No Ban law, which would effectively prevent President Trump from enforcing the vital travel restrictions he enforced.”

In addition, No Ban Law would not prevent President Trump from enforcing travel restrictions that save lives. In fact, although the law requires greater and more documented justification for travel bans, it asserts the authority of a president in such cases.

According to the wording of the bill, if the administration “determines… that the entry of any alien or class of aliens into the United States would endanger the security or public safety of the United States or the preservation of human rights, democratic processes or institutions, or international stability, the President may temporarily … suspend the entry of foreigners or a category of foreigners as immigrants or non-immigrants or … Impose restrictions on the entry of these foreigners whom it considers appropriate. ”

February 4: “Let’s not forget that President Trump talked about coronavirus in the State of the Union on February 4. What happened to this State of the Union? It happened. “(Pelosi video readings tear up his copy of the speech after Trump ends.)

Crenshaw in particular does not convey what Trump actually said about the virus in his State of the Union. In the speech, Trump said, “We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely on the coronavirus epidemic in China. My administration will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this threat. “

“Fast forward a few weeks when the president actually asked Congress for additional funding to fight the virus.” What did Nancy Pelosi do? Instead of putting that money on the floor of the House to be voted on, she introduced a bill to ban flavored tobacco. ”

As PolitiFact noted, there have been ongoing negotiations on funding until early March. The Trump administration also requested funding on February 24, when the flavored tobacco and vaping products bill was already on the agenda. The GOP-controlled Senate at the time was taking anti-abortion bills.

March 12: Trump announced restrictions on Europe, which, according to Crenshaw, has attracted “a lot of criticism. “How could you do that? “What is the point of this? Well, does it really sound like an administration that denies that? Of course not. ”

In doing so, Crenshaw made the headlines by raising questions about Trump’s ban on Europe. Most of these titles did not question need for the ban. Instead, they pointed to the selective nature of the countries involved – that is, to exempt certain countries in which Trump has commercial interests – or simply signaled that the European Union had opposed the ban. , rather than journalists taking positions themselves.

Here are the headlines used by Crenshaw:

“This is the main point here: if we are going to go back in time and try to suggest that our government should have closed everything in February, well, where is the proof of that? Were we really going to close things when our cases hadn’t really started to increase – when it was barely starting to increase in places like Italy or Iran? Of course not, they didn’t stop things much later. ”

This is a false choice that Trump has repeatedly referred to. It seems that the decision was made between the little that the federal government did in February and a complete shutdown of the country. In fact, there were few calls for a shutdown in February – when, as Crenshaw notes, even the countries that were hit the hardest at the time than the United States had not taken this step. Trump attempted to suggest that critics wanted things to be closed in January, although there were very few cases at the time.

The fact that Crenshaw concluded with this speaks volumes about the purpose of his video.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here