Donald Trump's legal team thoroughly distorted his remarks from the rally that prefaced the storming of the Capitol last month, seizing on the one instance when Trump spoke of peaceful protest in his “fight like hell” tirade of anger and grievance.

Trump attorney Michael van der Veen accused House Democratic impeachment managers of showing selectively edited scenes of the violence and Trump's words Jan. 6.

Yet he ignored the incendiary substance and tenor of that staging speech as well as the president's words of affection for the attackers later, while they were still hunting for lawmakers and sacking their offices. He ignored the fact, too, that all of Trump's provocations that day and for weeks beforehand had the lie of a stolen election at their core.

Another Trump lawyer, Bruce Castor, denied that the siege was an insurrection, saying that's a “term of art” not merited by the events of that day. Actually it's a term of dictionaries and legal texts, and what happened Jan. 6 was an insurrection.

A look at rhetoric from the Senate impeachment trial, where Trump is charged with inciting the siege of the Capitol before Congress affirmed his defeat to Joe Biden in the presidential election:

VAN DER VEEN: “No thinking person could seriously believe that the president's Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection. ... Nothing in the text could ever be construed as encouraging, condoning or enticing unlawful activity of any kind. Far from promoting insurrection against the United States, the president's remarks explicitly encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically.”

THE FACTS: This characterization does not resemble Trump's speech. For more than an hour, Trump made the case that he and his supporters at the rally had been “cheated” and “defrauded” in the “rigged” election by a “criminal enterprise” made up of some of the “weak” legislators the insurrectionists were about to confront.

As for Trump “explicitly” encouraging non-violence, as the lawyer put it, the president's sole gesture in the speech was this passing remark, lost in the winds of that day's rage: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

There were no other approximate appeals for calm, order or respect for the institutions that Trump assailed in the speech as a “swamp.”

“That was the one time, the only time, President Trump used the word ‘peaceful’ or any suggestion of non-violence," Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, one of the Democratic impeachment managers, said during the trial. "President Trump used the word ‘fight’ or ‘fighting’ 20 times.”

Her count is correct. In addition, Trump thanked supporters when they chanted: “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!”

To be sure, not all of Trump's “fighting” words were about the march to the Capitol. Some were about the political struggle to reverse a fair and certified election that he lost or about his other struggles in Washington.

But he sent his followers off to the Capitol with these words: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore."

This, after his lawyer Rudy Giuliani had told the crowd: “Let’s have trial by combat.”

This, after Trump had summoned his followers to Washington in the first place with the promise: “Be there, will be wild!”

At the rally, Trump roused his followers with words such as these:

—"Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength." This was in reference to Republicans in Congress who weren't going along with his effort to subvert the election.

—"You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” That was to the marchers specifically.

—“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules." Despite this remark, van der Veen argued Friday that the “entire premise” of Trump's rally speech was that the democratic process should “play out according to the letter of the law.”

—"You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen." A reference to Biden's ascendance to the presidency if he wasn't stopped.

—"We are going to the Capitol," Trump told his followers, to “try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue." Actually, he didn't go with them.

For all of that, his attorney Friday contended that Trump had “devoted nearly his entire speech to an extended discussion” of the voting process.

During the melee that ensued, Trump made a video telling the attackers it was time to “go home.” Only when the violence was underway did he stress the need for “law and order” and “peace.” But he added: “We love you. You're very special people.” Others are “so bad and evil.”

He followed later with a tweet that expressed no concern with the deadly consequences of the siege. He appeared to see justice in what had transpired.

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” he wrote. “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

___

CASTOR: “Clearly, there was no insurrection. Insurrection is a term of art, defined in the law, involves taking over a country ... a shadow government taking the TV stations over and having some plan on what you’re going to do when you finally take power.”

THE FACTS: It was a textbook insurrection.

As “defined in the law,” an insurrection is “the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government,” according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law.

Under the U.S. Code, the crime of insurrection is committed by “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”

Apart from the law and legal texts, insurrection is defined by Webster’s New World College Dictionary, which is used by The Associated Press, as “a rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt.”

On Jan. 6, attackers rose up physically and violently against the established authorities — Congress, as it was carrying out its constitutional duties surrounded and protected by U.S. government staff and police. Many in the siege were intent on stopping Congress from affirming Trump’s defeat.

An insurrection is commonly understood to mean a short-lived revolt that fails, as this one did. Castor may have been conflating an insurrection with a coup d’etat, which suggests a more organized and advanced effort to seize power, perhaps involving a shadow government ready to take over. Jan. 6 was not that.

Above video: Why should I wear a mask? Doctor explains the science

Posted on April 22, 2021

We are collaborating with FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, in an effort to identify misinformation and to ensure news consumers get the facts. This story first appeared on FactCheck.org.

---

Evidence indicating that face masks can help control the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has grown since the virus first emerged, upending life around the world. In March, we outlined the evolving research on the efficacy of face masks and explained why experts support their use.

But a stubborn thread of misinformation falsely claiming that masks do not work, and are actually dangerous, continues to be recycled and shared a year-plus into the pandemic.

Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a "Stanford Study" proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author's hypothesis and didn't come from anyone currently affiliated with the university.

"Stanford Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death," reads an April 19 headline from the Gateway Pundit, a conservative website known for spreading misinformation. The story — shared on Facebook nearly 28,000 times, according to CrowdTangle analytics data — cites another website, NOQ report, whose story was published two days earlier.

The American Conservative Movement website similarly ran the headline, "Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid." It was shared on Facebook more than 10,000 times.

The paper being referenced was not an original "study," but one person's hypothesis — or proposed explanation — based on a review of some previous literature. It was first published online in November by the journal Medical Hypotheses, which describes itself as "a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences." While the paper appears on PubMed Central — an archive of scientific literature run by the National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine — that does not indicate NIH endorses or concurs with the content, as some of the viral stories wrongly suggest.

The paper's author, Baruch Vainshelboim, is listed as being affiliated with the "Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States."

But Julie Greicius, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care and the university's School of Medicine, told us in an email that "[t]he author's affiliation is inaccurately attributed to Stanford, and we have requested a correction" from the author and the journal.

"The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended," she said in an email. She also noted that "Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19."

A spokesperson for VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Michael Hill-Jackson, also told us in an email that "Baruch Vainshelboim does not work for the VA and is incorrectly affiliated on this website." He said Vainshelboim "served as a postdoc assistant under one of our researchers from 2015-2016, however, he was never officially employed by VA and his time in this role is completely unrelated to this paper."

So, no, the paper is not a study from Stanford, as the headlines claim. It's unclear where Vainshelboim currently works or why the paper featured the incorrect affiliation. We sent him several questions but haven't heard back.

We reached out to the editor of Medical Hypotheses, Mehar Manku, about Vainshelboim's paper and he said in an email that the journal was aware of "issues related to the publication in question" and that "[a]ctions are in progress."

In the paper, Vainshelboim lays out a hypothesis against the utility of masks and concludes that they are "ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such [as] SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19." It claims at one point, "Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask."

J. Alex Huffman, an aerosol scientist at the University of Denver, told us in a phone interview that the paper betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of respiratory aerosols.

"Viruses don't come out of your mouth as naked viruses," he said. "They come out in liquid drops that are full of mostly water but also some proteins and salts" — and, if someone is sick, virus.

Huffman further said in an email that "there is a wide distribution of particle sizes emitted when people breathe, speak, sing, or cough, but the range is anywhere from tens of nanometers to hundreds of microns. Most of these, even after evaporation, are easily removed by good masks."

Indeed, lab studies have shown masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads. Such studies have limitations, but they continue to suggest that masks — especially ones that are multi-layered and fit well — can play a role in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

For example, one study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested a variety of face coverings for their ability to prevent the outward spread of particles from a simulated cough. N95 respirators performed the best — blocking 99% of the particles — while medical masks blocked 59% and a three-ply cloth mask blocked 51%. (A face shield, on the other hand, stopped just 2%.)

And in another experiment, researchers in Japan evaluated how well different masks on two mannequins that faced one another reduced exposure to the coronavirus. One mannequin was connected to a nebulizer, which produced a simulated cough, "mimicking a virus spreader," and the other was connected to an artificial ventilator to simulate breathing. If both mannequins wore a cotton or surgical mask, transmission decreased by 60% to 70%.

For more information on the research surrounding face masks, see our SciCheck story "The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19."

Vainshelboim's paper also claims that masks "restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia." Hypoxemia is the term for insufficient oxygen in the blood; hypercapnia is the presence of too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream.

Experts have repeatedly rebuffed that claim, and we've previously addressed unfounded claims that masks cause unsafe oxygen levels.

"For many years, health care providers have worn masks for extended periods of time with no adverse health reactions," the Mayo Clinic Health System notes. "The CDC recommends wearing cloth masks while in public, and this option is very breathable. There is no risk of hypoxia, which is lower oxygen levels, in healthy adults. Carbon dioxide will freely diffuse through your mask as you breathe."

The American Lung Association also notes: "We wear masks all day long in the hospital. The masks are designed to be breathed through and there is no evidence that low oxygen levels occur." (However, it recommends that people with preexisting lung disease contact a doctor before wearing an N95 respirator.)

Editor's Note: Please consider a donation to FactCheck.org. The site does not accept advertising. It relies on grants and individual donations from people like you. Credit card donations may be made through their "Donate" page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.