The Republican Party Knows Michael Cohen’s Testimony is True


meadows and cohen

Republican Congressmen Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan

The New York Times is running a very revealing op-ed by Peter Wehner, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, on Michael Cohen’s testimony before Congress yesterday.


Here is a taste:

Yet Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in their frantic effort to discredit Mr. Cohen, went after him while steadfastly ignoring the actual evidence he produced. They tried to impugn his character, but were unable to impugn the documents he provided. Nor did a single Republican offer a character defense of Mr. Trump. It turns out that was too much, even for them.

In that sense, what Republicans didn’t say reveals the truth about what happened at the hearing on Wednesday as much as what they did say. Republicans showed no interest, for example, in pursuing fresh allegations made by Mr. Cohen that Mr. Trump knew that WikiLeaks planned to release hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee in the summer of 2016.

In a sane world, the fact that the president’s former lawyer produced evidence that the president knowingly and deceptively committed a federal crime — hush money payments that violated campaign finance laws — is something that even members of the president’s own party would find disquieting. But not today’s Republican Party.

Instead, in the most transparent and ham-handed way, they saw no evil and heard no evil, unless it involved Mr. Cohen. Republicans on the committee tried to destroy the credibility of his testimony, not because they believe that his testimony is false, but because they fear it is true.

By now Republicans must know, deep in their hearts, that Mr. Cohen’s portrayal of Mr. Trump as a “racist,” “a con man” and “a cheat” is spot on. So it is the truth they fear, and it is the truth — the fundamental reality of the world as it actually is — that they feel compelled to destroy. This is the central organizing principle of the Republican Party now. More than tax cuts. More than trade wars. More even than building a wall on our southern border. Republicans are dedicated to annihilating truth in order to defend Mr. Trump and they will go after anyone, from Mr. Cohen to Robert Mueller, who is a threat to him.

Read the entire piece here.

17 thoughts on “The Republican Party Knows Michael Cohen’s Testimony is True

  1. I voted for him. That was the extent of my support. I had no confidence in him ever. As I said my hope was a dumb one that he had just enough respect for the country and the office to admit to himself he was woefully not up to it and would rely on some intelligent experienced advisers. My mistake.


  2. I’m referring plainly to the allegations of the crimes of fraud and tax evasion among others, and the fact that no one defended Trump or pretended he might be innocent. No one said, “These allegations are false because they’re out of character for our president.” They only said, “We won’t look into these allegations or take them seriously because they come from someone we choose to disregard.” This observation of dismal inconsistency and flagrant hypocrisy, I believe, comes from both liberals as well as GOP representatives, as you yourself observed.

    Do you hear yourself talking in circles or is it just a short-circuit your brain has adapted to? You seem to be spiraling deeper and deeper into a hole of denial and misinformation by dismissing any inconvenient information as false. I kinda think Trump could personally murder someone on Main Street and you and other Trum-pets would say it was justified by some national security principle or the great and sacred constitution.

    You know why people who run the Nigerian Prince scam deliberately send low-grade scam emails filled with typos and bad formatting and terrible grammar? It’s because then only people too naive to realize they’re being scammed will reply–the victims of the scam or fraud self-select. Low-grade presentation is like a filter that guarantees that those who respond positively are foolish enough to commit to a risky arrangement even when the evidence should steer them in the opposite direction. Food for thought.



  3. Jeff,
    I question that you ever supported Trump with any vigor. You are just repeating media talking points on nonessentials.


  4. Justin,
    What crimes step you referencing? If there were crimes, there would be a case from Muellee. The problem for the oversight committee is that there have been no legal actions taken by anyone with authority to prosecute. Allegations by Mr. Cohen or anyone else are not crimes.


  5. I thought, for instance, Cohen showed documents where Trump place a value on a property at one figure to get a loan, and at a very different value for tax purposes. If that evidence holds up it was illegal. I imagine he isn’t the only person to do such things. Whether the SDNY chooses to prosecute remains to be seen. I will be pretty surprised if he isn’t prosecuted with lots and lots of evidence either soon or they may wait until he is out of office. I think he won’t stand up to much scrutiny.


  6. How did you sidestep the valid observation that in a hearing about Trump’s crimes, no one bothered to defend Trump, not even his closest allies? Well, except for the “he has a black friend so he’s not racist” defense…

    In your heart of hearts I wonder if there is a breaking point–can you imagine it? Can you picture it? Is there a moment, some preponderance of evidence, some kind of evidence or event or testimony that would make you shift your thinking on Donald Trump? Some point where it no longer makes sense for you to support open wickedness so that some imaginary good may abound?


  7. I don’t count Kavanaugh among those. I don’t personally know details of the other individuals other than reading there are supposed to be a lot of conservative ones.
    There being more to the presidency than appointing judges, that’s not enough. I like my President to have a basis of historical understanding. A worldview not centered on his own ego.
    Genuine empathy for others.
    I also would like my President to back up what the entire intelligence community tells him, what knowledgeable experienced people say, and what plain common sense is clear on.
    Kim was absolutely in the know on Otto Warmbier’s treatment. It’s absurd to think in that regime, where a misstep means death or a camp, that people were allowed to do anything with an American without Kim’s ok.
    Likewise on Putin and Russian meddling in our election. And the Saudi’s killing of Khishoggi. This president has a desperate need to be on the ins with these guys. That is a terrible issue for a president to have.


  8. Jim in STL,
    What should the GOP members should have said when Mr. Cohen simply gave his opinions about Trump? We all have opinions——negative and positive——- about former bosses. Nothing else he said was substantially revelatory.


  9. Dear Jeff,
    Well, at least we agree on Gorduch. Why are you forgetting all of the other outstanding judicial appointments at district and circuit courts?


  10. I never “supported” beyond voting for him because I thought Hillary would be bold in pushing a way too liberal agenda and Trump would listen to people that knew what they were doing.
    I think the Gorsuch appointment a good one. So there is one positive I name.
    I was sickened by the failure of republican candidates not maneuvering through selective drop outs from getting the critical mass of primary delegates behind a better candidate. A less messed up person.


  11. “The word has a fairly strict definition within the rules for federal prosecution.”

    I think that we can all agree that Cohen was not making the federal cash for prosecution and that the evidence that he shared publicly does not have to reach the same level of rigor as in the courtroom. That evidence is being handled by Mueller and professional prosecutors in a number of different venues.

    “Any good lawyer knows how to dress his client in a public forum.”

    Yes, I’ve seen video of Trump testifying in deposition with respect to criminal prosecution and/or lawsuits with respect to one or more of his scams (think Trump academy, etc.). This is not a devious secret that is practiced only by demonic democrats and liberals. Or take Cavenaugh or anyone of both parties testifying before congress or the bench. If/when Trump is indicted and has to appear in court his lawyers will attempt the same.

    Your objections, much like the GOP during Cohen’s testimony before Congress, remind me of the old saying:

    “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”

    The GOP made no serious rebuttal attempt and I assume that “pound the table” includes copious amounts of feighned indignation, yelling, character assassination and poisoning the well (including, and I find this amusing, entering a large number of print articles from the Enemies of the People – including from the Huffington Post – into the record).


  12. Jeff,
    I suppose I am somewhat baffled that you said you voted for Trump. Maybe I missed one of your past postings. From what I can recall, however, you have not made one positive remark about him on The Way of Improvement Leads Home. I don’t know how long you have been adding your ideas to Dr, Fea’s site, so maybe I missed any previous supportive remarks from you about Trump.

    During the months I have been privileged to participate in these discussions, your comments have not been those of a man who ever supported the president. It’s kind of like the old humorous quip, “With friends like these, I don’t need enemies.”


  13. Justin,
    You stated that Michael Cohen “…produced evidence…”. I think you might be playing rather liberally with the word “evidence” if you are alleging criminal behavior on the part of President Trump. The word has a fairly strict definition within the rules for federal prosecution. Mr. Cohen, a man preparing to enter prison for being less than candid, gave a personal narrative which arguably was scripted by his lawyer Lanny Davis, a known Democrat operative. In fact, Lanny even released a book last year bemoaning the way Mrs. Clinton was treated in 2016. Any good lawyer knows how to dress his client in a public forum. Mr. Davis is a good lawyer.

    If it turns out that there is actual evidence of serious criminal activity on Trump’s part, it needs to come out; but the political theater in a congressional committee is not going to uncover anything which Robert Mueller’s probe by trained prosecutors has failed to find.


  14. I admit I voted for Trump. I vow I won’t again.
    I had a misguided hope he would realize he was in way over his head right off the bat, get some seasoned intelligent advisers and cabinet and listen to them and tone his rhetoric down too.
    I should have known better.
    We are getting what we deserve. A mixed up mess of a presidency. A low class president. So there being a bunch of low class stuff happening and all the investigations into and involving low class pals and former pals, and I imagine family too, was inevitable.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. That Cohen interview was brutal for the GOP. I was awestruck by the chaotic Republican effort to go after Cohen even when he produced evidence and made direct referrals to multiple ongoing investigations with which he was cooperating. Particularly poignant was the moment when Cohen offered them the warning that he defended Trump for ten years, in the same way the GOP congresspeople have become Trump’s defenders now, and it totally failed to penetrate the consciousness of his critics that they too could face enormously negative consequences if they keep defending the emperor’s new clothes.

    The problem, I think, is that the warning is too late to do any good; the election of Trump to the office was the watershed moment for them, when they decided to carry water for the Donald. Now it’s too late to go back. Republicans are duty-bound (party-bound) to defend Trump in order to defend the GOP brand. They can’t admit they’ve become toxic for the country because it would hurt them and hurt the party politically–but at some point individual congresspeople have got to realize that it is better to admit to their constituents that Trump is unfit rather than present a united front of denial, blame-shifting, and obfuscation. A few can survive if they get out soon, but probably not those who refuse to abandon ship. What do you think they’re more afraid of? Trump’s social media fury, their own constituents, or the donors and lobbyists who fund them? It’s really hard to tell.


  16. The Establishment (both liberal and conservative) meltdown continues.

    Enter Stage Right: Republican Never-Trumper, Michael Wehner (Establishment insider and crony of Michael Gerson), with a new angle reflecting the continuing Establishment meltdown. Specifically, GOP questioning of Michael Cohen yesterday focused on Cohen’s character rather than Trump’s character. Shocking! Stop and the presses for a new banner headline———SILENCE FROM JIM JORDAN AND COMPANY SHOWS TRUMP UNFIT FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC SERVICE.

    I personally think Mr. Wehner deserves an “A” in creative presumptive analysis. Keep up the imaginative work, Peter! You might eventually get a contract with CNN.


Comments are closed.