Some Preliminary Thoughts on Michael Cohen's Congressional Testimony

Former Trump lawyer, and self-described "fixer," Michael Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. I think most of us would agree that the vast majority of Congressional hearings amount to nothing more than political theater, regardless of which party is in charge. With that in mind, it was impossible to not notice Lanny Davis sitting right behind Cohen. Davis, of course, is long time Clinton confidant and democratic operative. What a coincidence. And, we learned from Cohen's testimony that Davis is representing Cohen for free; although he hopes to be able to pay him someday.

Davis recently wrote a book: "The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Election." Davis has not hidden his dislike for Trump. It must be especially upsetting that Trump defeated Davis' good friend, Hillary Clinton. Which brings us to ask - why would an attorney have his client testify when such testimony might put that client in further legal jeopardy? There is the possibility that Cohen was hoping for a further reduction in his sentence. But, with Davis as his attorney, we can not rule out Davis wanting Cohen to testify in order to "get" Trump, the man who not only defeated his close friend but made calls to "lock her up." (I was opposed to those comments by Trump.)

Cohen's closing remarks did much to reveal his true motivation in testifying - get Trump. Recall that these investigations were all about "Russian collusion." Except that Cohen testified that there was no collusion. Cohen's closing remarks were essentially a series of Democrat talking points, and just made up stuff. For example: "...given my experience in working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power and this is why I agreed to appear before you today." Interesting, but Cohen has absolutely no evidence to support his outrageous suggestion. But if the goal is to "get Trump" it does not matter.

Talking point: "You don't use the power of the bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you." It was unclear if Cohen was referring to the mainstream media or individuals. If the reference was to the mainstream media, many of us would say good for Trump. Why should he have to take the non-stop attacks, some merited but many not. Why should Trump have to tolerate lies by the media without defending himself? Do we want a wimpy President? Talking point: "You don't separate families from one another, or demonize those looking to America for a better life, you don't vilify people based on the g-d they pray to." So, Cohen now opposes Trump's immigration policies, and categorizes Trump's motivations as being mean-spirited. Many of us saw the first president in over 30 years being willing to take on the immigration issue, an issue that has been of no concern to either party. Millions of Americans agree with Trump on immigration. And what does an immigration talking point have to do with Russian collusion? Oh, that's right - get Trump.

Another Democrat talking point: "...you don't cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies." I think Cohen is confusing Trump with Obama. From day one Obama cuddled up to dictators and terrorist groups in the Middle East at the expense of our democratic ally Israel. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood (while outlawed by Egypt) to his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. He sided with Palestinian terrorists over Israel. Talking point: "...you don't shut down the government just before Christmas and New Year's just to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the President, and it's simply un-American and it's not you." Many people disagreed with the shutting down of the government; and its connection to Russian collusion is...?

At one point Cohen was annoyed that the Republicans on the committee were only interested in painting him to be a liar (in fairness he is an admitted liar) rather than asking what he knows about Trump. Had I been on that committee I would have addressed his annoyance this way: "As an attorney, I was taught that a client's communications are both privileged and confidential; that the holder of the privilege is the client, in your case that would be President Trump. I really do not care if the Mueller team or the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York do not respect the attorney-client privilege, but I do. And, contrary to my Democratic colleagues on this committee, I am not about to ask you questions that will encourage and enable you to break that revered privilege. But that's just me, Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way."