For as odd as it may sound, being the political geek I am, Michael Cohen's public testimony before the House Oversight Committee was received as an early birthday present for me, coming 24 hours before I turned 30 yet again. I unashamedly watched it from beginning to end, only taking bathroom breaks when Majority Chair Elijah Cummings granted recess. Yes, I was glued to the tube last Wednesday like a perverted chicken gets stuck to a blow-up duck while crossing the road.
Ever since Donald Trump got "elected" president, the meme has been going around, saying, "Elect a clown, expect a circus," and from the hearing's outset, that's what we had - a circus.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows started the circus off by protesting the hearing, saying they should postpone it due to Michael Cohen speaking after midnight or something along those lines. Since Democrats control the House, this motion was obviously struck down. This cycle would continue throughout the proceedings.
The Michael Cohen hearing was basically split up into two hearings, one for the Republican members of the oversight committee and another for the Democratic members. Every Democratic congressperson asked pertinent questions to Cohen. They made it apparent the hearing was important, they wanted to learn the facts related to it, and would stop at nothing in order to uncover said truths. On the flip-side, however, the only Republican member of the committee to ask relevant questions was Michigan Congressman Justin Amash. Here's how most every other Republican Congressperson handled their time on the mic:
"This is a waste of time. We should be using our time for more important matters, like building a wall around every ocean! Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. Liars can never tell the truth; that's why we call them liars. Every representative up here is perfect. We've never made mistakes. Speaking of which, Donald Trump is God. Let's hold hands and say a prayer while we worship him. Amen. Where were we? Ah, yes, Michael Cohen once ate an orange Starburst before breakfast. Donald Trump wasn't responsible for a bad hair-day he had before going into a job interview. Here's an article from The Onion, which reads, 'Michael Cohen once killed a blue whale with a plastic spoon in under 3 seconds.' Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
Yeah, Republican Congress members wanted to be at this hearing like Sister Chastity wants to be at a Fifty Shades of Grey reenactment party.
The elephant in the room was the fact that Michael Cohen, who was under oath, had previously been caught lying in such a circumstance, which is one of multiple reasons why he'll be heading to jail in a couple of months. So given that fact, why should we trust him? We were asked this question over and over and over again. It was like a Congressional Groundhog Day, only less funny. I kept waiting for a Republican Congressperson to say, "Well, it's Cohen hearing day! ...again!" Look, while it's true Michael Cohen has a history of making false statements and we should all take his under-oath commentary under caution, there is such a thing as human evolution, of change, and we shouldn't completely disregard Cohen's testimony before even hearing it.
Michael Cohen's opening statement was strong, unfiltered, accusatory, and powerful. He labeled his former boss, Donald Trump, as a "racist," a "con-man," and a "cheat." He made it known that Trump's presidential campaign was nothing more than an infomercial in order to make press and money. The former Mr. Fixer added that Trump didn't even want to become president, didn't think he had a chance, but once he did, he only cared about and looked after himself, not the country. Cohen admitted he had previously been dishonest to Congress (and others), but that he was turning over a new leaf and wanting to start his road to redemption. He also expressed remorse for working with Donald Trump for a decade. Make of Michael Cohen's opening statement what you will, he was direct, articulate, detailed, composed, and unafraid.
Once the questioning started, it became obvious the questioners were divided into two groups: the adults and the teenagers. The adults in the room - Democrats - questioned about: Mr. Cohen's history with Trump; Trump's alleged crimes; Trump's tax returns; about documents the former attorney brought with him to the hearing, etc. The teenagers in the room - Republicans - went on rants about how the hearing was a waste of time; that Cohen can't be believed; and Donald Trump is far from a "racist," "con-man," and "cheat." Democrats were there to learn the truth. Republicans were there to try and keep the public from hearing the truth.
Honestly, 98% of the Republican Oversight Committee members came across like police officers after a white cop was caught on video shooting and killing an unarmed black man. Instead of trying to find out why an innocent man was shot and killed and what kind of punishment the perpetrator should receive, they instead begin questioning the victim's character: "Did he have any marijuana or alcohol in his system?," "Did he have any prior convictions?," "Did he own a firearm?," "Did he have any kind of record when it comes to anger or violence?," etc. The police, in this scenario, do everything in their power, not to establish the truth, but to place doubt in the minds of the public. It's like a bad defense attorney attempting to prove reasonable doubt: "Oh, so you did steel a piece of bubble gum from a dollar store when you were 8-years-old? So you're admitting you've always had criminal tendencies, is that it?!?" No.
The moment which most stood out to me during the hearing was when North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows brought out a black woman whom worked to get Donald Trump elected. Meadows contended that she was proof Trump wasn't a racist, for the woman declared she would never work for a racist. Meadows didn't allow the woman to speak, of course. She just stood up there like a prop while Meadows railed on with his, "I-have-a-black-friend-so-I-can't-be-a-racist" defense. Either Mark Meadows doesn't understand racism or he himself is a racist. I'm guessing it's more of the former, but with some of the latter. The led to multiple Democratic Congresspeople decrying Representative Meadow's stunt, one even referring to the act as racist. At this, Meadows whined more than a child if he constantly emulated Donald Trump. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I have nieces and nephews that are people of color. Not a lot of people know that." Really? He thinks that dissolves him of racism? The fact a family member of his isn't racist and he hasn't disowned said family member? Also, I have to question, why do so few people know about Rep. Meadows's nieces and nephews whom are people of color? Shame? Embarrassment? Racism? As the saying goes, it appeared as though Mr. Meadows doth protested too much.
Sadly, at the end of the day, Michael Cohen's testimony likely played out like a public Rorschach test. Whether a person believed Donald Trump was corrupt or not, Cohen's testimony likely only solidified their position. What a person can't deny, however, is the fact Michael Cohen's testimony helped bring forth a host of new names which the committee will now likely question in a similar setting. I, for one, believe in Michael Cohen's testimony. Many Republicans said he was only trying to decrease his 3-year prison sentence. Yeah, if he told the truth. If the guy lied again, he'd only see his sentence increase. So then what would be the point of lying? Michael Cohen is a flawed individual, who has had a crime-riddled history, but I believe he's sincere in trying to place that past of corruption behind him in favor of a better, brighter, cleaner tomorrow. As is always the case, admitting one has a problem is the first step to solving a problem, and Michael Cohen has done that. We'll see if he's able to continue down the path to personal redemption. For both himself and those around him, I hope he's able to accomplish that goal.
Ever since Donald Trump got "elected" president, the meme has been going around, saying, "Elect a clown, expect a circus," and from the hearing's outset, that's what we had - a circus.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows started the circus off by protesting the hearing, saying they should postpone it due to Michael Cohen speaking after midnight or something along those lines. Since Democrats control the House, this motion was obviously struck down. This cycle would continue throughout the proceedings.
The Michael Cohen hearing was basically split up into two hearings, one for the Republican members of the oversight committee and another for the Democratic members. Every Democratic congressperson asked pertinent questions to Cohen. They made it apparent the hearing was important, they wanted to learn the facts related to it, and would stop at nothing in order to uncover said truths. On the flip-side, however, the only Republican member of the committee to ask relevant questions was Michigan Congressman Justin Amash. Here's how most every other Republican Congressperson handled their time on the mic:
"This is a waste of time. We should be using our time for more important matters, like building a wall around every ocean! Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. Liars can never tell the truth; that's why we call them liars. Every representative up here is perfect. We've never made mistakes. Speaking of which, Donald Trump is God. Let's hold hands and say a prayer while we worship him. Amen. Where were we? Ah, yes, Michael Cohen once ate an orange Starburst before breakfast. Donald Trump wasn't responsible for a bad hair-day he had before going into a job interview. Here's an article from The Onion, which reads, 'Michael Cohen once killed a blue whale with a plastic spoon in under 3 seconds.' Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
Yeah, Republican Congress members wanted to be at this hearing like Sister Chastity wants to be at a Fifty Shades of Grey reenactment party.
The elephant in the room was the fact that Michael Cohen, who was under oath, had previously been caught lying in such a circumstance, which is one of multiple reasons why he'll be heading to jail in a couple of months. So given that fact, why should we trust him? We were asked this question over and over and over again. It was like a Congressional Groundhog Day, only less funny. I kept waiting for a Republican Congressperson to say, "Well, it's Cohen hearing day! ...again!" Look, while it's true Michael Cohen has a history of making false statements and we should all take his under-oath commentary under caution, there is such a thing as human evolution, of change, and we shouldn't completely disregard Cohen's testimony before even hearing it.
Michael Cohen's opening statement was strong, unfiltered, accusatory, and powerful. He labeled his former boss, Donald Trump, as a "racist," a "con-man," and a "cheat." He made it known that Trump's presidential campaign was nothing more than an infomercial in order to make press and money. The former Mr. Fixer added that Trump didn't even want to become president, didn't think he had a chance, but once he did, he only cared about and looked after himself, not the country. Cohen admitted he had previously been dishonest to Congress (and others), but that he was turning over a new leaf and wanting to start his road to redemption. He also expressed remorse for working with Donald Trump for a decade. Make of Michael Cohen's opening statement what you will, he was direct, articulate, detailed, composed, and unafraid.
Once the questioning started, it became obvious the questioners were divided into two groups: the adults and the teenagers. The adults in the room - Democrats - questioned about: Mr. Cohen's history with Trump; Trump's alleged crimes; Trump's tax returns; about documents the former attorney brought with him to the hearing, etc. The teenagers in the room - Republicans - went on rants about how the hearing was a waste of time; that Cohen can't be believed; and Donald Trump is far from a "racist," "con-man," and "cheat." Democrats were there to learn the truth. Republicans were there to try and keep the public from hearing the truth.
Honestly, 98% of the Republican Oversight Committee members came across like police officers after a white cop was caught on video shooting and killing an unarmed black man. Instead of trying to find out why an innocent man was shot and killed and what kind of punishment the perpetrator should receive, they instead begin questioning the victim's character: "Did he have any marijuana or alcohol in his system?," "Did he have any prior convictions?," "Did he own a firearm?," "Did he have any kind of record when it comes to anger or violence?," etc. The police, in this scenario, do everything in their power, not to establish the truth, but to place doubt in the minds of the public. It's like a bad defense attorney attempting to prove reasonable doubt: "Oh, so you did steel a piece of bubble gum from a dollar store when you were 8-years-old? So you're admitting you've always had criminal tendencies, is that it?!?" No.
The moment which most stood out to me during the hearing was when North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows brought out a black woman whom worked to get Donald Trump elected. Meadows contended that she was proof Trump wasn't a racist, for the woman declared she would never work for a racist. Meadows didn't allow the woman to speak, of course. She just stood up there like a prop while Meadows railed on with his, "I-have-a-black-friend-so-I-can't-be-a-racist" defense. Either Mark Meadows doesn't understand racism or he himself is a racist. I'm guessing it's more of the former, but with some of the latter. The led to multiple Democratic Congresspeople decrying Representative Meadow's stunt, one even referring to the act as racist. At this, Meadows whined more than a child if he constantly emulated Donald Trump. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I have nieces and nephews that are people of color. Not a lot of people know that." Really? He thinks that dissolves him of racism? The fact a family member of his isn't racist and he hasn't disowned said family member? Also, I have to question, why do so few people know about Rep. Meadows's nieces and nephews whom are people of color? Shame? Embarrassment? Racism? As the saying goes, it appeared as though Mr. Meadows doth protested too much.
Sadly, at the end of the day, Michael Cohen's testimony likely played out like a public Rorschach test. Whether a person believed Donald Trump was corrupt or not, Cohen's testimony likely only solidified their position. What a person can't deny, however, is the fact Michael Cohen's testimony helped bring forth a host of new names which the committee will now likely question in a similar setting. I, for one, believe in Michael Cohen's testimony. Many Republicans said he was only trying to decrease his 3-year prison sentence. Yeah, if he told the truth. If the guy lied again, he'd only see his sentence increase. So then what would be the point of lying? Michael Cohen is a flawed individual, who has had a crime-riddled history, but I believe he's sincere in trying to place that past of corruption behind him in favor of a better, brighter, cleaner tomorrow. As is always the case, admitting one has a problem is the first step to solving a problem, and Michael Cohen has done that. We'll see if he's able to continue down the path to personal redemption. For both himself and those around him, I hope he's able to accomplish that goal.
Comments
Post a Comment