Uncontradicted
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Those Republicans have learned the hard way never to trust President Donald Trump’s denials
Did he direct payoffs to a porn star? Trump denied it. It was true .
Was the Trump Organization pursuing a hotel project in Moscow while he was running for president? Trump denied it. That was true too.
Did his campaign meet with someone claiming to be an agent of the Russian state to seek dirt on Hillary Clinton? Denied. True .
Was there fraud at the Trump Foundation? Denied. True .
Who wants to be the member of Congress recorded for posterity rejecting Cohen’s testimony that Roger Stone informed Trump in advance of the impending WikiLeaks dump?
Who doubts that Trump helped shape Michael Cohen’s false testimony to Congress? Who wants to take the other side of the bet from Representative Ocasio-Cortez that Trump provided false financial information to insurance companies and local tax authorities? Who feels confident that Donald Trump Jr. did not lie to Congress when he denied that Trump had foreknowledge of the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting?
Evidently, no Republican on the Oversight Committee.
Representative Mark Meadows did challenge the allegation that Trump regularly disparaged black Americans, by invoking the mute presence at the hearing of an African American Trump appointee to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But considering the demeaning things Trump has said and tweeted in public , does anyone want to risk embarrassment or worse by claiming that he has not said slightly worse things in private?
The Republican case against Cohen was to reiterate over and over that Cohen is a convicted liar. As he is. As are Trump’s campaign chairman, Trump’s deputy campaign chair, and Trump’s first national security adviser. It’s bold to cite the criminality of so many of Trump’s associates—and maybe more to come—as proof of Trump’s innocence.
And obviously the Republican committee members know it. None of them would dare say that Trump is truthful in speech or honest in business. None would say it is impossible he said the things about black Americans that Cohen alleges he said. Even the allegations Cohen could not corroborate are all so hideously plausible that the most pro-Trump Republicans on the Oversight Committee shied from gainsaying them.
Cohen’s testimony may not all prove correct. But all of it is plausible—and not a word of it has been contradicted, let alone refuted.
Lead image: Carlos Barria / Reuters
The author, David Frum, is a Republican stalwart. He has cited, here, a number of specific cases.
Please read the seed, and Comment on it's content.
When you start with a false statement, you lose all credibility.
Hi, Sean,
I note that you are doing as the Republican committee members have done: attack with no substance.
I know accuracy doesn't matter to a partisan hack, but calling someone who shilled for Hillary Clinton a "Republican stalwart" is dishonest.
It's funny how often people who criticize Trump for being dishonest employ his tactics.
I know accuracy doesn't matter to you, but saying Frum shilled for Hillary Clinton is dishonest.
No it is the truth.
No, it's not true. READ your own link, for God's sake ...
Obviously, you either didn't read, or understand, Dean's link.
Do you know what stalwart means?
You're makin' $hit up, Sean....
Please stop the gaslighting Bob. You got caught misleading people that Frum was a "stalwart Republican."
Anyone who knows anything about American politics knows that's simply false. The idea that a Clinton voter who makes a living criticizing Republicans is a "stalwart Republican"is an Orwellian corruption of the English language that should embarrass you. When shown proof of a misstatement, an honest man would admit it. Yet, you double down with dishonesty that can now only be described as intentional.
You should be ashamed you stooped to this.
You're makin' $hit up, Sean....
The damn gop cannot defend Trump so they just attack/threaten the witnesses...
Sounds like the Kavanaugh "Lynching Trial" huh !
Is that supposed to mean something? If so, what is it supposed to mean?
"The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision."
Helen Keller
Is that supposed to mean something? If so, what is it supposed to mean?
Yep !
"If so, what is it supposed to mean?"
I'm not your Johanna Sullivan !
Yep. The gop didn't defend Kavanaugh. They just attacked witnesses...
Attacked her by asking Questions of how she came to her conclusion and who coached her (which we found out she was coached by the way) ?
democrats = Would you like a cup of Coffee Miss "I can't fly" Ford ? How ya doin' today ? Good ? Okay....let's have a "Coffee Talk"....shall we ? How ya doin' ?
And "where the Fuck is she now, if everything was true. You'd think she would want Justice for what she said. I know she can get out of her house now, as she has 2 front doors (like most folks do) ! I hear they call them "French Doors" !!!!!!!!!!!
And the Democrats continue their Attack of "JUSTICE" Kavanaugh !
"You farted" ?
"Your telling me you actually "Farted" ?
"And in college no less...… you PIG" !
There were a number of buffoonish utterances coming from the mouths of committee republicans yesterday. My favorite was from the guy who was identified on the tv screen as a former sheriff from Louisiana. He huffed and puffed with the good old boy drawl and tried to badger Cohen into confessing as to why the "box" of checks hadn't been handed over to law enforcement (since it was supposedly evidence of criminal activity). Unfortunately for Rep. Higgins, the fact was that law enforcement had obtained and processed and used the checks as evidence months ago, and returned them to Cohen. I think Higgin's dog is still licking the egg off his face.
I read an article this morning which made an excellent point. What we saw yesterday from the republicans was the result of their party's "thinking" having been superceded and overcome by talk show mentality , where the inquiries appeal to the most simple minded right wing positions. Congress is being filled by more and more dummies as the time frame in which the right is controlled by talk show mentalities has expanded.
Good article by Frum by the way.
I saw a clip of AOC's intervention. She - logically - asked who could corroborate. Cohen unhesitatingly gave several names.
About 20 GOP congressmen (I think there was one woman) said their piece yesterday. None of them actually defended Donald Trump. I'd like to think it is because they understand he is indefensible, but I more believe it is because they think their constituents would rather see them attack the opponents of the president, and at this point Cohen is an opponent.
Could very well be...
The testimony of the former Trump lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, has left the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, concerned that Donald J. Trump “cannot be trusted,” sources close to Kim revealed on Wednesday.
Kim reportedly was glued to his television as Cohen’s testimony was beamed live to Hanoi, and his “jaw dropped” at the lawyer’s revelations about Trump’s mendacity and unethical business practices, according to the sources.
“Dear Leader became increasingly alarmed about the picture Cohen was painting of Trump,” one source said. “At one point, he turned to the rest of us and said, ‘What kind of lowlife am I dealing with?’ ”
According to the source, Kim was also disturbed by what he saw as the “stunningly disingenuous and unsavory” behavior by some of Cohen’s interrogators on the congressional panel.
“That Jim Jordan seems like a real dick,” Kim reportedly said.
- The Borowitz Report