Michael Cohen's Credibility in Today's House Oversight Committee Hearing

Michael Cohen's credibility is the issue in today's House Oversight Committee hearing, which is ongoing as I write this. Cohen is testifying today about his relationship with President Donald Trump, and his opening statement addressed that forthrightly: "I recognize that some of you may doubt and attack me on my credibility. It is for this reason that I have incorporated into this opening statement documents that are irrefutable, and demonstrate that the information you will hear is accurate and truthful." Cohen admitted that he had committed crimes and had told lies: "I have told lies, but I am not a liar." He expressed shame. 

Personal credibility versus documents: (1) Republicans today are concentrating on Cohen's credibility, but it's the documents that matter. (2) The Republicans have been shrill (sometimes I worry that one of them will have a stroke) and rarely discuss or ask about substantive issues. Are they just trying to distract public attention from the issues?

Cohen's opening statement accused Trump of being a racist and a conman, and reported instances of threatening people who were in a position to harm Trump. 

Democrats on the committee asked questions about Cohen's interactions with Trump. Republicans have at this writing (about 1:52 pm EST) have asked no questions at all about Cohen's knowledge of Trump, but instead complained that Cohen was a convicted felon, accused him of being a liar (which he had admitted), and objected that he was even brought to testify. Cohen at one point protested: "All I wanted to say is I just find it interesting, sir, that between yourself and your colleagues that not one question so far since I'm here has been asked about President Trump. That's actually why I thought I was coming today. Not to confess the mistakes that I've made."

Their voices ringing with indignation, Republican representatives have reiterated Cohen's confessed crimes. Rep. Carol Miller called Cohen's testimony a "media circus." All true enough.

Cohen was therefore wise to present documentary evidence, including cancelled checks reimbursing him for hush money payments, financial statements, and letters to Mr. Trump's educational institutions, and a document in Mr. Trump's handwriting about a possible misuse of Trump charity funds. Interestingly, Republicans have not spent much if any time discussing these documents or trying to refute their validity.

So, Cohen's credibility is an issue. Republicans are hitting him very hard on that question. But:

1. If Republicans were fully sincere about their attacks, they would spend more time addressing the documents' validity.
2. The Republicans often ranted at length without letting Cohen respond. Why? 
3. Ultimately, if Watergate taught us anything, it is that truth emerges and that big conspiracies don't stay secret forever.
4. By confessing his guilt, Cohen tried to reestablish his personal dignity and credibility. Did he succeed? Only time will tell.

Is Cohen credible? Not so much. But he presented proof for some of his points. In the long run, a stroke of a pen outweighs a witness' memory. That principle is getting little attention today, but it dominates in the long run.

Let's also consider that Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted shortly before Cohen's testimony: "Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot." That sounds like witness tampering, and people don't tamper with witnesses unless they fear their testimony, do they? Why was he afraid of Cohen's testimony?

Has the full truth yet emerged? Are Cohen's documents conclusive? Will Cohen ever have much public credibility? I think not. But a big point in Mr. Cohen's favor is the Republican members' panicky, shrill-sounding, content-poor response to his testimony. Thus, although the questions are about Cohen's credibility, the bizarre behavior of the Republicans raises questions about their own credibility.

Image: House Oversight Committee