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

Pope Francis Organized His Protection of Minors Speech to Divert Attention from the Catholic Church's Failings

Pope Francis concluded the Vatican’s Summit on the Protection of Minors, which discussed child sex abuse in the Catholic Church. His carefully-drafted concluding speech accepted the Church’s responsibility for past cases of abuse, but was organized in a futile attempt to divert attention from the Church’s actions. His words accepted responsibility, but he also tried to spread the blame around. This was a classic case of using speech organization for persuasive purposes. He said the right things, but didn’t sound as if he meant them. Let’s look at how his devious speech tactic operated.

Pope Francis

Many Catholic priests and bishops have been implicated in and often convicted of criminal child sexual abuse, while the Catholic Church engaged in a massive, world-wide, decades-long program to conceal child abuse while protecting predators in its midst. George Cardinal Pell, one of the Pope’s top advisors and a leading advocate of priestly celibacy, is now in jail for raping a boy. This summit was decades overdue.

Speech Organization Can Help a Speaker Persuade People

Speech organization can have persuasive effects all in its own. Ancient Roman speech teachers talked about the canon of dispositio. In English, this is often called “arrangement” or “organization.” Dispositio, however, means more than organizing a speech for clarity. Just as a general disposes troops for battle in the way that leads to victory, a speaker disposes his or her speech materials to persuade the audience. This leads to questions like, should the most powerful point be placed first or last in the speech? Does the speaker present the claims first, or the evidence first? Do fear appeals go in the beginning of the speech or the end? In the 20^th Century, American speech professor Alan Monroe devised the Motivated Sequence, which uses psychological principles to organize a speech. Social psychologists talk about the primacy and recency effects. People notice and remember the first and last things and often don’t remember the middle. That is why public speaking students are taught to state their most important points clearly and sharply in the speech’s introduction and conclusion.

The Pope’s Organization Distracted Attention from the Real Issues

The Pope’s speech used organization to create a distraction or diversion. He did not organize his speech to persuade: he organized his speech to spread the blame. The Pope put his sense of responsibility in the middle of his speech where fewer people would notice, while the introduction and conclusion talked about non-Church child abuse.

The speech’s opening took a general attitude “Our work has made us realize once again that the gravity of the scourge of the sexual abuse of minors is, and historically has been, a widespread phenomenon in all cultures and societies.” Francis did not begin by accepting the Church’s responsibility but by pointing out the child abuse occurs worldwide. He then pointed out that other religions have abused children: “I am reminded too of the cruel religious practice, once widespread in certain cultures, of sacrificing human beings – frequently children – in pagan rites.” Well, sure, Marduk worshipers killed children. Does that excuse priests who merely rape children and don’t kill them? Francis also noted that “many cases of the sexual abuse of minors go unreported, particularly the great number committed within families.” Fine, but those aren’t Church issues per se.

Indeed, the Pope doubled down on blaming other people for child abuse: “The first truth that emerges from the data at hand is that those who perpetrate abuse, that is acts of physical, sexual or emotional violence, are primarily parents, relatives, husbands of child brides, coaches and teachers. Furthermore, according to the UNICEF data of 2017 regarding 28 countries throughout the world, 9 out of every 10 girls who have had forced sexual relations reveal that they were victims of someone they knew or who was close to their family.” He then complained about sexual tourism, child abuse in Italian families, and Internet pornography.

All of that is, of course, awful and it is true. But this was a summit about child abuse within the Catholic Church. The summit’s purpose was not to not solve the problem of child abuse world-wide. That would be a wonderful thing do, but it was not the point at issue. The point at issue is that the Catholic Church’s announced purpose is entirely to spread good things around the world, and yet for many years the Catholic Church employed and sheltered a great many vicious criminals. It did so not to reform those criminals, but to protect them. That was the issue that the world wanted to hear the Pope tackle. But he did not talk about that issue first.

Instead, the Pope talked about the real issues later. Even then, in the speech’s middle, he accepted responsibility reluctantly: “this evil is in no way less monstrous when it takes place within the Church.” Odd. For a church should be the safest place, under the doctrine of sanctuary. Not only is abuse in the Catholic Church equally monstrous, the Pope should have said that it is worse because of the moral duplicity. The Pope eventually acknowledged this: “Consecrated persons, chosen by God to guide souls to salvation, let themselves be dominated by their human frailty or sickness and thus become tools of Satan.” (Even then, I very much doubt that God himself called Cardinal Pell to guide anyone. Predators often seek positions where they can find easy victims.)

Francis called for the Catholic Church to face the issue with “humility” and “courage.” He listed some vague prescriptions for Church reform. He then went backwards in his conclusion: “I make a heartfelt appeal for an all-out battle against the abuse of minors both sexually and in other areas, on the part of all authorities and individuals, for we are dealing with abominable crimes that must be erased from the face of the earth: this is demanded by all the many victims hidden in families and in the various settings of our societies.” His conclusion talked about “all authorities and individuals,” but did not mention the Church. Why not?

By primacy and recency effects, we remember the beginning and end of a speech better than the middle. By putting the speech’s main points in the middle, the Pope arranged this speech to deflect attention from the Church’s problems. Very cunning.

What Went Wrong in This Speech?

Yes, Francis was right that the Catholic Church’s evils are part of society’s evils. Yes, the Catholic Church should try to solve all of society’s evils. But the Church must start with its own self-cleansing, and this is something the Pope slid around while never landing. The only people he fooled were the people who wanted to be fooled.

This blog has commented favorably on several of Pope Francis’ other speeches. But until he addresses child abuse in the church firmly and forthrightly, without excuses, with no prevarication, he will lose credibility when he talks about world peace, hunger, immigration, or any other issue.  The time came and went, and Francis did not say what he needed to say.

P.S.: Technical point for rhetoric scholars: in a much-cited scholarly essay, Lloyd Bitzer wrote about the “rhetorical situation,” which arises from an “exigence.” Francis tried to rise to the rhetorical situation but didn’t quite hit the exigence. 

US Government photo

Did Spike Lee Trick Donald Trump into Revealing a Guilty Conscience?

Filmmaker Spike Lee’s brief acceptance address at the 2019 Academy Awards gained attention from no less a luminary than Donald Trump, former TV star and now President of the United States. Trump took umbrage at Lee for “doing his racist hit on your President.” But did Lee hit at the president? Or not? What happened, as rhetorical theory can teach us, is that Lee made his point enthymematically by not stating his point outright.

Lee never mentioned Trump’s name and did not praise one political party over another.  Apparently he didn’t need to. I’ve blogged earlier about the rhetoric of silence, when people say something by not saying anything. Usually, this means that the speaker stands silently for a few moments. In this case, Spike made a point, and the audience, including Trump, drew a conclusion. But Lee said nothing about the actual point. He wasn’t literally silent. Instead, he was silent about the main point, but everyone understood it anyway. Did he trick Trump into revealing a guilty conscience?

Spike was co-winner of the Academy Award for Adapted Screenplay, an award that he shared with Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, and Kevin Willmott.  The key part of his speech was:

“Before the world tonight, I give praise to our ancestors who have built this country into what it is today along with the genocide of its native people. We all connect with our ancestors. We will have love and wisdom regained, we will regain our humanity. It will be a powerful moment. The 2020 presidential election is around the corner. Let’s all mobilize. Let’s all be on the right side of history. Make the moral choice between love versus hate. Let’s do the right thing! You know I had to get that in there.”

(“Do the Right Thing” is, of course, Lee’s most famous film.) He didn’t mention Trump. He didn’t mention one party or the other. He was silent, in a sense, about those two points.

Trump responded on Twitter:

“Be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes, or better yet not have to use notes at all, when doing his racist hit on your President, who has done more for African Americans (Criminal Justice Reform, Lowest Unemployment numbers in History, Tax Cuts, etc.) than almost any other Pres!”

OK, I’ll agree that Lee’s vocal delivery wasn’t the best. However, I suspect that some historians would think that Abraham Lincoln (Emancipation Proclamation) and Lyndon Johnson (Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965) did more for African Americans than Trump. Still….

Why did Trump think that a call to choose “love versus hate” was a hit on his presidency? Why did he think that regaining “love and wisdom” was a personal attack? Did Trump realize that he was not “on the right side of history?” Those seem like universal values, not Republican or Democratic partisan values. One could propose several explanations, but, most likely, Trump drew the same conclusion the rest of us did: that his administration is based neither on love versus hate nor on wisdom, but he didn’t want anyone to say so, and he felt stung, even though Lee didn’t criticize him directly at all.

There’s an old saying, “if the shoe fits, wear it.” It looks as if Trump felt ready to wear the shoe. Sometimes, a speaker can best say something by not saying it. The point got made, didn’t it? 

Fake Saul Alinsky Quotations Are Used to Smear Liberal Politicians

A recent social media exchange made me aware of a series of fake quotations that litter the Internet and are falsely attributed to the radical civil rights and labor organizer Saul Alinsky.

Why do people invent fake quotations? One reason, obviously, is that people invent fake quotations to give credibility to their stupid ideas, which otherwise would be completely unbelievable. After all, people who have good ideas don't need fake quotations. The fake Alinsky quotations serve a subtler purpose: by an indirect and devious route, these fake quotations are used to smear, of all people, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. How? Why? It is an interesting story.

Fake quotations have long been one of my pet peeves. I published an article a few years ago discussing fake Founding Fathers quotations about gun control; some conservatives use these fake quotations to support an extreme anti-government agenda. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation has a lengthy webpage listing various spurious Thomas Jefferson quotations and the Mount Vernon Society provides an almost equally intimidating list of fake George Washington quotations.

For example, one common fake Jefferson quotation says, "Nothing is more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people." This seems to support a conservative position, but Jefferson never said it. It is not even in Jefferson’s writing style. (Hint: although he was a wonderful writer, Jefferson never used 11 words if 22 words would do the same job.) Anna Berkes of the Thomas Jefferson  Foundation has done a great job of cataloguing spurious Jefferson quotations.

The fake Saul Alinsky quotations serve a different purpose. The fakers' idea is to picture socialism as a means of political and social tyranny (using Alinsky as the authority about socialism), and then to claim (very questionably) that Alinsky’s writings inspired Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The fake Alinsky quotation that seems to circulate most recently is: “Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.” Since several leading Democrats are advocating universal healthcare systems, conservatives can use this (fake) quotation to support their otherwise bizarre claim that providing healthcare is a way to control and tyrannize the population.

The second fake quotation from Alinsky is: “Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.” Since liberal Democrats suggest using social programs to reduce poverty, while prominent liberals like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (falsely) describe themselves as socialists, this quotation supports the conspiratorial idea that socialists are secretly trying to make people poor to make them easier to control.

The basic idea of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, and non-controversial programs like the Veterans Administration, electrical co-ops, and farmers co-ops are clearly socialist. To make socialism sound especially evil, the people who publish and circulate the fake Alinsky quotations – there are actually eight of these fake Alinsky quotations – depict socialism, not as a method of social justice, but of tyranny and power.

Of course, conservatives could easily make the same point by giving accurate quotations from Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Lenin. They do not. Nobody would ever believe that Obama and Clinton were inspired by Stalin (although, strangely enough, President Donald Trump’s first Chief of Staff, Steve Bannon, once described himself as a Leninist). In contrast, fake quotations from Saul Alinsky seem vaguely plausible. So, if you are going to invent fake quotations, invent fake quotations that will serve your sick, deceitful, and devious purposes.

How do I know that these quotations from Saul Alinsky are fakes? Simple. I have read Alinsky’s books, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. The websites that give the fake Alinsky quotations usually seem to cite these books as resources. Not only are these quotations not found in Alinsky’s books, they do not resemble Alinsky’s ideas, which emphasize social justice and equality, and, in fact, the fake Alinsky quotations contradict his most basic principles. Furthermore, the quotations are not in Alinsky’s writing style, which is given to long, complex sentences and action verbs.

Back to Obama and Clinton. Obama and Clinton both seem to have read Alinsky’s books, and Clinton discussed them in her college thesis. Clinton, however, recoiled from Alinsky’s “inconsistency” and felt that his ideas were “anachronistic.” Not a ringing endorsement. The connection between Obama and Alinsky is more a matter of unsupported speculation.

For my own part, I disagree with Alinsky’s persuasive methods, which I think are both unethical and unnecessary in a representative democracy. That does not mean that I sympathize in any way with people who invent or spread fake quotations.

So, three conclusions:

1. People invent fake quotations to make a point that they cannot support by reason or facts. People spread fake quotations because they know they are wrong, and the use of fake quotations proves their lack of intellect and morality. People who repeat quotations, especially malicious ones, without checking their accuracy are equally guilty.

2. Members of the public believe fake quotations only if they lack critical thinking skills. Any competent teacher will tell students to go to primary sources. If you want to understand Plato’s ideas, read Plato’s dialogues. No secondary source will do the job. If you want to understand Donald Trump’s presidency, read or listen to his actual speeches (which I often analyze in this blog; use “Trump” as your search word in the box up and to the right). If you want to understand the Holy Bible, read it. If you want to understand Islam, read the Holy Koran. If you want to understand Alinsky, read Alinsky’s own books. There is no substitute.

3. Fake quotations are everywhere. The Internet is a sizzling frying pan full of fake quotations, invented facts, and obscene smears. Reader beware!

P.S. My article about fake gun control quotations is behind a paywall, but a good library should be able to find a copy for you.