Trump's Otto Warmbier comments mark a shameful day for America
By Frida Ghitis
It almost sounded like compassion -- compassion for the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un -- when President Donald Trump explained that Kim "felt very badly" about what had happened to Otto Warmbier, the 22-year-old American student taken prisoner by Kim's henchmen for 17 months. Gone were Trump's charges that Kim runs a "brutal regime," which he stated when Warmbier was returned to the Unites States in 2017-- in a coma. He died less than a week later.
At a press conference in Hanoi on Thursday, Trump said of Kim, "I will take him at his word."
It was another demeaning moment not only for Trump, who has gushed about the tyrant on several occasions, but also for America. And it was made even more humiliating for the United States when the President heaped additional praise on Kim's "great leadership," which he said will bring much success to his country.
To be clear, he was referring to a regime that a United Nations investigation concluded commits crimes against humanity that "entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds" -- violations of a gravity and scale "that (do) not have any parallel in the contemporary world."
That's whose word Trump accepts. That's the leadership Trump calls great.
Of course, this does not mean that Trump should never meet and be civil with dictators. But gushing is optional -- and, in his case, it appears appallingly sincere.
Trump has a well-established affinity for dictators, and he's known for taking their word over that of his own experts. He took Russian President Vladimir Putin's word over that of his own intelligence professionals regarding Russia's 2016 election interference. He took Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's word that he was not involved in the killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Meanwhile, the CIA believes the Saudi crown prince ordered the killing.
But it is with Kim that he has shown the most obsequious behavior, a school-boy crush. "We fell in love," he explained, as he sought to make a deal with the dictator in 2018. Trump appears more interested in burnishing his own reputation as a negotiator -- better than his predecessors -- than in almost any other consideration.
This week, the two major news events -- Trump meeting Kim in Hanoi, and Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen testifying before Congress -- provided a clear portrait of a morally hollow presidency. Cohen described a man devoid of principles and determined to win in pursuit of money, power and prestige. And, in Hanoi, we saw the risks of having such a man as President.
Many were skeptical of a second summit. But Trump had ignored the advice of experts, who tried to tell him a good personal relationship was not enough to persuade Kim to fully surrender his nuclear arsenal.
He went with his gut, poorly prepared -- a well prepared summit doesn't end without even a minor face-saving document -- and had another face-to-face meeting, an approach that has so far helped to cement Kim's rule by bolstering his standing at home and in the international community. A man who was a pariah on the global stage is now a quasi-respected figure, honored by the praise of, and high-profile summits with, the US President.
But let's not forget that North Korea is a dangerous country. It has attacked South Korea time and again and has built a deadly nuclear arsenal. A new risk emerged as Trump turned North Korea into a symbol of his negotiating prowess -- one he tries to use to compare himself favorably to former President Barack Obama and others before him.
Early on in his presidency, Trump threatened "fire and fury" against Kim. In his first State of the Union in 2018, he even mentioned human rights, a topic he appears now to have wholly forgotten. "No regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally and brutally than the cruel dictatorship of North Korea," he declared, explaining that "complacency and concessions" aggravate the risks, and vowing, "I will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations."
But then he saw an opportunity to make history, to build his art-of-the-deal brand. As a deal with Kim looked harder to reach, though, Trump made major concessions. According to CNN, he even weighed dropping the fundamental demand that North Korea provide a full accounting of its nuclear and missile programs. The move suggested to experts that, as almost anyone but, apparently, Trump believes, Kim has no intention of getting rid of his nuclear program.
Several months later and Trump still seemed determined to get a deal. But it was not to be, at least for now. That's because while Trump may think he's cleverly manipulating Kim with his embarrassingly high praise, it is Kim who has Trump's number. Kim demanded that the US lift economic sanctions before he would dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear facility. If Trump had agreed, the world would have laughed.
Instead, Trump walked away. That came as a relief to those of us who feared a truly disastrous deal. And, yes, he has managed to reduce the temperature in the relationship, lowering the risk of nuclear confrontation for the time being. But in so doing, he has also made the world cringe -- unnecessarily praising a ruthless ruler, and forever tarnishing America's image as an (admittedly flawed) advocate of human dignity for all.
Trump's performance in Hanoi helps explain why even though Cohen, a convicted liar, has serious credibility problems, his testimony in Congress rang true. Trump has shown the world that principles play a minimal role, if any, in his conduct. He defended and praised the man whose regime's brutality led to the death of Warmbier, a young American student guilty of the most minor of infractions.
It was a shameful day for America.
February 28, 2019
Does not support, now....
Meadows says he does not support his 2012 remarks about sending Obama 'back home to Kenya'
By Alex Rogers, Sunlen Serfaty and Liz Stark
Comments Republican Rep. Mark Meadows made in 2012 -- that then-President Barack Obama should be sent "back home to Kenya or wherever" -- are resurfacing this week following a tense conversation over race at a public House hearing Wednesday.
Asked about the 2012 video showing the then congressional candidate at an event calling for an investigation into President Barack Obama's citizenship, Meadows said he's "addressed that a dozen times."
"And candidly it was not the way that I should've answered the questions," Meadows said on Capitol Hill on Thursday. "Certainly is not something that I support from a standpoint of any racial overtones."
He added, "I can tell you that anyone who knows me knows that there is not a racial bone in my body."
Liberal commentators resurfaced the video after a contentious dialogue at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday between Meadows and Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who said it was a racist act that the North Carolina congressman would use a black Trump administration official as a "prop."
In 2012, Meadows was asked at an event, "If the President is not a natural-born citizen, then he does not control the military. And so the question I have, if you're sent to Congress, will you pursue some kind of an investigation to find out whether or not this guy is really a citizen and entitled to (that) authority?"
"Yes," Meadows responded. "If we do our job from a grassroots standpoint, we won't have to worry about it. We'll send (Obama) back home to Kenya or wherever it is."
When The Washington Post asked Meadows in 2015 if he would push for such an investigation as a member of the House Oversight committee, Meadows said he would not.
"I don't even remember that quote," said Meadows then. "Obviously I distance myself from that."
"That doesn't apply to anything I'm doing now," he added.
On Wednesday, Meadows introduced Lynne Patton, a black woman who works at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, at the hearing with Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, to counter the witness' claim that Trump is racist.
"Just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren't racist," said Tlaib. "And it is insensitive that some would even say -- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber, in this committee, is alone racist in itself."
Meadows then asked the committee Chairman Elijah Cummings to strike her remarks from the record. Cummings, who is African American and said at one point that Meadows was "one of his best friends," asked Tlaib if she would like to clarify her remarks.
Tlaib later said that it was a "racist act" but that she was not calling Meadows a racist.
Meadows then responded that his nieces and nephews are "people of color."
"To indicate that I asked someone who is a personal friend of the Trump family, who has worked for him, who knows this particular individual, that she's coming in to be a prop, it's racist to suggest that I ask her to come in here for that reason," he added.
By Alex Rogers, Sunlen Serfaty and Liz Stark
Comments Republican Rep. Mark Meadows made in 2012 -- that then-President Barack Obama should be sent "back home to Kenya or wherever" -- are resurfacing this week following a tense conversation over race at a public House hearing Wednesday.
Asked about the 2012 video showing the then congressional candidate at an event calling for an investigation into President Barack Obama's citizenship, Meadows said he's "addressed that a dozen times."
"And candidly it was not the way that I should've answered the questions," Meadows said on Capitol Hill on Thursday. "Certainly is not something that I support from a standpoint of any racial overtones."
He added, "I can tell you that anyone who knows me knows that there is not a racial bone in my body."
Liberal commentators resurfaced the video after a contentious dialogue at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday between Meadows and Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who said it was a racist act that the North Carolina congressman would use a black Trump administration official as a "prop."
In 2012, Meadows was asked at an event, "If the President is not a natural-born citizen, then he does not control the military. And so the question I have, if you're sent to Congress, will you pursue some kind of an investigation to find out whether or not this guy is really a citizen and entitled to (that) authority?"
"Yes," Meadows responded. "If we do our job from a grassroots standpoint, we won't have to worry about it. We'll send (Obama) back home to Kenya or wherever it is."
When The Washington Post asked Meadows in 2015 if he would push for such an investigation as a member of the House Oversight committee, Meadows said he would not.
"I don't even remember that quote," said Meadows then. "Obviously I distance myself from that."
"That doesn't apply to anything I'm doing now," he added.
On Wednesday, Meadows introduced Lynne Patton, a black woman who works at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, at the hearing with Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, to counter the witness' claim that Trump is racist.
"Just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren't racist," said Tlaib. "And it is insensitive that some would even say -- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber, in this committee, is alone racist in itself."
Meadows then asked the committee Chairman Elijah Cummings to strike her remarks from the record. Cummings, who is African American and said at one point that Meadows was "one of his best friends," asked Tlaib if she would like to clarify her remarks.
Tlaib later said that it was a "racist act" but that she was not calling Meadows a racist.
Meadows then responded that his nieces and nephews are "people of color."
"To indicate that I asked someone who is a personal friend of the Trump family, who has worked for him, who knows this particular individual, that she's coming in to be a prop, it's racist to suggest that I ask her to come in here for that reason," he added.
Lot of Crimes
Michael Cohen Accused Trump and His Family of a Lot of Crimes Today
Prosecutors—and Congress—have some follow-up to do.
DAN FRIEDMAN
During stunning testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on Wednesday, Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal lawyer, called his old boss “a racist,” “a con man,” and a “cheat” while detailing a laundry list of lies by Donald Trump. But Cohen also implicated Trump, and on a number of occasions, his family members, in an array of crimes. Here are some highlights:
Conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws
Cohen arrived at the hearing with copies of checks that Trump sent him while serving as president to reimburse the $130,000 hush-money payment Cohen personally made just before the election to Stormy Daniels, the porn star who says she had an affair with Trump. Cohen has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate campaign finance law, leaving Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. But Cohen provided new details further implicating the president on Wednesday. He said he arranged with Trump and Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to receive the money in installments so that they resembled retainer payments. But that was a fake story: The installment plan they arranged was used “in order to hide those payments,” Cohen said—in other words, to avoid disclosing the payments to the Federal Election Commission and to the public.
“He was telling me to lie.”
Cohen conceded that this means he is asserting that Trump carried out a criminal conspiracy while he was president.
Cohen also said he had checks that were signed by Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr. Weisselberg has already received immunity to cooperate with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. But Cohen’s testimony suggests that Trump Jr. could also be charged with conspiracy.
Obstruction of justice
Cohen has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in past statements he shared with the House and Senate intelligence committees. Cohen admitted in his plea deal that he lied about the duration of Trump’s pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow deal, falsely claiming that the effort did not extend well into 2016 in an effort to diminish the extent of any leverage Moscow may have gained over Trump through the putative deal.
Cohen said Wednesday that Trump did not explicitly tell him to lie, but used, in a sense, a code that Cohen said he understood from years of working for him to ensure Cohen did not reveal the extent of his company’s activities in Russia. “He would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing,” Cohen said. “In his way, he was telling me to lie.” Cohen said Trump made it clear through “personal statements to me that we both knew were false…that he wanted me to lie.” This suggests that when he lied to Congress, Cohen believed he was doing so at Trump’s behest.
Cohen also said that Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited his statements to the intelligence committees. He said the edits related to what he would say about how long the Trump Organization pursued the tower deal. If true, this might implicate Trump and even his lawyers in helping Cohen lie to Congress.
Asked which lawyers he was talking about, Cohen named Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, and Abbe Lowell, who represents Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as the lawyers who reviewed his testimony. A person familiar with the legal team said Lowell and Sekulow had reviewed the testimony under a joint defense agreement. But the person denied that Sekulow or other Trump lawyers had edited the statement. “No one adjusted his time frame,” the person said.
In a statement after the hearing, Sekulow disputed Cohen’s claim: “Today’s testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false,” Sekulow said.
Perjury
Cohen said that in July 2016, he was in Trump’s office when longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who advised the president’s campaign, called. On speakerphone, Stone told Trump that “he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange,” the founder of WikiLeaks, Cohen says. Stone told Trump that “within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Cohen recounts. Cohen later said that Stone’s call was put through to Trump by Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime secretary, making Graff a potential witness.
Cohen also described standing in a room in June 2016 with Trump when Trump Jr. walked behind his father’s desk and said “in a low voice” that “the meeting is all set.’” Trump said “Okay, good,” according to Cohen. Cohen said he later concluded that in this exchange, Trump Jr. had told his father about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting where Trump Jr. hoped to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton offered by a Russian emissary.
Both assertions could implicate Trump in perjury. Trump reportedly claimed in written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller that Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks and that he did not know in advance about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
Cohen also suggested Trump committed perjury during a 2013 deposition when Trump denied having a relationship with Felix Sater, a convicted felon and former FBI informant who worked for Trump pursing deals. Sater would later team up with Cohen on a secret effort to win Kremlin support to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
“I’ve seen him a couple of times; I have met him,” Trump said under oath. “If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn’t know what he looked like.” Cohen told the committee that Trump lied in that statement; Cohen noted that Sater had used an office on the same floor of Trump Tower where Trump had an office—a sign of closeness to the president. Did Trump “lie under oath” in that deposition, Cohen was asked. “Yes,” Cohen said.
Cohen also testified that he had briefed members of the Trump family—he later specified that he meant Trump Jr. or Ivanka Trump—on the Moscow tower deal “approximately 10 times.” That’s not what Trump Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017: “I was peripherally aware of it, but most of my knowledge has been gained since as it relates to hearing about it over the last few weeks.” He was testifying to that panel under oath, and the discrepancy increases his chances of perjury charges.
And More
That’s not all. Cohen suggested Trump may have defrauded insurers, cheated on his taxes and illegally used his charity for personal profit. Cohen also said he knew of other criminal activity by the president, but said he could not discuss it due to his ongoing participation in federal investigations.
Prosecutors—and Congress—have some follow-up to do.
DAN FRIEDMAN
During stunning testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on Wednesday, Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal lawyer, called his old boss “a racist,” “a con man,” and a “cheat” while detailing a laundry list of lies by Donald Trump. But Cohen also implicated Trump, and on a number of occasions, his family members, in an array of crimes. Here are some highlights:
Conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws
Cohen arrived at the hearing with copies of checks that Trump sent him while serving as president to reimburse the $130,000 hush-money payment Cohen personally made just before the election to Stormy Daniels, the porn star who says she had an affair with Trump. Cohen has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate campaign finance law, leaving Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. But Cohen provided new details further implicating the president on Wednesday. He said he arranged with Trump and Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to receive the money in installments so that they resembled retainer payments. But that was a fake story: The installment plan they arranged was used “in order to hide those payments,” Cohen said—in other words, to avoid disclosing the payments to the Federal Election Commission and to the public.
“He was telling me to lie.”
Cohen conceded that this means he is asserting that Trump carried out a criminal conspiracy while he was president.
Cohen also said he had checks that were signed by Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr. Weisselberg has already received immunity to cooperate with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. But Cohen’s testimony suggests that Trump Jr. could also be charged with conspiracy.
Obstruction of justice
Cohen has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in past statements he shared with the House and Senate intelligence committees. Cohen admitted in his plea deal that he lied about the duration of Trump’s pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow deal, falsely claiming that the effort did not extend well into 2016 in an effort to diminish the extent of any leverage Moscow may have gained over Trump through the putative deal.
Cohen said Wednesday that Trump did not explicitly tell him to lie, but used, in a sense, a code that Cohen said he understood from years of working for him to ensure Cohen did not reveal the extent of his company’s activities in Russia. “He would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing,” Cohen said. “In his way, he was telling me to lie.” Cohen said Trump made it clear through “personal statements to me that we both knew were false…that he wanted me to lie.” This suggests that when he lied to Congress, Cohen believed he was doing so at Trump’s behest.
Cohen also said that Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited his statements to the intelligence committees. He said the edits related to what he would say about how long the Trump Organization pursued the tower deal. If true, this might implicate Trump and even his lawyers in helping Cohen lie to Congress.
Asked which lawyers he was talking about, Cohen named Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, and Abbe Lowell, who represents Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as the lawyers who reviewed his testimony. A person familiar with the legal team said Lowell and Sekulow had reviewed the testimony under a joint defense agreement. But the person denied that Sekulow or other Trump lawyers had edited the statement. “No one adjusted his time frame,” the person said.
In a statement after the hearing, Sekulow disputed Cohen’s claim: “Today’s testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false,” Sekulow said.
Perjury
Cohen said that in July 2016, he was in Trump’s office when longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who advised the president’s campaign, called. On speakerphone, Stone told Trump that “he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange,” the founder of WikiLeaks, Cohen says. Stone told Trump that “within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Cohen recounts. Cohen later said that Stone’s call was put through to Trump by Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime secretary, making Graff a potential witness.
Cohen also described standing in a room in June 2016 with Trump when Trump Jr. walked behind his father’s desk and said “in a low voice” that “the meeting is all set.’” Trump said “Okay, good,” according to Cohen. Cohen said he later concluded that in this exchange, Trump Jr. had told his father about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting where Trump Jr. hoped to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton offered by a Russian emissary.
Both assertions could implicate Trump in perjury. Trump reportedly claimed in written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller that Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks and that he did not know in advance about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
Cohen also suggested Trump committed perjury during a 2013 deposition when Trump denied having a relationship with Felix Sater, a convicted felon and former FBI informant who worked for Trump pursing deals. Sater would later team up with Cohen on a secret effort to win Kremlin support to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
“I’ve seen him a couple of times; I have met him,” Trump said under oath. “If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn’t know what he looked like.” Cohen told the committee that Trump lied in that statement; Cohen noted that Sater had used an office on the same floor of Trump Tower where Trump had an office—a sign of closeness to the president. Did Trump “lie under oath” in that deposition, Cohen was asked. “Yes,” Cohen said.
Cohen also testified that he had briefed members of the Trump family—he later specified that he meant Trump Jr. or Ivanka Trump—on the Moscow tower deal “approximately 10 times.” That’s not what Trump Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017: “I was peripherally aware of it, but most of my knowledge has been gained since as it relates to hearing about it over the last few weeks.” He was testifying to that panel under oath, and the discrepancy increases his chances of perjury charges.
And More
That’s not all. Cohen suggested Trump may have defrauded insurers, cheated on his taxes and illegally used his charity for personal profit. Cohen also said he knew of other criminal activity by the president, but said he could not discuss it due to his ongoing participation in federal investigations.
To be indicted on corruption charges
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to be indicted on corruption charges, pending hearing
By Oren Liebermann and Andrew Carey
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust arising from three separate corruption investigations, pending a hearing, according to a source with direct knowledge of the decision by Israel's attorney general.
Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's intention to indict the Prime Minister so close to April's general election marks a dramatic moment in Israeli politics and is a major blow to Netanyahu as he seeks a fifth term in office.
Netanyahu's opponents will likely look to exploit a heightened sense of damage to the Prime Minister's reputation, while his coalition partners must now decide whether to support a leader who looks set to be indicted, or withdraw their support and risk alienating their shared right-wing voter base.
Netanyahu is entitled to a hearing on the impending indictment before charges are formally laid, but that is not expected to take place until long after the election.
Under Israeli law, Netanyahu is not required to step down if he is indicted. He is only required to step down if he is convicted and that conviction is upheld through the appeals process, which could take years.
He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, most recently on Wednesday evening when, following a day of heightened speculation in Israeli news media, a statement was released on behalf of the Prime Minister which dismissed the prospect of a possible bribery charge as "ridiculous."
By Oren Liebermann and Andrew Carey
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust arising from three separate corruption investigations, pending a hearing, according to a source with direct knowledge of the decision by Israel's attorney general.
Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's intention to indict the Prime Minister so close to April's general election marks a dramatic moment in Israeli politics and is a major blow to Netanyahu as he seeks a fifth term in office.
Netanyahu's opponents will likely look to exploit a heightened sense of damage to the Prime Minister's reputation, while his coalition partners must now decide whether to support a leader who looks set to be indicted, or withdraw their support and risk alienating their shared right-wing voter base.
Netanyahu is entitled to a hearing on the impending indictment before charges are formally laid, but that is not expected to take place until long after the election.
Under Israeli law, Netanyahu is not required to step down if he is indicted. He is only required to step down if he is convicted and that conviction is upheld through the appeals process, which could take years.
He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, most recently on Wednesday evening when, following a day of heightened speculation in Israeli news media, a statement was released on behalf of the Prime Minister which dismissed the prospect of a possible bribery charge as "ridiculous."
Biggest joke...
Twitter mocks Donald Trump Jr. for retweet saying Cohen is telling the truth
By Filipa Ioannou
Among the hours-long questioning of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, there was some colorful roasting of the president's son.
"Mr Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgement of anyone in the world," said Cohen.
This assessment of questionable judgement appeared to be borne out a little later in the morning, when Donald Trump Jr., in the midst of a stream of retweets calling Michael Cohen a liar, also retweeted a longer tweet that said Cohen had nothing to lose and was telling the truth.
"Incredible to see all the hubris drained from Cohen," said the tweet from journalist Garrett M. Graff, which Trump Jr. appeared to retweet around 9 a.m. "I've been personally screamed at by Cohen on the phone before and know how much bravado he once had. This is a man with nothing left, with no reason to lie or obfuscate at all. Humbling, in its way."
Hours passed and replies mocking Trump Jr. for the retweet mounted, but as of 12:40 p.m., he still had not undone the retweet.
Some called it a cautionary tale about the importance of reading things through the end.
"He didn't have the attention span to read to the end of the tweet," wrote Twitter user Autotune Scalia.
Others suggested that Trump Jr. should consult with his girlfriend, former San Francisco first lady Kimberly Guilfoyle, for help understanding the tweet. Several people made comparisons between Trump Jr. and Fredo, the somewhat dimwitted and marginalized son in the Corleone crime family in "The Godfather."
Throughout the hearings, Trump's eldest sons disparaged Cohen on Twitter and said he was lashing out after being denied a job at the White House. Eric Trump tweeted that Cohen's desire for a White House job "was the biggest joke in the campaign," and Donald Trump Jr. described the testimony as "like a breakup letter."
Cohen has cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and is set to begin a three-year prison sentence in May.
By Filipa Ioannou
Among the hours-long questioning of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, there was some colorful roasting of the president's son.
"Mr Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgement of anyone in the world," said Cohen.
This assessment of questionable judgement appeared to be borne out a little later in the morning, when Donald Trump Jr., in the midst of a stream of retweets calling Michael Cohen a liar, also retweeted a longer tweet that said Cohen had nothing to lose and was telling the truth.
"Incredible to see all the hubris drained from Cohen," said the tweet from journalist Garrett M. Graff, which Trump Jr. appeared to retweet around 9 a.m. "I've been personally screamed at by Cohen on the phone before and know how much bravado he once had. This is a man with nothing left, with no reason to lie or obfuscate at all. Humbling, in its way."
Hours passed and replies mocking Trump Jr. for the retweet mounted, but as of 12:40 p.m., he still had not undone the retweet.
Some called it a cautionary tale about the importance of reading things through the end.
"He didn't have the attention span to read to the end of the tweet," wrote Twitter user Autotune Scalia.
Others suggested that Trump Jr. should consult with his girlfriend, former San Francisco first lady Kimberly Guilfoyle, for help understanding the tweet. Several people made comparisons between Trump Jr. and Fredo, the somewhat dimwitted and marginalized son in the Corleone crime family in "The Godfather."
Throughout the hearings, Trump's eldest sons disparaged Cohen on Twitter and said he was lashing out after being denied a job at the White House. Eric Trump tweeted that Cohen's desire for a White House job "was the biggest joke in the campaign," and Donald Trump Jr. described the testimony as "like a breakup letter."
Cohen has cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and is set to begin a three-year prison sentence in May.
Pop culture.. Not what you think..
Opinion: Pop culture needs to go nuclear again
Charlie Jane Anders
Whatever happens as President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to talk about Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict appears higher now than at any time since the Cold War. And yet, pop culture has more or less stopped warning us of the dangers of atomic devastation - and that's too bad. We need fresh stories to help us understand the renewed and complex risks we face, and to nudge us out of our complacency.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the infamous Doomsday Clock at two minutes to midnight in January 2018, making this our closest call since the 1950s. Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies says the risks are increasingly multipolar. They include the Trump administration's more aggressive nuclear posture review, the abandonment of key arms treaties with Russia and Iran, tensions between the nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, and the weakening of international institutions such as the United Nations. Possibilities such as a cyberattack that could trigger a missile launch are also worrisome. Frighteningly, says Tom Nichols, a professor with the U.S. Naval War College, decisionmakers - and the public they are supposed to answer to - don't seem to realize how unstable the situation really is.
Pop culture was once full of mushroom clouds and nuclear winters. From the somber warnings of "On the Beach" to the satirical absurdism of "Dr. Strangelove," mass media continually sounded the alarm about where we seemed to be headed. Authors such as Kurt Vonnegut and performers including Prince and Tom Lehrer obsessed about our tendency toward self-destruction, as did director James Cameron in his movie "The Terminator."
"Popular culture was an important factor in shaping people's perceptions and levels of concern about nuclear war," says Martin Pfeiffer, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of New Mexico who focuses on nuclear weapons.
"The Day After" was watched by 100 million people, and many people credit it with contributing to President Ronald Reagan's change of heart on nuclear disarmament.
Cold War pop culture also demonstrated a perfect response to an existential problem. Works including "WarGames," "Terminator" and "Strangelove" illuminated the abhorrent logic behind choosing to launch such unthinkable weapons, as well as the computer systems that might automate such a choice. Post-apocalyptic movies such as "Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior" and "The Day After" forced people to imagine the misery of life after a nuclear strike.
Those two approaches, combined with decades of activism, helped build public support for the policy changes that made a potentially civilization-ending conflict less likely.
Let's hope pop culture starts to warn us once again. Pfeiffer says the challenge of talking about the risk of nuclear holocaust is to raise enough awareness to galvanize people to take small, constructive steps - but not so much that people become paralyzed with anxiety over the enormity of the threat.
The good news is, fictional portrayals of nuclear conflagration don't have to rehash the same old storylines; it's no longer just a matter of the United States and the Soviet Union staring each other down. And it's not merely rogue states that pose a risk, either. There are many ways a possible misunderstanding, including one induced by a rogue hacker, could lead to a nuclear strike.
Creators who are looking for new and terrifying post-apocalyptic storylines could stand to remember that even a "limited" nuclear exchange, involving about 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, could have far-ranging aftereffects, including failing crops and widespread famine affecting people far from the impact site.
Those of us who remember the Cold War have been left with an indelible impression of atomic horror and of the vivid storytelling that brought this fear home.
Mass media are already awash in apocalyptic visions, but in addition to watching Thanos wipe out half of the universe with a snap of his fingers in the "Avengers" franchise, we need more stories that showcase the lunacy of policy ideas such as "instant retaliation," "ladders of escalation" and a brand-new nuclear arms race. And instead of looking to superheroes for our salvation, we could also use more positive stories about how ordinary people can work together to persuade our political leaders to go back to the negotiating table.
It's hard to imagine the enormity of nuclear war - which is why books, movies and TV shows were so vitally important in helping us visualize the worst scenarios. But now that the risk is high once again, many of us are in denial about the peril. We need activism, but we also need new stories, to push us to confront this nightmare before it's too late.
Charlie Jane Anders
Whatever happens as President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to talk about Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict appears higher now than at any time since the Cold War. And yet, pop culture has more or less stopped warning us of the dangers of atomic devastation - and that's too bad. We need fresh stories to help us understand the renewed and complex risks we face, and to nudge us out of our complacency.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the infamous Doomsday Clock at two minutes to midnight in January 2018, making this our closest call since the 1950s. Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies says the risks are increasingly multipolar. They include the Trump administration's more aggressive nuclear posture review, the abandonment of key arms treaties with Russia and Iran, tensions between the nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, and the weakening of international institutions such as the United Nations. Possibilities such as a cyberattack that could trigger a missile launch are also worrisome. Frighteningly, says Tom Nichols, a professor with the U.S. Naval War College, decisionmakers - and the public they are supposed to answer to - don't seem to realize how unstable the situation really is.
Pop culture was once full of mushroom clouds and nuclear winters. From the somber warnings of "On the Beach" to the satirical absurdism of "Dr. Strangelove," mass media continually sounded the alarm about where we seemed to be headed. Authors such as Kurt Vonnegut and performers including Prince and Tom Lehrer obsessed about our tendency toward self-destruction, as did director James Cameron in his movie "The Terminator."
"Popular culture was an important factor in shaping people's perceptions and levels of concern about nuclear war," says Martin Pfeiffer, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of New Mexico who focuses on nuclear weapons.
"The Day After" was watched by 100 million people, and many people credit it with contributing to President Ronald Reagan's change of heart on nuclear disarmament.
Cold War pop culture also demonstrated a perfect response to an existential problem. Works including "WarGames," "Terminator" and "Strangelove" illuminated the abhorrent logic behind choosing to launch such unthinkable weapons, as well as the computer systems that might automate such a choice. Post-apocalyptic movies such as "Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior" and "The Day After" forced people to imagine the misery of life after a nuclear strike.
Those two approaches, combined with decades of activism, helped build public support for the policy changes that made a potentially civilization-ending conflict less likely.
Let's hope pop culture starts to warn us once again. Pfeiffer says the challenge of talking about the risk of nuclear holocaust is to raise enough awareness to galvanize people to take small, constructive steps - but not so much that people become paralyzed with anxiety over the enormity of the threat.
The good news is, fictional portrayals of nuclear conflagration don't have to rehash the same old storylines; it's no longer just a matter of the United States and the Soviet Union staring each other down. And it's not merely rogue states that pose a risk, either. There are many ways a possible misunderstanding, including one induced by a rogue hacker, could lead to a nuclear strike.
Creators who are looking for new and terrifying post-apocalyptic storylines could stand to remember that even a "limited" nuclear exchange, involving about 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, could have far-ranging aftereffects, including failing crops and widespread famine affecting people far from the impact site.
Those of us who remember the Cold War have been left with an indelible impression of atomic horror and of the vivid storytelling that brought this fear home.
Mass media are already awash in apocalyptic visions, but in addition to watching Thanos wipe out half of the universe with a snap of his fingers in the "Avengers" franchise, we need more stories that showcase the lunacy of policy ideas such as "instant retaliation," "ladders of escalation" and a brand-new nuclear arms race. And instead of looking to superheroes for our salvation, we could also use more positive stories about how ordinary people can work together to persuade our political leaders to go back to the negotiating table.
It's hard to imagine the enormity of nuclear war - which is why books, movies and TV shows were so vitally important in helping us visualize the worst scenarios. But now that the risk is high once again, many of us are in denial about the peril. We need activism, but we also need new stories, to push us to confront this nightmare before it's too late.
No defense since there is no defense...
Republican focus on discrediting Cohen leaves little time to defend Trump
Rachael Bade
The strategy was quintessential Rep. Jim Jordan: Seek out the opponent's weakness and attack, attack, attack.
The former wrestler and Fox News favorite led the Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee in their almost obsessive focus on Michael Cohen's past lies during a blockbuster hearing Wednesday, seeking to discredit the House Democrats' star witness in their first step investigating President Donald Trump.
But Jordan's singular focus on Cohen's past came at a price and seemed to receive mixed reviews in the GOP as Republicans were so focused on the past criminality of Trump's former lawyer that they had little time to defend the president.
Additionally, Cohen's easy willingness to admit and express regret for his past "dirty deeds" almost seemed to dilute the potency of their charges. Cohen even defended Trump from ugly rumors that he had struck his wife, Melania, at one point - sticking up for the very man he was there to testify against.
Cohen on Wednesday alleged that Trump knew about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before WikiLeaks had released the documents. He also claimed Trump reimbursed him for hush-payments to women while he was president, and said Trump called him at one point to ensure he kept lying about those payments.
Republicans at times asked for proof of these allegations, evidence Cohen didn't have. But then they quickly pivoted back to questions about his credibility.
Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.V., spent much of her time reading from her script and expressing outrage that Democrats even invited Cohen to testify. "You're about to go to prison for lying. How can we believe anything you say? The answer is we can't."
After the hearing, American Conservative Union chief Matt Schlapp praised Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., on Twitter.
"I am so proud to take the @CPAC stage tomorrow morning w two of my heroes @RepMarkMeadows and @Jim_Jordan who were courageous in Congress today," he wrote "You speak for all of us."
But former governor Chris Christie, R-N.J., who is close to the president, said on ABC that he can "guarantee" Trump is "sitting in Vietnam right now, fuming that no one's defending him." He also argued the performance was "either a failure of those Republicans on the Hill or a failure of the White House to have a unified strategy with them."
"There hasn't been one Republican yet who's tried to defend the president on the substance," he said. "As the day goes on, [people are] going to get tired of hearing the attacks on Cohen's credibility. . . . Where's the defense of the president?"
Other Republicans on the Hill privately agreed. Most, however, mused that Jordan couldn't have done any better given his position in the minority and the fact that Republicans were defending Trump.
"Trustfully, it is tough to ignore some of the gross immoral behavior by the president," said one senior House Republican who requested anonymity to speak frankly. "The reason there was no defense is because there is no defense."
Jordan, a fierce Trump ally, said his strategy was working during a committee break Wednesday evening. His members had prepared and coordinated and "were in touch with all kinds of people" to get ready, he said - though he played coy when asked about coordination with White House.
GOP leaders were apprised of the strategy to discredit Cohen as untrustworthy. But they gave Jordan, who is known for his bulldog-like tactics grilling witnesses during hearings, free rein.
"We're asking the questions that we think need to be asked," Jordan said of his strategy. "We're making the point that we think the American people need to understand, plain and simply."
Jordan pointed to Rep. Thomas Massie's, R-Ky., line of questioning when pressed for an example of a defense of Trump. Massie had referenced Cohen's written testimony, in which he said he paid money to a porn star without considering whether it was the right thing to do.
"Is that being a good lawyer? To not even consider whether it's legal or not?" Massie asked. Cohen didn't answer the question, merely arguing that he did what he thought Trump wanted.
The hearing marked Jordan's first turn in the spotlight as the leader of the committee's Republicans. Trump personally wanted him or his close friend Meadows to lead his defense against the Democrats. And many Republicans in the House, well-versed in Jordan's tactics, agreed with the promotion.
When Republicans did try to defend Trump, their approach didn't seem to elicit the intended effect. Meadows tried to parry Cohen's allegation that Trump was a racist by inviting a longtime black friend of Trump's, Lynne Patton, to stand behind him.
But the moment attracted criticism, when two black Democrats on the panel scoffed at Meadows's suggestion that a person with a black friend could not possibly be a racist.
"Would you agree that someone could deny rental units to African-Americans, lead the birther movement, refer to the diaspora as 'shithole countries,' refer to white supremacists as 'fine people,' have a black friend, and still be racist?" Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., a freshman legislator, asked Cohen at one point.
The question was clearly for Meadows. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., another freshman, was less forgiving and even seemed to suggest Meadows was racist for bringing in a black woman and using her as "a prop" to defend the president.
After Meadows grew upset and objected fiercely to the suggestion, Tlaib later clarified that she was not calling Meadows a racist. But the entire back-and-forth distracted from the issue at hand - Cohen's testimony.
Cohen didn't help the GOP's case when he defended the president in an unusual moment in an exchange with Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. He poured cold water on suggestions that there is a secret tape with footage of Trump striking his wife in an elevator. Those rumors had been circulating for years, he agreed, but Trump wouldn't do something like that.
"I don't believe that Mr. Trump ever struck Mrs. Trump. Ever," he said.
Surprisingly, the GOP never picked up and ran with Cohen's defense of the president on that matter. They also seemed to bypass an opportunity Cohen gave them to discredit a salacious document that law enforcement used in part to obtain a warrant to listen in on the calls of Trump associates during the 2016 election.
At one point, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., jeered "liar, liar pants on fire" at Cohen. He even displayed the schoolyard chant on a sign with the same words plastered by Cohen's face.
But by that time in the hearing, Republicans had already made their point. Several times over.
Socialist country he likes
In Vietnam, Trump finds a 'socialist' country he likes
By NAHAL TOOSI
Republicans may want to re-think one of their planned 2020 campaign themes: It seems that President Donald Trump has met a “socialist” country he actually likes.
In recent months Trump has repeatedly cited what he calls the growing threat of socialism in an effort to tarnish leftist Democrats eyeing the Oval Office while also justifying his efforts to oust Venezuela’s dictator.
But this week, the U.S. leader has been praising Vietnam, the socialist-in-name country hosting his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. In fact, Trump has pointed to Vietnam’s economic advances as a model Kim could emulate if he gives up his nuclear weapons.
“Vietnam is thriving like few places on earth,” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “North Korea would be the same, and very quickly, if it would denuclearize. The potential is AWESOME, a great opportunity, like almost none other in history, for my friend Kim Jong Un.”
During his meeting with Vietnamese leaders the same day, Trump waved a small Vietnamese flag, praised growing U.S.-Vietnam economic ties, and signed new trade deals. The president’s public schedules also used the country’s full official name: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Though it is standard diplomatic protocol to refer to foreign countries by their preferred name, the repeated presence of the word in official White House statements this week was jarring.
In reality, the Vietnam model, and Trump’s praise of it, also underscores the elasticity of the concept of “socialism,” and why some of its tenets may appeal to Americans.
Despite the presence of the s-word in its formal name, Vietnam is typically classified as a communist state. But its economy is largely capitalist, especially after the Communist Party adopted a policy of “doi moi” (renovation) in the 1980s.
The country's official name "is a vestige term," said Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "People in Vietnam are focused on getting rich, making money."
Vietnam is in some ways mimicking China by unleashing capitalist forces while keeping tight restraints on political expression.
In one sense, praising Vietnam is just the latest discordant note for a president whose foreign policy, more than most presidents, is a tangle of contradictions on everything from human rights to use of military force.
After all, on the other side of the world right now, Trump is using diplomatic and economic pressure to try to push out of power Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who preaches socialist ideals but whose country's economy is in ruins.
In his State of the Union speech earlier this month, Trump slammed Maduro’s rule and also took veiled swipes at progressives such as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator from Vermont, both of whom support some socialist ideas.
“We are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” Trump said, signaling what Republicans expect to be a potent 2020 campaign attack line. “America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free.”
Sanders, who also ran for president in 2016, describes himself as a “democratic socialist” who wants to reduce economic inequality in the United States.
He has pointed to European countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden as examples of places that successfully incorporate some socialist ideas into democratic political systems, including offering generous health care, retirement and educational benefits.
Maduro came to lead Venezuela after the 2013 death of Hugo Chavez, a longtime socialist firebrand and political mentor. But some Maduro critics say his government's problem isn't so much socialism as it is corruption, authoritarian instincts and the influence of narco-traffickers.
Venezuela was once relatively wealthy; now, many of its people are starving and millions have fled.
North Korea’s official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but it’s essentially a totalitarian dictatorship. Kim, who is in his 30s, inherited rule from his father and grandfather.
Trump is banking that Kim’s desire for a stronger North Korean economy will lead him to offer concessions on the nuclear front in exchange for relief from international sanctions. And Kim may find the Vietnamese model an enticing one, so long as he gets to stay in power.
Of course, before any of that can happen, Trump and Kim may want to forget about the meaning of the word "socialism" and focus more on how each defines their shared stated goal of "de-nuclearization."
By NAHAL TOOSI
Republicans may want to re-think one of their planned 2020 campaign themes: It seems that President Donald Trump has met a “socialist” country he actually likes.
In recent months Trump has repeatedly cited what he calls the growing threat of socialism in an effort to tarnish leftist Democrats eyeing the Oval Office while also justifying his efforts to oust Venezuela’s dictator.
But this week, the U.S. leader has been praising Vietnam, the socialist-in-name country hosting his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. In fact, Trump has pointed to Vietnam’s economic advances as a model Kim could emulate if he gives up his nuclear weapons.
“Vietnam is thriving like few places on earth,” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “North Korea would be the same, and very quickly, if it would denuclearize. The potential is AWESOME, a great opportunity, like almost none other in history, for my friend Kim Jong Un.”
During his meeting with Vietnamese leaders the same day, Trump waved a small Vietnamese flag, praised growing U.S.-Vietnam economic ties, and signed new trade deals. The president’s public schedules also used the country’s full official name: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Though it is standard diplomatic protocol to refer to foreign countries by their preferred name, the repeated presence of the word in official White House statements this week was jarring.
In reality, the Vietnam model, and Trump’s praise of it, also underscores the elasticity of the concept of “socialism,” and why some of its tenets may appeal to Americans.
Despite the presence of the s-word in its formal name, Vietnam is typically classified as a communist state. But its economy is largely capitalist, especially after the Communist Party adopted a policy of “doi moi” (renovation) in the 1980s.
The country's official name "is a vestige term," said Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "People in Vietnam are focused on getting rich, making money."
Vietnam is in some ways mimicking China by unleashing capitalist forces while keeping tight restraints on political expression.
In one sense, praising Vietnam is just the latest discordant note for a president whose foreign policy, more than most presidents, is a tangle of contradictions on everything from human rights to use of military force.
After all, on the other side of the world right now, Trump is using diplomatic and economic pressure to try to push out of power Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who preaches socialist ideals but whose country's economy is in ruins.
In his State of the Union speech earlier this month, Trump slammed Maduro’s rule and also took veiled swipes at progressives such as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator from Vermont, both of whom support some socialist ideas.
“We are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” Trump said, signaling what Republicans expect to be a potent 2020 campaign attack line. “America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free.”
Sanders, who also ran for president in 2016, describes himself as a “democratic socialist” who wants to reduce economic inequality in the United States.
He has pointed to European countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden as examples of places that successfully incorporate some socialist ideas into democratic political systems, including offering generous health care, retirement and educational benefits.
Maduro came to lead Venezuela after the 2013 death of Hugo Chavez, a longtime socialist firebrand and political mentor. But some Maduro critics say his government's problem isn't so much socialism as it is corruption, authoritarian instincts and the influence of narco-traffickers.
Venezuela was once relatively wealthy; now, many of its people are starving and millions have fled.
North Korea’s official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but it’s essentially a totalitarian dictatorship. Kim, who is in his 30s, inherited rule from his father and grandfather.
Trump is banking that Kim’s desire for a stronger North Korean economy will lead him to offer concessions on the nuclear front in exchange for relief from international sanctions. And Kim may find the Vietnamese model an enticing one, so long as he gets to stay in power.
Of course, before any of that can happen, Trump and Kim may want to forget about the meaning of the word "socialism" and focus more on how each defines their shared stated goal of "de-nuclearization."
Key moments
Key moments from Michael Cohen's House testimony
By MATTHEW CHOI
After months of anticipation, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is testifying publicly before Congress on hush-money payments, his loyalty to the president and possible Russian collusion into the 2016 presidential election.
Cohen's appearance before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday includes fiery accusations against the president and fierce backlash from Republican members of Congress, who have derided Cohen as an unreliable witness.
Cohen previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and financial crimes, and Trump's circle — including members of Congress — have derided Cohen as an opportunist. Cohen is slated to begin his prison sentence at the end of the spring.
Here are some key moments from Cohen's testimony:
Cohen accused Trump of knowing about the Trump Tower meeting between Trump associates and Russian agents.
Trump's team has repeatedly changed its story in regards to a meeting with Russians at the Midtown Manhattan Trump Tower, which has become a focal point in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion during the 2016 election. Trump’s defenders have said that while the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump, Jr., attended the meeting, the senior Trump had no knowledge of it.
But Cohen recounted a meeting with Trump where Donald, Jr., approached his father and told him in a hushed tone that the "meeting is all set." Cohen deduced that he was talking about the Trump Tower meeting, meaning the president knew of — and had a hand in planning — a meeting with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin ahead of the election.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz grilled Cohen about the 2016 election.
Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) served as chair of the Democratic National Convention during the 2016 election when Russian hackers hacked Democratic emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks. Cohen claimed during his opening statements that Trump knew about a dump of Democratic emails in advance, using his associate Roger Stone as an intermediary with WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange.
But when questioned by Wasserman Schultz if Trump knew about the Russian hacking efforts in advance, Cohen said he couldn't say for sure.
"I cannot answer that in a yes or no. He had advanced notice that there was going to be a dump of emails, but at no time did I hear the specificity of what those emails were going to be," Cohen said.
"But you do testify today that he had advanced knowledge of their imminent release," Wasserman Schultz replied.
"That is what I had stated in my testimony."
"And that he cheered that outcome?"
"Yes, ma'am."
Cohen joked who would play whom if his saga became a movie.
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) tried to discredit Cohen's testimony by insinuating he was trying to profit off his public comments after losing his law license this week. Cohen said he would not have an income once he goes to prison, but Green asked if there was a book deal in the works.
"I have no book deal in the process. I have been contacted by many including for television, a movie. If you want to tell me who you would like to play you, I'm more than happy to write the name down," Cohen said, prompting Green to chuckle.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) later asked if Cohen would commit to not pursuing a book or movie deal based on his experiences, but Cohen refused. Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.V.) asked Cohen if he planned to write a book on his experiences. Cohen flatly said, "yes."
Cohen and Jim Jordan got into a heated tussle.
Jordan (R-Ohio) accused Cohen of having no remorse for his actions after arguing with Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) over the findings of federal attorneys in New York concerning Cohen's finances. But Cohen said he was not trying to wash his hands of responsibility but merely clarifying Comer's comments.
"I said that I pled guilty and I take responsibility for my actions," Cohen said. "Shame on you, Mr. Jordan. That's not what I said. Shame on you."
Republican members deferred to Jordan.
Comer, Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Foxx and others all yielded parts of their time to Jordan, allowing the ranking member to lay into Cohen on a variety of topics, from a bombshell BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Cohen to lie about a Moscow Trump Tower deal, to reports Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tried to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
"We are not the fact checkers for BuzzFeed," Cohen said.
Cohen warned young lawyers not to follow in his foot steps.
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) asked Cohen what warning he would have for young lawyers base on his self-admitted regret over serving Trump. Cohen replied his entire career should serve as a warning against "callous" self-serving actions.
"Look at what's happened to me? I had a wonderful life. I have a beautiful wife. I have two amazing children. I — I achieved financial success by the age of 39. I didn't go to work for Mr. Trump because I had to. I went to work for him because I wanted to, and I've lost it all," Cohen said.
Cohen denied he ever wanted to work in the White House.
Republicans repeatedly tried to portray Cohen as opportunistic, characterizing his testimony as retaliation for never getting a job at the White House. Cohen claimed he never wanted to work in the White House because it would end the attorney-client privilege between him and Trump.
"You wanted to work in the White House and you didn't get brought to the dance," Jordan accused.
"Sir, I was extremely proud to be personal attorney to the president of the United States of America," Cohen responded. "I did not want to go to the White House."
Mark Meadows grilled Cohen for not reporting his contracts with foreign firms ahead of the hearing.
Meadows (R-N.C.) pounced on Cohen for leaving an "N/A" when asked to list his contracts with foreign entities over the past two years in preparation for his testimony. Cohen said he did not feel it was necessary to declare his contracts because they were with private companies and he was not a government employee. But Meadows attacked back, saying Cohen lied to Congress.
"It says it's a criminal offense to not put them on this form for the last two years, why did you not do that?" Meadows demanded, yelling. "Do you want us to read it to you?"
"Well, then, I'm going to take a look at it and hopefully I will amend it prior to leaving because that's not the way I read your document," Cohen replied.
Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) later pointed out the form Meadows referred to does not ask for all foreign contracts, only those with government entities.
Cohen suggested there could have been other hush money payments, and not all of them involved women.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) asked if there were any other payments from Trump's organization to hide alleged affairs during the campaign. Cohen said David Pecker, a Trump ally and CEO of American Media Group, had spent money on Trump's behalf in similar instances in the past and was angry Trump never reimbursed him.
"So David Pecker had done this in other cases of other mistresses or women?" Raskin asked.
"Other circumstances, yes," Cohen replied. "Not all of them had to do with women."
Cohen describe the impact Trump's rhetoric has had on his family.
Cohen said he does not walk with his wife and children when going out because he fears what Trump's supporters could do against them. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) asked Cohen to elaborate on what he thought Trump was capable of doing.
"A lot and it's not just him," Cohen said. "It's those people that follow him and his rhetoric."
Rashida Tlaib called out Meadows' attempt to disprove Trump's racism.
The freshman Michigan Democrat called out Meadows after the conservative lawmaker brought a black administration staffer, Lynne Patton, to dispel Cohen's claims that Trump is a racist. Other Democratic members had denounced the move, but Meadows grew particularly angry when Tlaib appeared to call the move racist.
Tlaib clarified she did not intend to call Meadows specifically a racist, as the Republican proclaimed he has a record of combatting racism. Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) attempted to pacify Meadows and Tlaib apologized, adding that if she'd meant to call Meadows a racist, she would have.
Cummings closed the hearing with a bang.
The Maryland Democrat used that last moments of the hearing to decry the indecorous state of American politics, repeatedly shouting the need to "get back to normal." Cummings denounced the vicious attacks against Cohen and his family, and said he was heart broken to hear the precautions Cohen has had to take to protect his family.
"I know it's painful going to prison. I know it's gotta be painful being called rat. A lot of people don't know the significance of that, but I live in the inner city of Baltimore, and when you call somebody a rat that's one of the worst things you can call them because when they go to prison, that means a snitch. I'm just saying," Cummings said. "The president called you a rat. We're better than that!"
By MATTHEW CHOI
After months of anticipation, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is testifying publicly before Congress on hush-money payments, his loyalty to the president and possible Russian collusion into the 2016 presidential election.
Cohen's appearance before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday includes fiery accusations against the president and fierce backlash from Republican members of Congress, who have derided Cohen as an unreliable witness.
Cohen previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and financial crimes, and Trump's circle — including members of Congress — have derided Cohen as an opportunist. Cohen is slated to begin his prison sentence at the end of the spring.
Here are some key moments from Cohen's testimony:
Cohen accused Trump of knowing about the Trump Tower meeting between Trump associates and Russian agents.
Trump's team has repeatedly changed its story in regards to a meeting with Russians at the Midtown Manhattan Trump Tower, which has become a focal point in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion during the 2016 election. Trump’s defenders have said that while the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump, Jr., attended the meeting, the senior Trump had no knowledge of it.
But Cohen recounted a meeting with Trump where Donald, Jr., approached his father and told him in a hushed tone that the "meeting is all set." Cohen deduced that he was talking about the Trump Tower meeting, meaning the president knew of — and had a hand in planning — a meeting with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin ahead of the election.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz grilled Cohen about the 2016 election.
Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) served as chair of the Democratic National Convention during the 2016 election when Russian hackers hacked Democratic emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks. Cohen claimed during his opening statements that Trump knew about a dump of Democratic emails in advance, using his associate Roger Stone as an intermediary with WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange.
But when questioned by Wasserman Schultz if Trump knew about the Russian hacking efforts in advance, Cohen said he couldn't say for sure.
"I cannot answer that in a yes or no. He had advanced notice that there was going to be a dump of emails, but at no time did I hear the specificity of what those emails were going to be," Cohen said.
"But you do testify today that he had advanced knowledge of their imminent release," Wasserman Schultz replied.
"That is what I had stated in my testimony."
"And that he cheered that outcome?"
"Yes, ma'am."
Cohen joked who would play whom if his saga became a movie.
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) tried to discredit Cohen's testimony by insinuating he was trying to profit off his public comments after losing his law license this week. Cohen said he would not have an income once he goes to prison, but Green asked if there was a book deal in the works.
"I have no book deal in the process. I have been contacted by many including for television, a movie. If you want to tell me who you would like to play you, I'm more than happy to write the name down," Cohen said, prompting Green to chuckle.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) later asked if Cohen would commit to not pursuing a book or movie deal based on his experiences, but Cohen refused. Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.V.) asked Cohen if he planned to write a book on his experiences. Cohen flatly said, "yes."
Cohen and Jim Jordan got into a heated tussle.
Jordan (R-Ohio) accused Cohen of having no remorse for his actions after arguing with Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) over the findings of federal attorneys in New York concerning Cohen's finances. But Cohen said he was not trying to wash his hands of responsibility but merely clarifying Comer's comments.
"I said that I pled guilty and I take responsibility for my actions," Cohen said. "Shame on you, Mr. Jordan. That's not what I said. Shame on you."
Republican members deferred to Jordan.
Comer, Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Foxx and others all yielded parts of their time to Jordan, allowing the ranking member to lay into Cohen on a variety of topics, from a bombshell BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Cohen to lie about a Moscow Trump Tower deal, to reports Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tried to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
"We are not the fact checkers for BuzzFeed," Cohen said.
Cohen warned young lawyers not to follow in his foot steps.
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) asked Cohen what warning he would have for young lawyers base on his self-admitted regret over serving Trump. Cohen replied his entire career should serve as a warning against "callous" self-serving actions.
"Look at what's happened to me? I had a wonderful life. I have a beautiful wife. I have two amazing children. I — I achieved financial success by the age of 39. I didn't go to work for Mr. Trump because I had to. I went to work for him because I wanted to, and I've lost it all," Cohen said.
Cohen denied he ever wanted to work in the White House.
Republicans repeatedly tried to portray Cohen as opportunistic, characterizing his testimony as retaliation for never getting a job at the White House. Cohen claimed he never wanted to work in the White House because it would end the attorney-client privilege between him and Trump.
"You wanted to work in the White House and you didn't get brought to the dance," Jordan accused.
"Sir, I was extremely proud to be personal attorney to the president of the United States of America," Cohen responded. "I did not want to go to the White House."
Mark Meadows grilled Cohen for not reporting his contracts with foreign firms ahead of the hearing.
Meadows (R-N.C.) pounced on Cohen for leaving an "N/A" when asked to list his contracts with foreign entities over the past two years in preparation for his testimony. Cohen said he did not feel it was necessary to declare his contracts because they were with private companies and he was not a government employee. But Meadows attacked back, saying Cohen lied to Congress.
"It says it's a criminal offense to not put them on this form for the last two years, why did you not do that?" Meadows demanded, yelling. "Do you want us to read it to you?"
"Well, then, I'm going to take a look at it and hopefully I will amend it prior to leaving because that's not the way I read your document," Cohen replied.
Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) later pointed out the form Meadows referred to does not ask for all foreign contracts, only those with government entities.
Cohen suggested there could have been other hush money payments, and not all of them involved women.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) asked if there were any other payments from Trump's organization to hide alleged affairs during the campaign. Cohen said David Pecker, a Trump ally and CEO of American Media Group, had spent money on Trump's behalf in similar instances in the past and was angry Trump never reimbursed him.
"So David Pecker had done this in other cases of other mistresses or women?" Raskin asked.
"Other circumstances, yes," Cohen replied. "Not all of them had to do with women."
Cohen describe the impact Trump's rhetoric has had on his family.
Cohen said he does not walk with his wife and children when going out because he fears what Trump's supporters could do against them. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) asked Cohen to elaborate on what he thought Trump was capable of doing.
"A lot and it's not just him," Cohen said. "It's those people that follow him and his rhetoric."
Rashida Tlaib called out Meadows' attempt to disprove Trump's racism.
The freshman Michigan Democrat called out Meadows after the conservative lawmaker brought a black administration staffer, Lynne Patton, to dispel Cohen's claims that Trump is a racist. Other Democratic members had denounced the move, but Meadows grew particularly angry when Tlaib appeared to call the move racist.
Tlaib clarified she did not intend to call Meadows specifically a racist, as the Republican proclaimed he has a record of combatting racism. Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) attempted to pacify Meadows and Tlaib apologized, adding that if she'd meant to call Meadows a racist, she would have.
Cummings closed the hearing with a bang.
The Maryland Democrat used that last moments of the hearing to decry the indecorous state of American politics, repeatedly shouting the need to "get back to normal." Cummings denounced the vicious attacks against Cohen and his family, and said he was heart broken to hear the precautions Cohen has had to take to protect his family.
"I know it's painful going to prison. I know it's gotta be painful being called rat. A lot of people don't know the significance of that, but I live in the inner city of Baltimore, and when you call somebody a rat that's one of the worst things you can call them because when they go to prison, that means a snitch. I'm just saying," Cummings said. "The president called you a rat. We're better than that!"
Using black woman as a prop...
Rashida Tlaib berates Mark Meadows for using black woman as ‘a prop’ at hearing
By MATTHEW CHOI
Tempers flared between progressive Rashida Tlaib and conservative Mark Meadows on Wednesday after the freshman Democrat denounced a move by Meadows to use a black administration employee as ‘a prop’ to prove that President Donald Trump is not racist at a hearing.
During the long-anticipated House Oversight Committee hearing with Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer to Trump accused the president of making racist comments about African Americans. In turn, Meadows asked Housing and Urban Development staffer Lynne Patton, who is black, to silently stand before the committee to disprove that Trump is racist.
According to Meadows (R-N.C.), Patton had said there was "no way that she would work for an individual who was racist."
Democratic members condemned the move as tokenizing and failing to disprove anything. But tensions especially flared when Tlaib (D-Mich.) characterized the move as racist.
"Just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them does not mean they aren't racist," Tlaib said. "And it is insensitive that some would even say — the fact that some would actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber in this committee is alone racist in itself."
Meadows immediately fought back, speaking over Tlaib to request her comments be stricken from the record.
"Mr. Chairman I ask that her words be taken down!" Meadows said, calling out to Chair Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who is black. "The rules are clear!"
Meadows appealed to Cummings, saying that his record shows a commitment to fighting racism.
"Mr. Chairman, you and I have a personal relationship that's not based on color!" Meadows said.
Cummings asked Tlaib to clarify her comments if she meant to specifically call Meadows a racist, to which she responded that was not her intention.
"You're one of my best friends," Cummings said to Meadows. "And I can see and I feel your pain, and I don't think Ms. Tlaib intended to cause you that, that kind of pain."
Tlaib apologized to Meadows, saying it wasn’t her intention to call him racist. (Bullshit.. She called him on the racist act and he knows it.. *)
"As everybody knows in this chamber, I'm pretty direct," Tlaib said. "So if I wanted to say that, I would have."
* Not authors words
By MATTHEW CHOI
Tempers flared between progressive Rashida Tlaib and conservative Mark Meadows on Wednesday after the freshman Democrat denounced a move by Meadows to use a black administration employee as ‘a prop’ to prove that President Donald Trump is not racist at a hearing.
During the long-anticipated House Oversight Committee hearing with Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer to Trump accused the president of making racist comments about African Americans. In turn, Meadows asked Housing and Urban Development staffer Lynne Patton, who is black, to silently stand before the committee to disprove that Trump is racist.
According to Meadows (R-N.C.), Patton had said there was "no way that she would work for an individual who was racist."
Democratic members condemned the move as tokenizing and failing to disprove anything. But tensions especially flared when Tlaib (D-Mich.) characterized the move as racist.
"Just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them does not mean they aren't racist," Tlaib said. "And it is insensitive that some would even say — the fact that some would actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber in this committee is alone racist in itself."
Meadows immediately fought back, speaking over Tlaib to request her comments be stricken from the record.
"Mr. Chairman I ask that her words be taken down!" Meadows said, calling out to Chair Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who is black. "The rules are clear!"
Meadows appealed to Cummings, saying that his record shows a commitment to fighting racism.
"Mr. Chairman, you and I have a personal relationship that's not based on color!" Meadows said.
Cummings asked Tlaib to clarify her comments if she meant to specifically call Meadows a racist, to which she responded that was not her intention.
"You're one of my best friends," Cummings said to Meadows. "And I can see and I feel your pain, and I don't think Ms. Tlaib intended to cause you that, that kind of pain."
Tlaib apologized to Meadows, saying it wasn’t her intention to call him racist. (Bullshit.. She called him on the racist act and he knows it.. *)
"As everybody knows in this chamber, I'm pretty direct," Tlaib said. "So if I wanted to say that, I would have."
* Not authors words
Created web of lies...
Michael Cohen alleges Trump created web of lies
The president's former lawyer and fixer accuses Trump of involvement in criminal conduct.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and DARREN SAMUELSOHN
President Donald Trump’s former attorney and fixer on Wednesday laid out a series of damning accusations against the president, presenting evidence of alleged lies and criminal conduct and expressing remorse over his decade of service to a man he described as unstable and racist.
Michael Cohen testified to the House Oversight Committee that Trump directed him to lie about the president’s knowledge of hush-money payments, that Trump was informed about plans to dump Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign and was kept in the loop about a Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The explosive comments from Cohen during a sharply partisan House hearing contradict Trump’s previous claims and expose Trump and some of his closest advisers to new legal and political trouble, potentially including impeachment, as Democrats used the hearing to draw out evidence of wrongdoing by the president.
Cohen sought redemption by revealing what he said is the true character of the commander in chief and apologizing to lawmakers for lying to them in previous testimony. In stunning daylong testimony, Cohen became the highest-profile witness to testify against a sitting president since former White House counsel John Dean took the stand against President Richard Nixon.
“I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is,” Cohen said Wednesday in his opening statement. “He is a racist, he is a conman, and he is a cheat.”
Perhaps most important for the president’s critics, Cohen turned over a trove of documents to Congress that showed Trump’s personal net worth and Trump’s reimbursements for a hush-money payment and other pieces of evidence that could endanger the president.
One of the documents, titled “Donald J. Trump Summary of Net Worth As of March 31, 2013,” shows Trump with a net worth of approximately $8.6 billion. Cohen also provided the committee with copies of a $35,000 check signed by Trump from his personal bank account — while he was president in 2017 — as one part of a reimbursement to Cohen for the $130,000 payment to buy the silence of adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who alleges that she and Trump had an affair.
Cohen told lawmakers that the documents he provided to the House panel prove that Trump engaged in illicit acts and painted a misleading picture of his personal wealth in order to secure loans from Deutsche Bank and ensure that he would be listed on Forbes’ list of the world’s wealthiest people.
“It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes,” Cohen said, later adding: “Everything was done with the knowledge and direction of Mr. Trump.”
Cohen — who is scheduled to report to federal prison in May after pleading guilty to lying to Congress and for campaign-finance crimes related to the hush-money payment — expressed remorse for working for more than a decade as the president’s fixer.
And he warned Republicans who continue to defend Trump that they, too, could end up like him.
Cohen told lawmakers that Trump directed him to lie about the president’s knowledge of the hush-money payments — including to first lady Melania Trump. The president has repeatedly claimed he had no knowledge of the payoff to Daniels.
Cohen implicated Trump’s family members and longtime business associates, too.
In his opening statement, Cohen charged that the president’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, had also signed checks reimbursing him for the hush-money payments.
He also said he briefed Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump about the progress of the Trump Organization’s efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the timing of the Trump Tower Moscow deal, and said he misled lawmakers in order to shield Trump from further legal trouble.
Initially, Democrats had signaled Cohen’s testimony would not cover topics directly under the purview of special counsel Robert Mueller and his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In his opening remarks, however, Cohen discussed the federal investigations that have ensnared him.
Cohen said he was aware of other allegedly criminal acts by the president but said he could not discuss them due to the ongoing federal investigations, indicating that prosecutors in the Southern District of New York were still investigating Trump.
Cohen said he has maintained “constant contact” with federal prosecutors in New York about several ongoing investigations, including probes into Trump. He also said the U.S. attorney’s office instructed him not to answer questions about what he discussed the last time he communicated with the president or people acting on his behalf.
In one bombshell disclosure, Cohen contradicted the president’s written testimony last year to the special counsel by recounting a conversation he overhead in Trump’s office in Trump Tower in July 2016, when longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was put on speakerphone to report back what he’d just discussed with Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder.
During that call, Stone reported that Assange had told him “within a couple days there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Cohen said.
“Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect, ‘Wouldn’t that be great,’” Cohen testified. In a statement, WikiLeaks said Assange “has never had a telephone call with Roger Stone.” In an email to POLITICO, Stone dismissed the testimony that referenced him.
“Mr. Cohen’s statement is not true,” wrote Stone, who was charged last month in the Mueller probe for lying to Congress and obstructing lawmakers’ Russia investigation.
Democrats scrutinized Cohen’s claims about Trump’s conversations with Stone. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who chaired the Democratic National Committee at the time of the WikiLeaks email hacks, asked Cohen about Stone’s role as a longtime Trump confidant and brief adviser to the Trump campaign.
“He frequently reached out to Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump was very happy to take his calls,” Cohen said, adding that Trump’s “desire to win would have him work with anyone.”
Cohen also offered new details about Trump’s apparent knowledge of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who offered dirt on Clinton to Trump Jr. and other senior campaign officials. He said he was in a room with Trump early that month “when something peculiar happened,” noting the president’s son came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk. He recalled hearing Trump Jr. tell his father in a low voice, “The meeting is all set.”
“I remember, Mr. Trump saying, ‘OK, good, let me know,” Cohen testified, adding that Trump had told him and others “that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of significance alone and certainly not without checking with his father.”
Ahead of planned testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Cohen told lawmakers he did not have direct evidence of collusion between Trump or his campaign and Russia.
A lawyer for Trump Jr. did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the president’s oldest son live-tweeted the hearing. “This sounds like a breakup letter … and I’m keeping your sweatshirt,” Trump Jr. wrote in a post as Cohen delivered his opening statement.
Mueller’s spokesman declined to comment when asked about Cohen’s testimony and whether the special counsel’s office had a chance to review it. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, with which Cohen negotiated a guilty plea, also declined to comment.
Trump’s 2020 campaign issued a statement calling Cohen “a felon, a disbarred lawyer, and a convicted perjurer” — as part of broader GOP efforts to discredit his testimony. “Why did they even bother to swear him in this time?” said Kayleigh McEnany, the campaign’s national press secretary.
Republicans largely used the hearing to portray Cohen as an untrustworthy witness who sought to advance himself rather than protect the president. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the committee’s top Republican, suggested that Cohen was positioning himself for a job in the White House, while Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) called Cohen a “pathological liar.”
Another Republican, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, asked Cohen whether he would commit to not pursue a book or movie deal, work for a TV network or run for political office. Cohen responded that he would not make such a commitment.
As they sought to undercut Cohen’s credibility, Republicans seized on the notion that Cohen’s appearance could be a way for him to get additional recommendations from federal prosecutors to reduce his upcoming three-year prison sentence. Cohen disputed that notion.
“I wish it was, but it’s not,” he said.
The president's former lawyer and fixer accuses Trump of involvement in criminal conduct.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and DARREN SAMUELSOHN
President Donald Trump’s former attorney and fixer on Wednesday laid out a series of damning accusations against the president, presenting evidence of alleged lies and criminal conduct and expressing remorse over his decade of service to a man he described as unstable and racist.
Michael Cohen testified to the House Oversight Committee that Trump directed him to lie about the president’s knowledge of hush-money payments, that Trump was informed about plans to dump Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign and was kept in the loop about a Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The explosive comments from Cohen during a sharply partisan House hearing contradict Trump’s previous claims and expose Trump and some of his closest advisers to new legal and political trouble, potentially including impeachment, as Democrats used the hearing to draw out evidence of wrongdoing by the president.
Cohen sought redemption by revealing what he said is the true character of the commander in chief and apologizing to lawmakers for lying to them in previous testimony. In stunning daylong testimony, Cohen became the highest-profile witness to testify against a sitting president since former White House counsel John Dean took the stand against President Richard Nixon.
“I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is,” Cohen said Wednesday in his opening statement. “He is a racist, he is a conman, and he is a cheat.”
Perhaps most important for the president’s critics, Cohen turned over a trove of documents to Congress that showed Trump’s personal net worth and Trump’s reimbursements for a hush-money payment and other pieces of evidence that could endanger the president.
One of the documents, titled “Donald J. Trump Summary of Net Worth As of March 31, 2013,” shows Trump with a net worth of approximately $8.6 billion. Cohen also provided the committee with copies of a $35,000 check signed by Trump from his personal bank account — while he was president in 2017 — as one part of a reimbursement to Cohen for the $130,000 payment to buy the silence of adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who alleges that she and Trump had an affair.
Cohen told lawmakers that the documents he provided to the House panel prove that Trump engaged in illicit acts and painted a misleading picture of his personal wealth in order to secure loans from Deutsche Bank and ensure that he would be listed on Forbes’ list of the world’s wealthiest people.
“It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes,” Cohen said, later adding: “Everything was done with the knowledge and direction of Mr. Trump.”
Cohen — who is scheduled to report to federal prison in May after pleading guilty to lying to Congress and for campaign-finance crimes related to the hush-money payment — expressed remorse for working for more than a decade as the president’s fixer.
And he warned Republicans who continue to defend Trump that they, too, could end up like him.
Cohen told lawmakers that Trump directed him to lie about the president’s knowledge of the hush-money payments — including to first lady Melania Trump. The president has repeatedly claimed he had no knowledge of the payoff to Daniels.
Cohen implicated Trump’s family members and longtime business associates, too.
In his opening statement, Cohen charged that the president’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, had also signed checks reimbursing him for the hush-money payments.
He also said he briefed Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump about the progress of the Trump Organization’s efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the timing of the Trump Tower Moscow deal, and said he misled lawmakers in order to shield Trump from further legal trouble.
Initially, Democrats had signaled Cohen’s testimony would not cover topics directly under the purview of special counsel Robert Mueller and his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In his opening remarks, however, Cohen discussed the federal investigations that have ensnared him.
Cohen said he was aware of other allegedly criminal acts by the president but said he could not discuss them due to the ongoing federal investigations, indicating that prosecutors in the Southern District of New York were still investigating Trump.
Cohen said he has maintained “constant contact” with federal prosecutors in New York about several ongoing investigations, including probes into Trump. He also said the U.S. attorney’s office instructed him not to answer questions about what he discussed the last time he communicated with the president or people acting on his behalf.
In one bombshell disclosure, Cohen contradicted the president’s written testimony last year to the special counsel by recounting a conversation he overhead in Trump’s office in Trump Tower in July 2016, when longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was put on speakerphone to report back what he’d just discussed with Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder.
During that call, Stone reported that Assange had told him “within a couple days there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Cohen said.
“Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect, ‘Wouldn’t that be great,’” Cohen testified. In a statement, WikiLeaks said Assange “has never had a telephone call with Roger Stone.” In an email to POLITICO, Stone dismissed the testimony that referenced him.
“Mr. Cohen’s statement is not true,” wrote Stone, who was charged last month in the Mueller probe for lying to Congress and obstructing lawmakers’ Russia investigation.
Democrats scrutinized Cohen’s claims about Trump’s conversations with Stone. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who chaired the Democratic National Committee at the time of the WikiLeaks email hacks, asked Cohen about Stone’s role as a longtime Trump confidant and brief adviser to the Trump campaign.
“He frequently reached out to Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump was very happy to take his calls,” Cohen said, adding that Trump’s “desire to win would have him work with anyone.”
Cohen also offered new details about Trump’s apparent knowledge of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who offered dirt on Clinton to Trump Jr. and other senior campaign officials. He said he was in a room with Trump early that month “when something peculiar happened,” noting the president’s son came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk. He recalled hearing Trump Jr. tell his father in a low voice, “The meeting is all set.”
“I remember, Mr. Trump saying, ‘OK, good, let me know,” Cohen testified, adding that Trump had told him and others “that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of significance alone and certainly not without checking with his father.”
Ahead of planned testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Cohen told lawmakers he did not have direct evidence of collusion between Trump or his campaign and Russia.
A lawyer for Trump Jr. did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the president’s oldest son live-tweeted the hearing. “This sounds like a breakup letter … and I’m keeping your sweatshirt,” Trump Jr. wrote in a post as Cohen delivered his opening statement.
Mueller’s spokesman declined to comment when asked about Cohen’s testimony and whether the special counsel’s office had a chance to review it. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, with which Cohen negotiated a guilty plea, also declined to comment.
Trump’s 2020 campaign issued a statement calling Cohen “a felon, a disbarred lawyer, and a convicted perjurer” — as part of broader GOP efforts to discredit his testimony. “Why did they even bother to swear him in this time?” said Kayleigh McEnany, the campaign’s national press secretary.
Republicans largely used the hearing to portray Cohen as an untrustworthy witness who sought to advance himself rather than protect the president. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the committee’s top Republican, suggested that Cohen was positioning himself for a job in the White House, while Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) called Cohen a “pathological liar.”
Another Republican, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, asked Cohen whether he would commit to not pursue a book or movie deal, work for a TV network or run for political office. Cohen responded that he would not make such a commitment.
As they sought to undercut Cohen’s credibility, Republicans seized on the notion that Cohen’s appearance could be a way for him to get additional recommendations from federal prosecutors to reduce his upcoming three-year prison sentence. Cohen disputed that notion.
“I wish it was, but it’s not,” he said.
Reality TV with Kim
Trump Made Reality TV with Kim, So I Made a Film About It
Want to understand this farcical summit with North Korea? Use the president’s favorite medium.
By VAN JACKSON
President Donald Trump made two false claims ahead of his second planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un: 1) President Barack Obama intended to start a war with North Korea over its nuclear program; and 2) Trump effectively saved the Korean Peninsula from that war.
It was actually Trump, not Obama—as I explain in a recent book on the subject—who brought Washington closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama publicly ruled out attacking North Korea on multiple occasions during his presidency, most pointedly in a 2015 interview when he said “in North Korea ... you’ve got a million-person army, and they have nuclear technologies, and missiles. ... So the answer’s not going to be a military solution.”
Meanwhile, after going along with the diplomacy Kim sought as part of a global charm offensive in 2018, Trump has made another kind of false claim repeatedly: that North Korea is on the road to denuclearization and that “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” In fact, North Korea had not agreed to give up its nuclear weapons, and it has not yet given any indication it’s even willing to surrender a single nuclear warhead or missile.
Trump’s gratuitous inaccuracies distort recent history, whitewash his culpability in a near nuclear disaster, and oversell what’s actually happening with North Korea. That’s why I made the documentary The Nuclear Button: How Trump and Kim Blustered to the Brink of War. Through lectures, bipartisan expert conversations and footage of Trump in his own words, The Nuclear Button paints a damning picture of an American president who inherited a dangerous situation in Korea, made it worse, and then, without explanation, began to pretend that he had solved the problem by doing nothing but meeting Kim Jong Un.
It was reality-show diplomacy, and there are three reasons that warrant labeling as such. First, Trump was driven into this summit diplomacy by his desire for media praise. Ahead of the first summit, there was ample evidence he wanted good news headlines at a time when he was plagued by scandals at home, and he seemed to admit as much publicly. Ahead of the second summit, Trump groaned about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got even though his administration asked Japan to nominate him for one.
His motives haven’t changed. Bad motives might be forgivable if they led to good outcomes, but in this case they led Trump to adopt Kim’s preferences as his own—for instance, claiming military exercises are provocative and voluntarily suspending them, wanting to declare an end to the Korean War and remove U.S. troops from South Korea, and requiring that North Korea do little more than not test missiles or nukes.
Second, and in part because of Trump’s motives, there is no process in place to resolve the nuclear issue—even eight months after the first summit. Leader summits are inherently theatrical—they take significant planning effort, time and resources. Yet they can also be meaningful when connected to real negotiations between diplomatic professionals who reach agreements that national leaders can then consecrate through in-person meetings. Trump has jettisoned all of that, plowing ahead with the June 2018 summit in Singapore without having reached any nuclear agreements in advance or since. Planning for the second summit has actually displaced the nuclear negotiations that should have been taking place most of the past eight months since the first summit.
Third, for Trump, these summits are cheap distraction, just like reality television. The entire scope of Trump diplomacy with North Korea has changed from denuclearization and getting a grip on the North Korean nuclear threat to declaring “peace” with North Korea in spite of the underlying nuclear arsenal having become more lethal since the “fire and fury” brinkmanship of 2017. Declaring an end to a war that ended long ago is great, but nuclear stability will come only from verifiably freezing and rolling back North Korean missiles, launchers and nuclear warheads. Not its facilities or fissile material, but the weapons themselves and their delivery systems.
Yet nothing in the first summit, post-summit diplomacy, or second-summit planning has addressed North Korea’s ability to hold U.S. territory at risk of nuclear strike. That’s what matters most to Washington, and that’s what the next U.S. president is going to inherit—a nuclear situation that’s worse than when Trump came to office, and with less political space to resolve it than when Trump came to office because of the decisions being made on Trump’s watch.
Only a film can do justice to a reality show like this. There’s an absurdity in claiming diplomatic victories while actually doing nothing to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. territory to nuclear strikes—you know, the issue that made the 2017 crisis possible in the first place. That painful irony comes across better on screen—Trump’s preferred medium—than through the written word.
Want to understand this farcical summit with North Korea? Use the president’s favorite medium.
By VAN JACKSON
President Donald Trump made two false claims ahead of his second planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un: 1) President Barack Obama intended to start a war with North Korea over its nuclear program; and 2) Trump effectively saved the Korean Peninsula from that war.
It was actually Trump, not Obama—as I explain in a recent book on the subject—who brought Washington closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama publicly ruled out attacking North Korea on multiple occasions during his presidency, most pointedly in a 2015 interview when he said “in North Korea ... you’ve got a million-person army, and they have nuclear technologies, and missiles. ... So the answer’s not going to be a military solution.”
Meanwhile, after going along with the diplomacy Kim sought as part of a global charm offensive in 2018, Trump has made another kind of false claim repeatedly: that North Korea is on the road to denuclearization and that “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” In fact, North Korea had not agreed to give up its nuclear weapons, and it has not yet given any indication it’s even willing to surrender a single nuclear warhead or missile.
Trump’s gratuitous inaccuracies distort recent history, whitewash his culpability in a near nuclear disaster, and oversell what’s actually happening with North Korea. That’s why I made the documentary The Nuclear Button: How Trump and Kim Blustered to the Brink of War. Through lectures, bipartisan expert conversations and footage of Trump in his own words, The Nuclear Button paints a damning picture of an American president who inherited a dangerous situation in Korea, made it worse, and then, without explanation, began to pretend that he had solved the problem by doing nothing but meeting Kim Jong Un.
It was reality-show diplomacy, and there are three reasons that warrant labeling as such. First, Trump was driven into this summit diplomacy by his desire for media praise. Ahead of the first summit, there was ample evidence he wanted good news headlines at a time when he was plagued by scandals at home, and he seemed to admit as much publicly. Ahead of the second summit, Trump groaned about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got even though his administration asked Japan to nominate him for one.
His motives haven’t changed. Bad motives might be forgivable if they led to good outcomes, but in this case they led Trump to adopt Kim’s preferences as his own—for instance, claiming military exercises are provocative and voluntarily suspending them, wanting to declare an end to the Korean War and remove U.S. troops from South Korea, and requiring that North Korea do little more than not test missiles or nukes.
Second, and in part because of Trump’s motives, there is no process in place to resolve the nuclear issue—even eight months after the first summit. Leader summits are inherently theatrical—they take significant planning effort, time and resources. Yet they can also be meaningful when connected to real negotiations between diplomatic professionals who reach agreements that national leaders can then consecrate through in-person meetings. Trump has jettisoned all of that, plowing ahead with the June 2018 summit in Singapore without having reached any nuclear agreements in advance or since. Planning for the second summit has actually displaced the nuclear negotiations that should have been taking place most of the past eight months since the first summit.
Third, for Trump, these summits are cheap distraction, just like reality television. The entire scope of Trump diplomacy with North Korea has changed from denuclearization and getting a grip on the North Korean nuclear threat to declaring “peace” with North Korea in spite of the underlying nuclear arsenal having become more lethal since the “fire and fury” brinkmanship of 2017. Declaring an end to a war that ended long ago is great, but nuclear stability will come only from verifiably freezing and rolling back North Korean missiles, launchers and nuclear warheads. Not its facilities or fissile material, but the weapons themselves and their delivery systems.
Yet nothing in the first summit, post-summit diplomacy, or second-summit planning has addressed North Korea’s ability to hold U.S. territory at risk of nuclear strike. That’s what matters most to Washington, and that’s what the next U.S. president is going to inherit—a nuclear situation that’s worse than when Trump came to office, and with less political space to resolve it than when Trump came to office because of the decisions being made on Trump’s watch.
Only a film can do justice to a reality show like this. There’s an absurdity in claiming diplomatic victories while actually doing nothing to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. territory to nuclear strikes—you know, the issue that made the 2017 crisis possible in the first place. That painful irony comes across better on screen—Trump’s preferred medium—than through the written word.
Blah Blah Blah... Grand-standing on display...
The Michael Cohen Hearing Didn’t Have to Be So Awful
Members of Congress don’t know how to ask good questions. The solution: Let someone else do the job for them.
By JEFF GREENFIELD
It’s a measure of the depths to which the typical congressional hearing has sunk in recent years that perhaps the two most startling moments of the Michael Cohen hearing came when a Democrat asked a question that elicited exonerating comments about Donald Trump, and when a Republican asked a potentially incriminating one.
Michigan Republican Justin Amash asked Cohen: “What is the truth that you know Mr. Trump fears most?” Cohen responded: “That's a tough question, sir. I don't have an answer for that one.”
And California Democrat Jackie Speier asked about widely rumored stories about an “elevator tape” showing Trump striking Melania, as well as a “love child” story that Trump was rumored to have paid $15,000 to suppress.
“I don’t believe Mr. Trump ever struck Mrs. Trump, ever,” Cohen said. “I don’t believe it.”
These two moments broke with a pattern familiar to anyone whose has watched Capitol Hill hearings over the years. The traditional congressional hearing, as we now experience it, features a series of questions—and I use the term very loosely—that have virtually nothing to do with the solicitation of information. You can blame it on political polarization, or the insatiable hunger of politicians for the spotlight, or the congenital inability of most officials to speak in public without staff-generated talking points. Whatever the cause, the result is what Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan called judicial confirmation hearings: “a vapid and hollow charade.”
For Democrats, the Cohen hearing offered a chance to underline the jaw-dropping accusations of Trump’s one-time lawyer. Again and again, the members essentially restated the charges that Cohen made about the President’s character and behavior, with various expressions of shock and incredulity.
Have you ever seen the president personally threaten people with physical harm? Tennessee’s Jim Cooper asked.
“No,” Cohen answered with a smile. “He would use others.”
How many times, Speier asked Cohen, did Trump ask you to threaten people or entities? 50 times? “More.” “100 times?” “More.” “200 times?” “More.” “500 times?” “Probably.”
Republicans, in turn, adopted the strategy used by lawyers defending an accused mobster: argue that the chief witness, a one-time colleague turned informant, is someone of such low character that nothing he says can be believed. So the GOP committee members showed little interest in rebutting the charges Cohen leveled about hush money payoffs or Trump’s knowledge of meetings with Russians or phone calls from Wikileaks. Instead, their approach was to describe Cohen as a man who lies about anything and everything, whose motive for testifying is highly suspect, and who should not be believed if he said today was Wednesday. (It’s worth remembering that when Sammy “the Bull” Gravano turned against John Gotti, the fact that Gravano had committed 19 murders was not enough keep the jury from convicting the Dapper Don.)
For Ohio’s perennially shirt-sleeved Jim Jordan, Cohen was a disgruntled colleague embittered by his failure to get a White House job.
“Here's what I see,” Jordan said. “I see a guy who worked for 10 years and is here trashing the guy he worked for for 10 years, didn't get a job in the White House, and now you're behaving just like everyone else who got fired or didn't get the job they wanted—like Andy McCabe, like James Comey, same kind of selfish motivation after you don't get the thing you want. That's what I see here today and I think that's what the American people see.”
Arizona’s Paul Gosar—who was reelected in November even though six of his siblings cut an ad opposing him—called Cohen “a disgraced lawyer.” He went on: “You’ve been disbarred. I'm sure you remember, maybe you don't remember, duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney-client privilege. … You want us to make sure that we think of you as a real philanthropic icon, that you're about justice, that you’re the person that someone would call at 3 in the morning. No, they wouldn’t. Not at all. You conflicted your testimony, sir. You're a pathological liar. You don't know truth from falsehood.”
When Gosar was finished, Cohen responded: “Sir, I'm sorry. Are you referring to me or the President?”
“Hey,” Gosar answered. “This is my time. … When I ask a question I'll ask for an answer.”
This may have been the day’s most revealing exchange, an admission that what really mattered was not getting answers from Cohen. What was on display was the near-desperate instance of some members to claim every second of their five minutes. Many members echoed Gosar's impatience when Cohen actually tried to answer a question. (In this regard, freshman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood out, as she has before, as someone who used her five minutes to pose short, pointed questions.)
In fairness, several Republicans yielded some of their time to Jordan, under the impression that his pit-bull approach would undermine Cohen’s credibility. If nothing else, they’re right that yielding their time to someone else would make congressional hearings a lot more productive.
Once upon a time, committee lawyers, rather than legislators, conducted much of the questioning. Think of Joseph Welch eviscerating Senator Joe McCarthy, or Robert Kennedy grilling Teamsters officials, or Sam Dash and Fred Thompson at the Watergate hearings. (Thompson, the minority counsel, elicited the information that there was a White House taping system inside the Nixon White House.) With a generous time frame—say, 30 minutes for each party— a sustained line of questioning would be possible. And staff counsel would be less inclined to deliver canned speeches and polemics.
The lust for face time, however, is why we’re unlikely to ever see such a reform. During a break in a confirmation hearing some years back, I asked Sen. Chuck Grassley why his colleagues were so inclined to speechifying. He pointed right back at me through the camera and snapped, “You’re the reason!” We saw something similar at the Kavanaugh hearings, when the Republicans pushed aside the lawyer they hired to question Christine Blasey Ford so that they could go back to making political points.
Still, we can at least hope for the day when the term “hearing” actually describes what’s taking place in the committee rooms of Congress.
Members of Congress don’t know how to ask good questions. The solution: Let someone else do the job for them.
By JEFF GREENFIELD
It’s a measure of the depths to which the typical congressional hearing has sunk in recent years that perhaps the two most startling moments of the Michael Cohen hearing came when a Democrat asked a question that elicited exonerating comments about Donald Trump, and when a Republican asked a potentially incriminating one.
Michigan Republican Justin Amash asked Cohen: “What is the truth that you know Mr. Trump fears most?” Cohen responded: “That's a tough question, sir. I don't have an answer for that one.”
And California Democrat Jackie Speier asked about widely rumored stories about an “elevator tape” showing Trump striking Melania, as well as a “love child” story that Trump was rumored to have paid $15,000 to suppress.
“I don’t believe Mr. Trump ever struck Mrs. Trump, ever,” Cohen said. “I don’t believe it.”
These two moments broke with a pattern familiar to anyone whose has watched Capitol Hill hearings over the years. The traditional congressional hearing, as we now experience it, features a series of questions—and I use the term very loosely—that have virtually nothing to do with the solicitation of information. You can blame it on political polarization, or the insatiable hunger of politicians for the spotlight, or the congenital inability of most officials to speak in public without staff-generated talking points. Whatever the cause, the result is what Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan called judicial confirmation hearings: “a vapid and hollow charade.”
For Democrats, the Cohen hearing offered a chance to underline the jaw-dropping accusations of Trump’s one-time lawyer. Again and again, the members essentially restated the charges that Cohen made about the President’s character and behavior, with various expressions of shock and incredulity.
Have you ever seen the president personally threaten people with physical harm? Tennessee’s Jim Cooper asked.
“No,” Cohen answered with a smile. “He would use others.”
How many times, Speier asked Cohen, did Trump ask you to threaten people or entities? 50 times? “More.” “100 times?” “More.” “200 times?” “More.” “500 times?” “Probably.”
Republicans, in turn, adopted the strategy used by lawyers defending an accused mobster: argue that the chief witness, a one-time colleague turned informant, is someone of such low character that nothing he says can be believed. So the GOP committee members showed little interest in rebutting the charges Cohen leveled about hush money payoffs or Trump’s knowledge of meetings with Russians or phone calls from Wikileaks. Instead, their approach was to describe Cohen as a man who lies about anything and everything, whose motive for testifying is highly suspect, and who should not be believed if he said today was Wednesday. (It’s worth remembering that when Sammy “the Bull” Gravano turned against John Gotti, the fact that Gravano had committed 19 murders was not enough keep the jury from convicting the Dapper Don.)
For Ohio’s perennially shirt-sleeved Jim Jordan, Cohen was a disgruntled colleague embittered by his failure to get a White House job.
“Here's what I see,” Jordan said. “I see a guy who worked for 10 years and is here trashing the guy he worked for for 10 years, didn't get a job in the White House, and now you're behaving just like everyone else who got fired or didn't get the job they wanted—like Andy McCabe, like James Comey, same kind of selfish motivation after you don't get the thing you want. That's what I see here today and I think that's what the American people see.”
Arizona’s Paul Gosar—who was reelected in November even though six of his siblings cut an ad opposing him—called Cohen “a disgraced lawyer.” He went on: “You’ve been disbarred. I'm sure you remember, maybe you don't remember, duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney-client privilege. … You want us to make sure that we think of you as a real philanthropic icon, that you're about justice, that you’re the person that someone would call at 3 in the morning. No, they wouldn’t. Not at all. You conflicted your testimony, sir. You're a pathological liar. You don't know truth from falsehood.”
When Gosar was finished, Cohen responded: “Sir, I'm sorry. Are you referring to me or the President?”
“Hey,” Gosar answered. “This is my time. … When I ask a question I'll ask for an answer.”
This may have been the day’s most revealing exchange, an admission that what really mattered was not getting answers from Cohen. What was on display was the near-desperate instance of some members to claim every second of their five minutes. Many members echoed Gosar's impatience when Cohen actually tried to answer a question. (In this regard, freshman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood out, as she has before, as someone who used her five minutes to pose short, pointed questions.)
In fairness, several Republicans yielded some of their time to Jordan, under the impression that his pit-bull approach would undermine Cohen’s credibility. If nothing else, they’re right that yielding their time to someone else would make congressional hearings a lot more productive.
Once upon a time, committee lawyers, rather than legislators, conducted much of the questioning. Think of Joseph Welch eviscerating Senator Joe McCarthy, or Robert Kennedy grilling Teamsters officials, or Sam Dash and Fred Thompson at the Watergate hearings. (Thompson, the minority counsel, elicited the information that there was a White House taping system inside the Nixon White House.) With a generous time frame—say, 30 minutes for each party— a sustained line of questioning would be possible. And staff counsel would be less inclined to deliver canned speeches and polemics.
The lust for face time, however, is why we’re unlikely to ever see such a reform. During a break in a confirmation hearing some years back, I asked Sen. Chuck Grassley why his colleagues were so inclined to speechifying. He pointed right back at me through the camera and snapped, “You’re the reason!” We saw something similar at the Kavanaugh hearings, when the Republicans pushed aside the lawyer they hired to question Christine Blasey Ford so that they could go back to making political points.
Still, we can at least hope for the day when the term “hearing” actually describes what’s taking place in the committee rooms of Congress.
Got to get their act together...
House Democrats weigh rules change after GOP floor victory
By HEATHER CAYGLE, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS
Democratic leaders are considering changing House rules to make it harder for Republicans to spring surprise procedural votes on the majority after several embarrassing incidents on the floor in recent weeks.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other top Democrats are weighing revising the House rules to require Republicans give them more notice on specific procedural votes, known as a “motion to recommit,” a wonky tactic that the GOP has used to force Democrats to vote on a range of controversial issues since January.
Hoyer first raised the idea of changing the rules at a meeting with committee chairmen Wednesday morning, according to multiple sources, although tension within the caucus over the issue has been building for weeks.
An aide to Hoyer said later Wednesday that members have approached him with the idea, saying they would like the same time to review the GOP motions as they get with other amendments. Currently, Democratic leaders usually learn the subject matter of the GOP amendments just minutes before the vote, causing a scramble on the floor as they try to counsel their members — particularly vulnerable freshmen who flipped Republican districts — on what to do.
Hours after Hoyer floated the idea, Democrats suffered another surprising defeat when Republicans were successfully able to modify the bill requiring background checks on all gun sales — a marquee vote in the new Democratic-led House — with a provision targeting undocumented immigrants who try to purchase weapons.
Democrats learned the specifics of the GOP motion only minutes before the vote, following the long-standing House rule, causing a dash on the floor.
After the GOP motion passed, the House immediately moved to vote on the Democrats’ background checks bill, sparking momentary panic as lawmakers made a hasty decision whether to support the signature policy achievement with contentious new language on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Many Democrats held off on voting as they spoke with other members and leadership, though the bill ultimately passed. Afterward, a small group of Democratic whip members and aides huddled on the floor for more than 15 minutes, with Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) appearing to shout as House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) looked on.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi later raised the issue at her weekly meeting with leaders of the various Democratic interest groups — from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Blue Dogs. Pelosi said it was disappointing that veteran lawmakers who had been awarded spots on coveted committees including the Ways and Means and Appropriations panels then chose to turn around and vote with Republicans on Wednesday.
Pelosi said she was concerned these members would also have to take tough votes in committee and questioned how would they handle that if they already felt compelled to side with Republicans on votes that she and others saw merely as procedural exercises by the minority, according to a senior Democratic source.
The debate over whether to change the House rules to limit the minority party’s influence is expected to come up Thursday when Democrats huddle for the weekly whip meeting, led by Clyburn. Multiple Democratic aides cautioned that the discussions of modifying House rules are still in the early stages and nothing has been agreed to or endorsed by leadership.
The surprise win for Republicans — enough Democrats joined with the GOP to successfully attach the immigration related amendment to the guns bill — was the second such setback for Democratic leaders in recent weeks.
Earlier this month, Republicans used the same maneuver to successfully force Democrats to add language condemning anti-Semitism to an unrelated bill to halt U.S. involvement in the Yemen war. The resolution passed, but the GOP amendment ended up derailing the Yemen resolution in the Senate.
Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn have watched with alarm for weeks as Republicans have continued to win Democratic support for their controversial amendments, often from freshmen who have privately expressed concerns about the GOP using these votes against them in campaign ads.
How to address the issue has divided Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn and set off multiple rounds of finger-pointing about whom to blame. Pelosi has met with the freshmen multiple times, encouraging them to stay unified and vote with the party — thus letting the air out of the GOP’s attack balloon. But multiple freshmen in GOP-targeted districts told POLITICO earlier this month they have no plans to change their strategy.
In the meeting Wednesday, Pelosi again restated her belief that Democrats should stay unified on these votes — treating them as political maneuvers, as Republicans did when they were in the majority. Republicans took the same tack Pelosi is arguing for and didn’t lose one motion to recommit vote the entire time they were in the majority.
But Hoyer and Clyburn have embraced a different strategy, saying some vulnerable members should be free to vote with Republicans if they feel it will benefit their district.
A senior Democratic aide put the onus on Hoyer and Clyburn for the ongoing problem, saying the two leaders are not communicating with each other about which members they have cut loose to vote with the GOP, creating a problem that is difficult to fix.
By HEATHER CAYGLE, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS
Democratic leaders are considering changing House rules to make it harder for Republicans to spring surprise procedural votes on the majority after several embarrassing incidents on the floor in recent weeks.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other top Democrats are weighing revising the House rules to require Republicans give them more notice on specific procedural votes, known as a “motion to recommit,” a wonky tactic that the GOP has used to force Democrats to vote on a range of controversial issues since January.
Hoyer first raised the idea of changing the rules at a meeting with committee chairmen Wednesday morning, according to multiple sources, although tension within the caucus over the issue has been building for weeks.
An aide to Hoyer said later Wednesday that members have approached him with the idea, saying they would like the same time to review the GOP motions as they get with other amendments. Currently, Democratic leaders usually learn the subject matter of the GOP amendments just minutes before the vote, causing a scramble on the floor as they try to counsel their members — particularly vulnerable freshmen who flipped Republican districts — on what to do.
Hours after Hoyer floated the idea, Democrats suffered another surprising defeat when Republicans were successfully able to modify the bill requiring background checks on all gun sales — a marquee vote in the new Democratic-led House — with a provision targeting undocumented immigrants who try to purchase weapons.
Democrats learned the specifics of the GOP motion only minutes before the vote, following the long-standing House rule, causing a dash on the floor.
After the GOP motion passed, the House immediately moved to vote on the Democrats’ background checks bill, sparking momentary panic as lawmakers made a hasty decision whether to support the signature policy achievement with contentious new language on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Many Democrats held off on voting as they spoke with other members and leadership, though the bill ultimately passed. Afterward, a small group of Democratic whip members and aides huddled on the floor for more than 15 minutes, with Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) appearing to shout as House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) looked on.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi later raised the issue at her weekly meeting with leaders of the various Democratic interest groups — from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Blue Dogs. Pelosi said it was disappointing that veteran lawmakers who had been awarded spots on coveted committees including the Ways and Means and Appropriations panels then chose to turn around and vote with Republicans on Wednesday.
Pelosi said she was concerned these members would also have to take tough votes in committee and questioned how would they handle that if they already felt compelled to side with Republicans on votes that she and others saw merely as procedural exercises by the minority, according to a senior Democratic source.
The debate over whether to change the House rules to limit the minority party’s influence is expected to come up Thursday when Democrats huddle for the weekly whip meeting, led by Clyburn. Multiple Democratic aides cautioned that the discussions of modifying House rules are still in the early stages and nothing has been agreed to or endorsed by leadership.
The surprise win for Republicans — enough Democrats joined with the GOP to successfully attach the immigration related amendment to the guns bill — was the second such setback for Democratic leaders in recent weeks.
Earlier this month, Republicans used the same maneuver to successfully force Democrats to add language condemning anti-Semitism to an unrelated bill to halt U.S. involvement in the Yemen war. The resolution passed, but the GOP amendment ended up derailing the Yemen resolution in the Senate.
Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn have watched with alarm for weeks as Republicans have continued to win Democratic support for their controversial amendments, often from freshmen who have privately expressed concerns about the GOP using these votes against them in campaign ads.
How to address the issue has divided Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn and set off multiple rounds of finger-pointing about whom to blame. Pelosi has met with the freshmen multiple times, encouraging them to stay unified and vote with the party — thus letting the air out of the GOP’s attack balloon. But multiple freshmen in GOP-targeted districts told POLITICO earlier this month they have no plans to change their strategy.
In the meeting Wednesday, Pelosi again restated her belief that Democrats should stay unified on these votes — treating them as political maneuvers, as Republicans did when they were in the majority. Republicans took the same tack Pelosi is arguing for and didn’t lose one motion to recommit vote the entire time they were in the majority.
But Hoyer and Clyburn have embraced a different strategy, saying some vulnerable members should be free to vote with Republicans if they feel it will benefit their district.
A senior Democratic aide put the onus on Hoyer and Clyburn for the ongoing problem, saying the two leaders are not communicating with each other about which members they have cut loose to vote with the GOP, creating a problem that is difficult to fix.
Sweeping gun control legislation
House passes most sweeping gun control legislation in decades
By JOHN BRESNAHAN
In one of their biggest moments since winning the majority in November, House Democrats pushed through legislation on Wednesday mandating federal criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.
For Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, it represents a signature moment as they try to fulfill their campaign pledge to take action on gun violence.
The House passed the bill on a 240-190 vote. Eight Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats, while two Democrats — Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Collin Peterson of Minnesota — voted with Republicans against the legislation.
The background checks legislation faces stiff opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate, and President Donald Trump — who has strong backing from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups — has vowed to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk.
But House Democrats insist that some federal action must be taken to address the growing toll of gun violence. In addition to Wednesday's vote, they will move legislation on Thursday to close the "Charleston loophole," which allows people to buy guns before background checks are completed, and extend the time period for any background checks from three days to as long as 20 days. White supremacist Dylann Roof was able to buy a gun in 2015 despite pending drug charges, and he later killed nine African-Americans at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.
“Background checks work,” Rep. Mike Thompson of California, the lead Democratic author on the background checks bill, said on the House floor. "Every day, they stop 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers from getting a gun from a licensed dealer. But, in some states, those same people can go into a gun show or go online and buy a gun without a background check. This bill will help stop them from doing so.
"Some will argue that criminals won’t follow the law," he said. "If that is the case, then why do we have laws against murder? People still commit murder. Why do we have laws against stealing? People still steal. This is flawed logic. Don’t fall for it."
The Democratic proposal would require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions. It includes some small exemptions, like for transfers between family members or temporary use of a gun for hunting. Gun-control groups estimate that roughly one-fifth or more of gun sales don't include background checks.
But in an embarrassing blow to Democrats, 26 of their own members broke ranks and joined with Republicans to add language to the bill that would report undocumented immigrants to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they attempt to buy a gun. Republicans were ecstatic about the maneuver, which embarrassed Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.
It is the second time i nth past month Democratic leaders have lost a vote to the minority party.
Yet the last-minute floor snafu didn't dissuade Democrats from pushing through the legislation, a major revision of the current background check system for gun purchases.
"Every day, 47 children and teenagers [are] killed by guns," said Pelosi, who noted that "90 percent of the American people want commonsense, universal background checks."
Rep. Peter King of New York, one of the Republicans who co-sponsored the gun bill, said his party must alter its stance on guns or face a backlash from voters in 2020 and beyond.
King said Republicans can't be beholden to the NRA or other gun rights groups.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans support it, and we shouldn't allow a small faction who come out and vote in primaries to scare away the whole party," King said. "There's a moral perspective. I think it's important. From a political perspective, this is a key vote in the suburbs. We did badly in the suburbs last time; we're going to do worse this time. This an issue that even strong, solid Republican conservatives can't understand why we don't support it."
But House GOP leaders and gun rights groups argued the legislation — even if it became law — would not reduce gun violence, especially the unending stream of mass shootings the country has suffered.
"There are plenty of Democrats who want to say they did something rather than doing [legislation] that would actually do something to reduce violence," said Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), one of the most outspoken pro-gun rights lawmakers. "Why not try something that will have an impact?"
Hudson said he is working with Democrats on legislation to widen the databases that can be searched as part of the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System. In his view, this is a better alternative than expanding background checks overall.
"This extreme gun- control bill will make criminals out of law-abiding Americans. It will also make it harder for good people to defend themselves and their families," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the legislative arm of the group. "Criminals, on the other hand, will continue to get their firearms the way they always have — through the black market, theft and straw purchases. Forcing more government paperwork and additional fees on good people trying to exercise a constitutional right will do nothing to make Americans safer."
By JOHN BRESNAHAN
In one of their biggest moments since winning the majority in November, House Democrats pushed through legislation on Wednesday mandating federal criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.
For Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, it represents a signature moment as they try to fulfill their campaign pledge to take action on gun violence.
The House passed the bill on a 240-190 vote. Eight Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats, while two Democrats — Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Collin Peterson of Minnesota — voted with Republicans against the legislation.
The background checks legislation faces stiff opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate, and President Donald Trump — who has strong backing from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups — has vowed to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk.
But House Democrats insist that some federal action must be taken to address the growing toll of gun violence. In addition to Wednesday's vote, they will move legislation on Thursday to close the "Charleston loophole," which allows people to buy guns before background checks are completed, and extend the time period for any background checks from three days to as long as 20 days. White supremacist Dylann Roof was able to buy a gun in 2015 despite pending drug charges, and he later killed nine African-Americans at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.
“Background checks work,” Rep. Mike Thompson of California, the lead Democratic author on the background checks bill, said on the House floor. "Every day, they stop 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers from getting a gun from a licensed dealer. But, in some states, those same people can go into a gun show or go online and buy a gun without a background check. This bill will help stop them from doing so.
"Some will argue that criminals won’t follow the law," he said. "If that is the case, then why do we have laws against murder? People still commit murder. Why do we have laws against stealing? People still steal. This is flawed logic. Don’t fall for it."
The Democratic proposal would require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions. It includes some small exemptions, like for transfers between family members or temporary use of a gun for hunting. Gun-control groups estimate that roughly one-fifth or more of gun sales don't include background checks.
But in an embarrassing blow to Democrats, 26 of their own members broke ranks and joined with Republicans to add language to the bill that would report undocumented immigrants to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they attempt to buy a gun. Republicans were ecstatic about the maneuver, which embarrassed Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.
It is the second time i nth past month Democratic leaders have lost a vote to the minority party.
Yet the last-minute floor snafu didn't dissuade Democrats from pushing through the legislation, a major revision of the current background check system for gun purchases.
"Every day, 47 children and teenagers [are] killed by guns," said Pelosi, who noted that "90 percent of the American people want commonsense, universal background checks."
Rep. Peter King of New York, one of the Republicans who co-sponsored the gun bill, said his party must alter its stance on guns or face a backlash from voters in 2020 and beyond.
King said Republicans can't be beholden to the NRA or other gun rights groups.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans support it, and we shouldn't allow a small faction who come out and vote in primaries to scare away the whole party," King said. "There's a moral perspective. I think it's important. From a political perspective, this is a key vote in the suburbs. We did badly in the suburbs last time; we're going to do worse this time. This an issue that even strong, solid Republican conservatives can't understand why we don't support it."
But House GOP leaders and gun rights groups argued the legislation — even if it became law — would not reduce gun violence, especially the unending stream of mass shootings the country has suffered.
"There are plenty of Democrats who want to say they did something rather than doing [legislation] that would actually do something to reduce violence," said Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), one of the most outspoken pro-gun rights lawmakers. "Why not try something that will have an impact?"
Hudson said he is working with Democrats on legislation to widen the databases that can be searched as part of the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System. In his view, this is a better alternative than expanding background checks overall.
"This extreme gun- control bill will make criminals out of law-abiding Americans. It will also make it harder for good people to defend themselves and their families," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the legislative arm of the group. "Criminals, on the other hand, will continue to get their firearms the way they always have — through the black market, theft and straw purchases. Forcing more government paperwork and additional fees on good people trying to exercise a constitutional right will do nothing to make Americans safer."
Shows how corrupted they are...
CPAC’s new boogeyman: China
This year’s agenda reflects a stark shift in conservative priorities — and Russia is missing.
By BEN SCHRECKINGER
Last year, the title of a panel at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference posed a simple question — “What is the Biggest Threat to the U.S.?” — and offered three options: China, Russia or rogue states like North Korea.
Now, the results are in. “China, the global menace,” warns the title of one panel at this year’s conference. “21st Century terminator: How China is using 5G and AI to take over the world,” warns another. A third China-focused panel borrows its title from a book by Winston Churchill about the runup to World War II. The words “Russia,” “Iran,” “North Korea” and “terrorism” do not appear on this year’s agenda.
The Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which runs Wednesday through Saturday, serves as the premiere annual gathering of right-leaning activists and offers a barometer of trends in conservative thinking.
This year’s sudden focus on China marks a moment of flux for conservative foreign policy priorities. The Islamic State is crippled, al-Qaida is quiet and public fear of terrorism is at a recent low. Meanwhile President Donald Trump, whose campaign is under investigation for possible collusion with the Kremlin, says the U.S. can befriend Russia and polls show that the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, has grown more popular among Republicans since Trump’s election.
The new emphasis also reflects a desire on the part of CPAC organizers to promote the Trump administration’s priorities, according to a person involved with planning the event. Trump and his top officials have made challenging China’s rise — through issues like trade, military power and cybersecurity — one of their top priorities.
“They are doing this to help President Trump,” said the person. “They believe China is a big part of Trump’s presidency and a source of his foreign policy victories.”
The ACU’s executive director, Dan Schneider, said the agenda was the result of months of meetings with conservative groups. Schneider also cited his own experience living in China three decades ago, including the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. "I have seen firsthand what the Chinese Communist Party is capable of,” he said. “China is the single greatest threat to peace on Earth."
Trump, who has taken a more confrontational approach to China than his recent predecessors, has presided over a hardening of conservative opinion toward the country. Before Trump’s rise and his pursuit of aggressive trade measures against China and other nations, free-market, pro-trade ideas dominated the conservative movement.
“For a long time there was a lot of money flowing into the free market right to defend trade at all costs, and I think a lot of conservatives, including hawks, may have looked the other way for some time as a result,” said Christopher Hull, a conservative foreign policy hand who until recently served as executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded by CPAC regular Frank Gaffney.
"You're now hearing views that would have been unthinkable even just a couple years ago," said Gordon Chang, a China-watcher who is participating in all three CPAC panels. Chang, a hard-liner who calls for disengagement from China, said his once-fringe view is being taken more seriously across the political spectrum. "I used to say these things and people would look at me and say, ‘Are you out of your mind?’" No longer, he said.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a China hawk who praised Chang as a “huge piece of manpower,” compared this year’s focus on China to the conference’s focus on the Soviet Union in the 1970s and ’80s, when former President Ronald Reagan led the movement. “This is like what CPAC would be at the height of the Cold War," he said.
“CPAC is sending a powerful message to the conservative movement by the depth and breadth of the panels.”
Before Trump’s presidency, CPAC speakers favored other targets. “Putin’s Russia: A New Cold War?” asked a panel in 2015. U.S.-Russia relations have only gotten worse since then. But that question won’t be on the table at this year’s event.
Similarly, Islamic terrorism was a major theme at recent CPAC gatherings. Four years ago, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, then preparing to seek the Republican presidential nomination, famously boasted at CPAC that his experience in political battles with labor unions had prepared him to take on the Islamic State. “I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to make sure the threat from Islamic terrorists will not show up on our soil,” he said. “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.” But in December, Trump declared victory over ISIS — prematurely, critics say — and the topic has receded from this year’s conference agenda.
For conference organizers, the task of projecting the administration’s view on China is complicated by the lack of consensus among his advisers about how to handle the rising Asian power.
For example, conference organizers considered a speaking role for Trump’s ambassador to China, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who traveled to Washington last week to participate in ongoing trade talks with representatives from Beijing. But the organizers deemed him too soft on China and did not invite him, according to the person involved in the event’s planning.
Asked whether Branstad had been ruled out as a speaker, Schneider said only: “We looked for the best speakers who could highlight the threat of China." He also pointed to a Friday morning talk featuring Trump’s ambassador to Japan, Bill Hagerty.
"He's very strong on the threat of China to all of Asia," Schneider said.
Mike Pillsbury, a veteran China policy hand and adviser to Trump, will participate with Chang in a panel titled “The Gathering Storm,” a reference to Churchill’s book about the rise of Nazi Germany, on Saturday, when Trump is also scheduled to address the conference in separate remarks.
Though both Pillsbury and Chang fall on the hawkish side, Pillsbury advocates for engagement with China, a position far more conciliatory than Chang’s. Pillsbury said he expects the conference to be marked by lively debate on China, as the conservative movement attempts to formulate a new consensus.
"What the conservative view on China should be,” he said, “Has not been defined yet."
This year’s agenda reflects a stark shift in conservative priorities — and Russia is missing.
By BEN SCHRECKINGER
Last year, the title of a panel at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference posed a simple question — “What is the Biggest Threat to the U.S.?” — and offered three options: China, Russia or rogue states like North Korea.
Now, the results are in. “China, the global menace,” warns the title of one panel at this year’s conference. “21st Century terminator: How China is using 5G and AI to take over the world,” warns another. A third China-focused panel borrows its title from a book by Winston Churchill about the runup to World War II. The words “Russia,” “Iran,” “North Korea” and “terrorism” do not appear on this year’s agenda.
The Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which runs Wednesday through Saturday, serves as the premiere annual gathering of right-leaning activists and offers a barometer of trends in conservative thinking.
This year’s sudden focus on China marks a moment of flux for conservative foreign policy priorities. The Islamic State is crippled, al-Qaida is quiet and public fear of terrorism is at a recent low. Meanwhile President Donald Trump, whose campaign is under investigation for possible collusion with the Kremlin, says the U.S. can befriend Russia and polls show that the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, has grown more popular among Republicans since Trump’s election.
The new emphasis also reflects a desire on the part of CPAC organizers to promote the Trump administration’s priorities, according to a person involved with planning the event. Trump and his top officials have made challenging China’s rise — through issues like trade, military power and cybersecurity — one of their top priorities.
“They are doing this to help President Trump,” said the person. “They believe China is a big part of Trump’s presidency and a source of his foreign policy victories.”
The ACU’s executive director, Dan Schneider, said the agenda was the result of months of meetings with conservative groups. Schneider also cited his own experience living in China three decades ago, including the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. "I have seen firsthand what the Chinese Communist Party is capable of,” he said. “China is the single greatest threat to peace on Earth."
Trump, who has taken a more confrontational approach to China than his recent predecessors, has presided over a hardening of conservative opinion toward the country. Before Trump’s rise and his pursuit of aggressive trade measures against China and other nations, free-market, pro-trade ideas dominated the conservative movement.
“For a long time there was a lot of money flowing into the free market right to defend trade at all costs, and I think a lot of conservatives, including hawks, may have looked the other way for some time as a result,” said Christopher Hull, a conservative foreign policy hand who until recently served as executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded by CPAC regular Frank Gaffney.
"You're now hearing views that would have been unthinkable even just a couple years ago," said Gordon Chang, a China-watcher who is participating in all three CPAC panels. Chang, a hard-liner who calls for disengagement from China, said his once-fringe view is being taken more seriously across the political spectrum. "I used to say these things and people would look at me and say, ‘Are you out of your mind?’" No longer, he said.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a China hawk who praised Chang as a “huge piece of manpower,” compared this year’s focus on China to the conference’s focus on the Soviet Union in the 1970s and ’80s, when former President Ronald Reagan led the movement. “This is like what CPAC would be at the height of the Cold War," he said.
“CPAC is sending a powerful message to the conservative movement by the depth and breadth of the panels.”
Before Trump’s presidency, CPAC speakers favored other targets. “Putin’s Russia: A New Cold War?” asked a panel in 2015. U.S.-Russia relations have only gotten worse since then. But that question won’t be on the table at this year’s event.
Similarly, Islamic terrorism was a major theme at recent CPAC gatherings. Four years ago, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, then preparing to seek the Republican presidential nomination, famously boasted at CPAC that his experience in political battles with labor unions had prepared him to take on the Islamic State. “I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to make sure the threat from Islamic terrorists will not show up on our soil,” he said. “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.” But in December, Trump declared victory over ISIS — prematurely, critics say — and the topic has receded from this year’s conference agenda.
For conference organizers, the task of projecting the administration’s view on China is complicated by the lack of consensus among his advisers about how to handle the rising Asian power.
For example, conference organizers considered a speaking role for Trump’s ambassador to China, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who traveled to Washington last week to participate in ongoing trade talks with representatives from Beijing. But the organizers deemed him too soft on China and did not invite him, according to the person involved in the event’s planning.
Asked whether Branstad had been ruled out as a speaker, Schneider said only: “We looked for the best speakers who could highlight the threat of China." He also pointed to a Friday morning talk featuring Trump’s ambassador to Japan, Bill Hagerty.
"He's very strong on the threat of China to all of Asia," Schneider said.
Mike Pillsbury, a veteran China policy hand and adviser to Trump, will participate with Chang in a panel titled “The Gathering Storm,” a reference to Churchill’s book about the rise of Nazi Germany, on Saturday, when Trump is also scheduled to address the conference in separate remarks.
Though both Pillsbury and Chang fall on the hawkish side, Pillsbury advocates for engagement with China, a position far more conciliatory than Chang’s. Pillsbury said he expects the conference to be marked by lively debate on China, as the conservative movement attempts to formulate a new consensus.
"What the conservative view on China should be,” he said, “Has not been defined yet."
Big question mark
Kamala Harris' big question mark
She's connecting with audiences — sometimes to a fault.
By CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO
Monica Reyes had a straightforward question for Kamala Harris: What’s your strategy to help immigrant workers gain U.S. citizenship — people like her mother, who fled domestic abuse in Mexico, sold blankets at county fairs and then opened a shop in Iowa?
But rather that diving into a detailed immigration plan, Harris asked for the name of Reyes’ mother — Brenda. “She sounds extraordinary,” Harris said. “I think it’s important in this room, while we’re having a discussion about who will be the president of the United States, that we speak her name.”
The Democrat reiterated the need for comprehensive immigration reform, then veered into generalities about immigration policy, never directly answering Reyes’ question.
The exchange at a gathering of Latino and Asian activists at the state Capitol last weekend illustrates Harris’ capacity to convey warmth and relate deeply with her audiences. But it also underscores a familiar tic for a candidate who, despite building a reputation as one of the Senate's toughest interrogators and vaulting ahead of most of the 2020 field, remains a politician under construction.
Harris is a product of California campaigns, where TV ads and name ID are king. So one of the biggest unknowns about Harris is whether she can consistently nail the retail and performance pieces of presidential campaigning — and at the same time exhibit the nimbleness and policy depth to match the very high expectations she’s already being held to.
In interviews, two dozen political strategists, elected officials and Democratic activists and voters — most of whom watched Harris’ events in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — said she’s shown promise as someone who can connect with voters at an emotional level. The excitement she's generating and her profile as a charismatic, mixed-race progressive, they said, is creating a sense that she may be the candidate who best matches the mood of Democratic voters at this moment.
But in her early-state debuts, Harris has at times compensated for her lack of precision and detailed policy prescriptions by lapsing into prepared remarks, turning to legislation she supports — even when it indirectly relates to the question — and leaning on anecdotes to connect with audiences.
She’s been noncommittal or vague on a range of issues. And she’s had to walk back or elaborate on answers she gave in the moment, on everything from eliminating private insurers to her response to actor Jussie Smollett’s alleged deception.
“I liked her,” said Mike McCauley, an Obama campaign and administration veteran from South Carolina. At the Harris event he attended, McCauley said he overheard people saying "it felt like Obama again."
“She has a sense of humor, and her laugh is utterly disarming,” he said. “However,” he added, “I thought she lacked specifics.”
Harris' launch in front of a massive crowd in Oakland and big early fundraising haul helped lift her in polls and build intrigue, which in turn has made her a major draw in Iowa and New Hampshire. At a recent event in Portsmouth, N.H., one woman told Harris she decided to come after being wowed by her CNN town hall performance.
And Harris’ delivery and pitch on the stump, a mix of optimism and fight summed up by her line “we are better than this,” has impressed.
“Her overall message is well developed,” said Claire Celsi, an Iowa state senator and presidential campaign veteran, predicting it “will resonate with the progressive base here in Iowa.”
Harris isn’t the first relative newcomer on the national scene to have to work out early kinks. Yet she’ll have to overcome a history of intermittent glitches while under the glaring spotlight of a presidential race.
“You learn about yourself,” McCauley said of the pressure environment. “And you learn how to be yourself.”
Harris, a career prosecutor whose prep sessions can be exhaustive, has improved noticeably over each of her previous campaigns in California. It’s been more than 15 years since she went neighborhood-to-neighborhood seeking votes in her upset win for San Francisco district attorney.
By the time Harris ran for California attorney general in 2009, she did some retail campaigning — hitting churches and barber shops in Los Angeles, for example — but it was mostly confined to occasional weekend appearances. Her reelection and Senate races were cakewalks.
In the past, she’s avoided the media and sometimes come off as too programmed. After announcing the Senate run in 2015, Harris waited more than a month-and-a-half to give her first interviews, contending she was focused on her day job running the Department of Justice.
Harris held what the invitation billed as a “campaign kickoff,” but barred media from attending the event.
When Harris did give the occasional interview, she was prone to slip-ups. For example, she wasn't familiar with two proposed Northern California reservoirs that have been a source of fighting for over a decade. And she tripped herself up by confusing a major statewide water infrastructure system known as the “twin tunnels” with the ordinary underground passageways that motorists drive through.
But the mistakes, which were minor compared with her gaffe-prone opponent, were mostly shrugged off by reporters and the public.
That changed when she arrived in Washington.
At a town hall event in California last year, Harris said “it depends” when she was asked whether she would take money from corporate PACs. She acknowledged in a later interview with “The Breakfast Club” radio show that she wasn’t anticipating the question and used the program to categorically swear off such contributions.
Harris’ presidential campaign has not shielded her from the press. In addition to entertainment shows, the senator has sat for several cable TV interviews and done a number of press gaggles with the reporters following her around. But as these early weeks of the race have shown, the openness cuts both ways for her.
In January, after Smollett claimed he was attacked by two Trump supporters who poured bleach on him and put a rope around his neck, Harris issued a tweet calling the alleged hate crime an “attempted modern day lynching.” Smollett, who black and gay, was arrested for falsifying a police report.
Asked about the tweet amid mounting reports casting doubt on Smollett’s original story, Harris paused for several awkward seconds, appearing confused, then turned around as she looked toward her aides. Her “um” filled answer ricocheted around social media and was picked up by cable TV talkers.
“I think that the facts are still unfolding, and I'm very concerned about obviously, the initial allegation that he made about what might have happened,” Harris said, adding, “I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation.”
At the CNN town hall, Harris made headlines by saying she favored a single-payer health care and effectively ends private insurance. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said. She since emphasized a Medicare for all program would preserve private insurers for supplemental coverage.
Asked at her own town hall Saturday in Ankeny, Iowa, whether she favored eliminating the filibuster, Harris started out with a joke.
“That’s a great question," she said. "Let’s change the subject!”
She made arguments that are somewhat related to both sides of the filibuster debate, including that there’s merit to upholding the integrity of the system, but ultimately concluded that she’s “conflicted.”
Said Harris: “Sorry, I can’t give you more than that right now.”
She's connecting with audiences — sometimes to a fault.
By CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO
Monica Reyes had a straightforward question for Kamala Harris: What’s your strategy to help immigrant workers gain U.S. citizenship — people like her mother, who fled domestic abuse in Mexico, sold blankets at county fairs and then opened a shop in Iowa?
But rather that diving into a detailed immigration plan, Harris asked for the name of Reyes’ mother — Brenda. “She sounds extraordinary,” Harris said. “I think it’s important in this room, while we’re having a discussion about who will be the president of the United States, that we speak her name.”
The Democrat reiterated the need for comprehensive immigration reform, then veered into generalities about immigration policy, never directly answering Reyes’ question.
The exchange at a gathering of Latino and Asian activists at the state Capitol last weekend illustrates Harris’ capacity to convey warmth and relate deeply with her audiences. But it also underscores a familiar tic for a candidate who, despite building a reputation as one of the Senate's toughest interrogators and vaulting ahead of most of the 2020 field, remains a politician under construction.
Harris is a product of California campaigns, where TV ads and name ID are king. So one of the biggest unknowns about Harris is whether she can consistently nail the retail and performance pieces of presidential campaigning — and at the same time exhibit the nimbleness and policy depth to match the very high expectations she’s already being held to.
In interviews, two dozen political strategists, elected officials and Democratic activists and voters — most of whom watched Harris’ events in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — said she’s shown promise as someone who can connect with voters at an emotional level. The excitement she's generating and her profile as a charismatic, mixed-race progressive, they said, is creating a sense that she may be the candidate who best matches the mood of Democratic voters at this moment.
But in her early-state debuts, Harris has at times compensated for her lack of precision and detailed policy prescriptions by lapsing into prepared remarks, turning to legislation she supports — even when it indirectly relates to the question — and leaning on anecdotes to connect with audiences.
She’s been noncommittal or vague on a range of issues. And she’s had to walk back or elaborate on answers she gave in the moment, on everything from eliminating private insurers to her response to actor Jussie Smollett’s alleged deception.
“I liked her,” said Mike McCauley, an Obama campaign and administration veteran from South Carolina. At the Harris event he attended, McCauley said he overheard people saying "it felt like Obama again."
“She has a sense of humor, and her laugh is utterly disarming,” he said. “However,” he added, “I thought she lacked specifics.”
Harris' launch in front of a massive crowd in Oakland and big early fundraising haul helped lift her in polls and build intrigue, which in turn has made her a major draw in Iowa and New Hampshire. At a recent event in Portsmouth, N.H., one woman told Harris she decided to come after being wowed by her CNN town hall performance.
And Harris’ delivery and pitch on the stump, a mix of optimism and fight summed up by her line “we are better than this,” has impressed.
“Her overall message is well developed,” said Claire Celsi, an Iowa state senator and presidential campaign veteran, predicting it “will resonate with the progressive base here in Iowa.”
Harris isn’t the first relative newcomer on the national scene to have to work out early kinks. Yet she’ll have to overcome a history of intermittent glitches while under the glaring spotlight of a presidential race.
“You learn about yourself,” McCauley said of the pressure environment. “And you learn how to be yourself.”
Harris, a career prosecutor whose prep sessions can be exhaustive, has improved noticeably over each of her previous campaigns in California. It’s been more than 15 years since she went neighborhood-to-neighborhood seeking votes in her upset win for San Francisco district attorney.
By the time Harris ran for California attorney general in 2009, she did some retail campaigning — hitting churches and barber shops in Los Angeles, for example — but it was mostly confined to occasional weekend appearances. Her reelection and Senate races were cakewalks.
In the past, she’s avoided the media and sometimes come off as too programmed. After announcing the Senate run in 2015, Harris waited more than a month-and-a-half to give her first interviews, contending she was focused on her day job running the Department of Justice.
Harris held what the invitation billed as a “campaign kickoff,” but barred media from attending the event.
When Harris did give the occasional interview, she was prone to slip-ups. For example, she wasn't familiar with two proposed Northern California reservoirs that have been a source of fighting for over a decade. And she tripped herself up by confusing a major statewide water infrastructure system known as the “twin tunnels” with the ordinary underground passageways that motorists drive through.
But the mistakes, which were minor compared with her gaffe-prone opponent, were mostly shrugged off by reporters and the public.
That changed when she arrived in Washington.
At a town hall event in California last year, Harris said “it depends” when she was asked whether she would take money from corporate PACs. She acknowledged in a later interview with “The Breakfast Club” radio show that she wasn’t anticipating the question and used the program to categorically swear off such contributions.
Harris’ presidential campaign has not shielded her from the press. In addition to entertainment shows, the senator has sat for several cable TV interviews and done a number of press gaggles with the reporters following her around. But as these early weeks of the race have shown, the openness cuts both ways for her.
In January, after Smollett claimed he was attacked by two Trump supporters who poured bleach on him and put a rope around his neck, Harris issued a tweet calling the alleged hate crime an “attempted modern day lynching.” Smollett, who black and gay, was arrested for falsifying a police report.
Asked about the tweet amid mounting reports casting doubt on Smollett’s original story, Harris paused for several awkward seconds, appearing confused, then turned around as she looked toward her aides. Her “um” filled answer ricocheted around social media and was picked up by cable TV talkers.
“I think that the facts are still unfolding, and I'm very concerned about obviously, the initial allegation that he made about what might have happened,” Harris said, adding, “I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation.”
At the CNN town hall, Harris made headlines by saying she favored a single-payer health care and effectively ends private insurance. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said. She since emphasized a Medicare for all program would preserve private insurers for supplemental coverage.
Asked at her own town hall Saturday in Ankeny, Iowa, whether she favored eliminating the filibuster, Harris started out with a joke.
“That’s a great question," she said. "Let’s change the subject!”
She made arguments that are somewhat related to both sides of the filibuster debate, including that there’s merit to upholding the integrity of the system, but ultimately concluded that she’s “conflicted.”
Said Harris: “Sorry, I can’t give you more than that right now.”
It was a stunning moment...
Journalists questioned Kim Jong Un. For once, he answered.
It was a stunning — and possibly unprecedented — moment.
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
As the press was about to be ushered out so President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could meet on Thursday in Vietnam, a reporter shouted a question: "Chairman Kim, are you confident?"
In a stunning — and possibly unprecedented — move, Kim answered.
He paused, looked at his translator, then offered some brief thoughts.
“It’s too early to tell, but I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic," he said through the translator. "From what I feel right now, I do have a feeling that good results will come out."
Perhaps emboldened, reporters came prepared with more questions for Kim when they were let back into the room following several hours of meetings between Trump, Kim and various officials from both sides.
One reporter asked if Kim was willing to denuclearize.
"If I’m not willing to do that I wouldn’t be here right now," Kim said, prompting Trump to grin and praise his answer.
“That might be the best answer you’ve ever heard," the president quipped.
Asked if he would agree to take concrete steps to achieve that goal, Kim smiled as he gestured to the table everyone was sitting at. "That is what we are discussing right now."
Later, Trump even encouraged Kim to answer a question about whether he was amenable to the U.S. opening a liaison office in North Korea, something that could appear in a joint agreement at the end of the summit.
“That is something that is welcomeable," Kim said, with Trump agreeing that the idea was a “great thing.”
Trump did occasionally shield Kim, telling reporters, "don’t raise your voice please, this isn’t like dealing with Trump." He also jumped in on a pointed question about whether the two sides were discussing human rights, given the North Korean government's repressive history.
“We’re discussing everything," Trump interjected.
Still, it was perhaps the first time Kim had ever answered questions from foreign journalists. And when it came time for Trump to face the media at a close-of-summit press conference, observers noticed that Trump called on reporters from government-linked outlets in Russian and China, as well as Fox News host Sean Hannity, a regular Trump booster on his nightly opinion show.
Kim's unexpected chattiness was also particularly striking as it came amid ongoing squabbles over press access at the summit.
The issue became point of contention early during Trump's second meeting with Kim when reporters were mostly barred from a dinner meeting between the two leaders Wednesday night. The restriction came after reporters shouted questions at the president about the salacious congressional testimony of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The White House said "the sensitive nature of the meetings" necessitated the decision.
A day earlier, the White House press corps had been booted from its White House-sanctioned filing center, which happened to be located in the same hotel Kim is staying in for the duration of his visit.
North Korea tightly controls its media outlets, only allowing fawning coverage of Kim, and the leader has previously ignored questions from the few foreign reporters he does encounter.
Instead, Kim is more accustomed to speaking with Americans like former NBA star Dennis Rodman.
The rebounding specialist — who also claims a friendship with Trump and appeared on "The Celebrity Apprentice" — has made multiple visits to North Korea to meet with Kim in recent years. Trump even named him an “Ambassador of Goodwill to North Korea.”
Rodman on Wednesday wished the two leaders luck in an Instagram post before their meeting began.
“My continued friendship with Chairman Kim remains strong — a friendship I encourage you to continue to use for our nation’s benefit,” Rodman wrote. “While I will not be able to attend the Hanoi events, I plan on following up with you, your team, and my friend, Chairman Kim.”
It was a stunning — and possibly unprecedented — moment.
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
As the press was about to be ushered out so President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could meet on Thursday in Vietnam, a reporter shouted a question: "Chairman Kim, are you confident?"
In a stunning — and possibly unprecedented — move, Kim answered.
He paused, looked at his translator, then offered some brief thoughts.
“It’s too early to tell, but I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic," he said through the translator. "From what I feel right now, I do have a feeling that good results will come out."
Perhaps emboldened, reporters came prepared with more questions for Kim when they were let back into the room following several hours of meetings between Trump, Kim and various officials from both sides.
One reporter asked if Kim was willing to denuclearize.
"If I’m not willing to do that I wouldn’t be here right now," Kim said, prompting Trump to grin and praise his answer.
“That might be the best answer you’ve ever heard," the president quipped.
Asked if he would agree to take concrete steps to achieve that goal, Kim smiled as he gestured to the table everyone was sitting at. "That is what we are discussing right now."
Later, Trump even encouraged Kim to answer a question about whether he was amenable to the U.S. opening a liaison office in North Korea, something that could appear in a joint agreement at the end of the summit.
“That is something that is welcomeable," Kim said, with Trump agreeing that the idea was a “great thing.”
Trump did occasionally shield Kim, telling reporters, "don’t raise your voice please, this isn’t like dealing with Trump." He also jumped in on a pointed question about whether the two sides were discussing human rights, given the North Korean government's repressive history.
“We’re discussing everything," Trump interjected.
Still, it was perhaps the first time Kim had ever answered questions from foreign journalists. And when it came time for Trump to face the media at a close-of-summit press conference, observers noticed that Trump called on reporters from government-linked outlets in Russian and China, as well as Fox News host Sean Hannity, a regular Trump booster on his nightly opinion show.
Kim's unexpected chattiness was also particularly striking as it came amid ongoing squabbles over press access at the summit.
The issue became point of contention early during Trump's second meeting with Kim when reporters were mostly barred from a dinner meeting between the two leaders Wednesday night. The restriction came after reporters shouted questions at the president about the salacious congressional testimony of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The White House said "the sensitive nature of the meetings" necessitated the decision.
A day earlier, the White House press corps had been booted from its White House-sanctioned filing center, which happened to be located in the same hotel Kim is staying in for the duration of his visit.
North Korea tightly controls its media outlets, only allowing fawning coverage of Kim, and the leader has previously ignored questions from the few foreign reporters he does encounter.
Instead, Kim is more accustomed to speaking with Americans like former NBA star Dennis Rodman.
The rebounding specialist — who also claims a friendship with Trump and appeared on "The Celebrity Apprentice" — has made multiple visits to North Korea to meet with Kim in recent years. Trump even named him an “Ambassador of Goodwill to North Korea.”
Rodman on Wednesday wished the two leaders luck in an Instagram post before their meeting began.
“My continued friendship with Chairman Kim remains strong — a friendship I encourage you to continue to use for our nation’s benefit,” Rodman wrote. “While I will not be able to attend the Hanoi events, I plan on following up with you, your team, and my friend, Chairman Kim.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)