The apprentice, Michael Cohen

The henchman turns, gives warning

Michael Cohen, who kept Donald Trump’s secrets for 10 years, testified he cannot prove his former boss colluded with the Russians to sway the 2016 election.

“Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions,” Cohen said in his opening remarks to the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

The former private lawyer and “fixer” for Trump then gave an account of a partially overheard conversation between Donald Trump Jr. and Trump before Trump Jr. went to a now-infamous meeting with Russians. Cohen also said he was in the room when Trump ally Roger Stone called and informed Trump of the upcoming release of hacked Democratic campaign e-mail — with no mention of who WikiLeaks got the hacked e-mail from.

If the keeper of the president’s secrets can offer no direct evidence of Trump colluding with the Russian government, who possibly can? That is a pretty good sign such evidence either does not exist or will only come from classified intelligence sources.

Cohen went on, shooting down some juicy anti-Trump rumors. Cohen denied ever going to Prague — to meet with Russian agents or anyone else. There is no, ah, “tinkle tape” of Trump he knows of. There is no Trump “love child.” The things Cohen did say about crimes by the president mostly added some starch and detail to allegations already known. Cohen also said he knows other alleged crimes by Trump are under investigation by the Justice Department but is not free to disclose them.

No one should take Cohen’s word — or the president’s — for anything. As the late John Robert Starr used to say of Bill Clinton, the president would rather climb a tree and lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. But Democrats on the committee clearly wanted Cohen to say there was collusion. He did not say so, severely undercutting the idea Cohen only came there to say what Democrats wanted.

Therefore, much of what Cohen said Wednesday are things the president’s fans want people to believe. Much of the rest are things the president cannot effectively deny. Yet GOP committee members spent almost all their time furiously attacking whatever is left of Cohen’s credibility. As the lawfare.com blog bitingly but accurately put it, the GOP members acted like would-be replacements for Cohen for the fixer’s job. I bet I know why.

The president’s defenders know Trump is far more likely to have committed — and left behind proof that he committed — financial crimes than collusion. Cohen described such financial crimes. Allegations that can be proven are far more dangerous than allegations that cannot, at least not so far. Hence the panicked reaction even while the “Witch Hunt!” collusion claims were getting a serious reality check.

The most chilling part of Cohen’s testimony came as a warning to those defenders: “I’m responsible for your silliness because I did the same thing that you’re doing now for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump … I can only warn people the more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”

The most stinging comment on the day’s events came from Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland. “Our [GOP] colleagues aren’t upset because you lied to Congress for the president,” Raskin told Cohen. “They’re upset because you’ve stopped lying to Congress for the president.”

Cohen said the president’s lawyers made changes to and then approved his earlier, false statement to Congress about the president’s ongoing attempts to land a deal for a hotel in Moscow. Congress will see about that. Then came the records of Trump deflating the value of his properties for taxes and inflating them for business purposes. Then there were details on the president’s payoff through Cohen to a porn star with whom Trump committed adultery. Trump reimbursed Cohen, in part, with a signed personal check.

Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie has grounds for a grudge against the president. But he is also a former U.S. attorney of some repute. He made a good point while commenting about Wednesday’s proceedings: “There hasn’t been one Republican yet who’s tried to defend the president on the substance. I think that’s something that should be concerning to the White House.”

Yes. It should.