Michael Cohen's Congressional Testimony: An Analysis of His Performance

On February 27, 2019, Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, testified before Congress. This article analyses his performance based on his appearance, highlighting both his strengths and weaknesses.

Introduction to Michael Cohen

Before his appearance before Congress, I had not formed a strong opinion about him. My initial perception was shaped by the stereotype associated with individuals closely aligned with Donald Trump (referred to as DJT). I generally assumed that anyone who worked so intimately with DJT would have more secrets to hide than your average employee.

Analysis of Cohen's Testimony

There were several critical points where Cohen's testimony could have been more compelling and less controversial:

Ownership of Motivations

Firstly, Cohen should have unequivocally acknowledged his motivations for remaining with Trump. He specified that his reasons were the lifestyle, the money, and his ambition. Given Cohen's relationship with Trump, his loyalty was expected to be secondary to these personal gains. If he had owned this early in the testimony, it would have enhanced his credibility.

Transparency in Answering Challenges

Secondly, when confronted on why his statements were considered reliable now, he should have candidly admitted that the incentives of his work with Trump were higher when the risks were lower. By stating that he saw lying as a risk/reward game, and that the rewards outweighed the risks, it would have been more believable. However, his response that the risks are now enormous, but the rewards are minimal, suggests a lack of transparency and strategic thinking.

Addressing Legal Consequences Graciously

Third, when he was repeatedly attacked about the bank fraud charges by Meadows and Jordan, he could have more effectively framed his response. He should have pointed out that he learned everything he knows from his time working for Trump, but not everything he needed to know. This highlights the inherent risk in relying solely on a mentor without receiving comprehensive legal guidance. This admission might have shown a more understanding and humble side to Cohen.

Clarity on Job Ambitions

Fourth, there was a significant opportunity for Cohen to own his ambition for a job in the White House. By openly acknowledging his desire for a position, he could have avoided unnecessary speculation and accusations. This direct answer would have likely garnered more sympathy and understanding.

Stepping Back from Controversial Topics

Fifth, in response to questions about the pardon, Cohen could have been more straightforward. Acknowledging the possibility of an ongoing investigation while insisting on telling the truth, as he understands it, would have been appreciated by the audience. There is no shame in hoping for a pardon, as long as the truth is told.

What Was Not Heard?

In addition to analyzing what Cohen did say, it is equally important to consider what was not mentioned. One of the most significant omissions was Cohen's failure to indicate that he ever informed Trump about something that he knew was illegal but Trump proceeded with it anyway. This would have highlighted the legal responsibilities of an attorney, and the potential consequences for the client if such advice was not followed.

Concluding Remarks

Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony was a mix of strategic missteps and missed opportunities. His failure to address certain points with clarity and transparency only reinforced the initial skepticism about his intentions and motivations. However, it is worth noting that these observations are based on his appearance and do not reflect the entirety of his role or experiences. The testimony highlighted the importance of nuance in legal advice and the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners.

Related Keywords

Michael Cohen Constitutional Law Congressional Testimony Trump Legal Counsel

Keywords: Michael Cohen, Congressional Testimony, Trump Legal Counsel