After Michael Cohen said he wouldn't be testifying before the House Oversight Committee because of threats from the White House, a friend wrote me last night wondering how even past Republican presidents (Nixon notwithstanding...) would react to Trump witness tampering. I replied with a slight correction to put it in a more proper perspective -- there is "witness tampering," I said, and there is "witness tampering like a mob boss."
I think Trump's actions here paint him into a no-win corner. On the one hand, Michael Cohen doesn't testify and Trump comes across horribly, shown as a crime family don threatening a witness against him. On the other hand, Michael Cohen does end up testifying, and Trump comes across horribly, from his testimony. In the end, Cohen will be testifying. Chair of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings was pretty blunt and clear about that yesterday. "As the night becomes day, and as the day becomes night, Michael Cohen will be testifying before our committee." You don't get much more pointed than that. Mind you, it doesn't mean that Cohen will answer all the questions, but he will be testifying. There's a certain, profound irony in all this, as my friend Myles Berkowitz pointed out. Michael Cohen made his career with Trump as Trump's "fixer," strong-arming people and threatening them. And now, here he is, being on the receiving end, threatened by Trump (and his fixer replacement, Rudy Giuliani). To be clear, I don't blame Cohen for feeling threatened by the president of the United States. Just that when God wants to make a point about one's past transgressions, He seems to be pretty upfront about it. By the way, there's one question in all this I've been waiting to hear. The whole core of Trump's threats against Cohen are mainly focused on Cohen's father-in-law. Yet amid all this veiled threats, I haven't heard anyone ask -- "What are the criminal offenses that you are suggesting the father-in-law has committed???" I'm not saying there aren't any. Or that there are. Just that it would nice to hear someone ask, to put Trump on record. To find out if Trump even knows what on earth he is talking about. Does even he know? Is it all total bluster based on rumors and innuendo, or is Trump threatening with ready-for-court evidence? Is he using his same crackerjack investigators who insisted had uncovered all this supposed,evidence in Hawaii about Barack Obama that "you wouldn't believe what they're finding" that of course never existed -- or has he used federal agents to track down his thuggish blackmail? Or...what? At least just ask. Actually, it goes even further. I saw a clip last night which surprises me that it didn't get more attention for being so ludicrous. They didn't say if it was said yesterday or just recently, but Trump was on "Fox News" talking on the phone with Jeanine Pirro. And after going into another of his rants about Michael Cohen and Cohen's father-in-law, the maniacally sycophantic Ms. Pirro of all people asked him matter-of-factly the most basic, normal question. "What is the father-in-law's name?" she wanted to know. And Trump's remarkable reply was -- and I swear this is true -- "I don't know." Really! Honest. He said, "I don't know. But you'll find out soon and..." yammer yammer yammer, deflect. Wait, "I don't know"???? Seriously??!! Trump has been threatening Michael Cohen over these horrible damning things about his father-in-law repeatedly for the past two weeks (even longer)...And He Doesn't Know the Man's Name!!!! Forget for a moment how idiotic it is not to know the man's name just on general principle, which raises questions about what you do know about him. But consider how idiotic it is to simply say, "I don't know," to the question! If you actually don't know -- which is bad enough -- Rule #1: Don't admit it. Just answer, "We'll get into all that later. I don't want to get into any specifics about anything, there's legal issues and time enough for all that. For now, let's just say, as simply as possible, Michael Cohen knows what I'm talking about, and it will be big." But no, he said, "I don't know." And that, in a nutshell is Trump. A bullying mob boss witness-tampering thug. But in the end, he's acting like all bullies do, most particularly when someone punches back. After his mid-day rant speech yesterday trying to strong-arm Nancy Pelosi and bully his way into the House of Representatives to give his State of the Union Address, she pushed back even harder and officially rescinded the House invitation for the State of the Union Address while there was a government shutdown. And how did the bullying, thuggish Trump respond just hours after his screed having called the Speaker "dominating" and not caring about crime and how this has never been done before and on and on and on? Backed into a corner by someone who couldn't be pushed around, he wrote -- "As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a 'great' State of the Union Address in the near future!" Well, my, my. This is quite the change in meek tone after trying to bully the Speaker and smear her and Senate Minority Leader Schumer earlier in the day, finally forced into accepting reality and accepting the perfectly thoughtful suggestion that she made in THE FIRST PLACE! "The True Art of the Deal" by Nancy Pelosi. (Ghostwritten by no one.) Leaving Trump to going back and obstruct justice by bullying and witness tampering those weaker than him. Which is what mob boss thugs do.
2 Comments
For a while now I've been posting these very funny video parody songs by Randy Rainbow. I thought I'd take a step back and post a couple of videos about him. This first is a nice, albeit low-key segment on Nightline. And despite the heading on the video, it's really a look at him and his work process, rather than that one small part of the piece near the end. And it turns out that his notoriety -- despite making parodies that deal very specifically with American politics -- has reached overseas. So, this is an interview with him done on the BBC World Service. That's intriguing to see, though the questions are sort of lousy, as if the interviewer doesn't know quite all that he does or what to make of him. This isn't helped by it being early in New York, and he hasn't quite kicked in for the day. Nor is it helped that they bizarrely don't play any clips of his work. Their explanation is that his work is "too naughty" -- which is utterly ridiculous. Some of it is, but just don't show those parts. So, the British audience really wouldn't know who he is or what he does. But still, it's fun to see. We have an inside baseball article today. I'll give some of you a moment to gather your hats and go rushing off before it begins...
Mariano Rivera yesterday became the first player in the history of Major League Baseball to be voted into the Hall of Fame unanimously. The argument of some voters over the decade was always something along the lines of "If Babe Ruth wasn't elected unanimously, then so-and-so shouldn't be." And by the way, why on earth wasn't Babe Ruth voted in unanimously??? Mariano Rivera was a remarkable relief pitcher. Likely the best of his era. Possibly the best of any era (though the era of relief pitchers being so prominent only goes back about 40 years at most). And he obviously deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. And voted in on the first ballot. And probably even unanimous. But the fact that he was unanimous and the first-ever is – to me – SOOOO New York. I can absolutely justify him being a unanimous choice. It’s just notable to me that Hank Aaron wasn’t, Willie Mays wasn’t, Ted Williams wasn’t. Sandy Koufax wasn't. Warren Spahn wasn't. Roberto Clemente wasn't. Stan Musial wasn't. Ernie Banks wasn't. Frank Robinson wasn't. Bob Gibson wasn't. Rod Carew wasn't. But a New York relief pitcher was. Before the vote, there was a lot of wondering in the baseball world if this was finally going to be the year and that Mariano Rivera would be the first to get voted into the Hall of Fame unanimously. Most I heard thought "No." I thought he would be. Because...baseball writers were finally ready, and -- he played in New York. Someone had to be first. Rivera is utterly deserving. And we live in a different time when I guess enough voters said “Enough is enough.’ But the Hall of Fame is littered with players who were as deserving if not more so to have been unanimous before this. (Not just in terms of credentials, but they were everyday players and played nine innings every day. Not one inning three times a week. To be clear, I know full well that the way the game is played today, relief pitching is extremely critical, no matter how many innings one pitches.) What all these other full-time, deserving players weren't, though, is former players in New York. And yes, I know some New York greats weren’t unanimous, too. But those greats were from another era, when it was almost a given that no one got a unanimous vote. In fact, the last, fully-New York position player (one who spent most of his career in New York) voted into the Hall of Fame was Mickey Mantle in 1974, 45 years ago. (And no, even Mickey Mantle wasn’t elected unanimously. Nor was Tom Seaver in 1992, the only other fully-New York player elected in half a century.) I’m not saying Mariano Rivera shouldn’t have been unanimous. He should have been. And someone had to be first. Just that it’s SO New York to me that a New York relief pitcher was the first. In this era, indeed in these very recent years Ken Griffey Jr. should have been just as unanimous three years ago. Greg Maddux should have been equally unanimous five years ago. Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn should have been 12 years ago. And as for relief pitchers, Bruce Sutter should have been unanimous 13 years ago. And Dennis Eckersley 15 years ago. Or Nolan Ryan and George Brett. And on and on. But none of them played in New York. Was Rivera “the greatest relief pitcher ever”? Arguably, yes. But at the time he was voted in, Sutter probably was, too. And then Eckersley succeeded him and was, as well. They just didn’t play in New York. Again, as clearly as possible, I think Mariano Rivera is deserving of being a unanimous choice. And someone finally was going to be first. It’s just that it is SOOOOO New York to me that a New York relief pitcher was. And not Ken Griffey Jr, Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Bruce Sutter, Dennis Eckersley… But congratulations to him. It's no aspersion on him what the baseball writers did. And what they did was proper. They just should have done it years earlier. You've likely seen these sad new stories about the Russian model Anastasia Vashukevich who took video of Russian oligarch Oleg Derispaska on board a boat and very publicly claimed she had more that was more damning, some concerning the U.S. presidential election. While I watch the story, I flash back to last February when the terrific conductor/musician Peter Breiner (whose recordings I post every holiday season from his Christmas Goes Baroque albums) sent me the larger video that included them and first brought this part of the story to public attention. That was the electric, long, remarkable exposé video made by Alexei Navalny -- the activist, opposition candidate for president of Russia -- that he recorded from a secure location to uncover crimes of the Putin regime and oligarchs. It contained Vashukevich's footage, along with its hints of ties to the U.S. election.
Heartsick-wrenching and infuriating as this story is on a great many levels, most-especially when you see the Russian police hauling her helpless, terrified body off to prison, I have to admit I can't help thinking as I watch this (and I don't think there's any polite way to say this) how utterly, insanely stupid she was to think that when she was being deported from Turkey to a "safe" country that she could agree to a transfer of planes in Russia because they told her she wouldn't be arrested there. I mean, I'm not a Russian citizen, have never even been there on vacation, and the instant I heard that my head seemed to explode. And this is where she is from and lived her whole life and been surrounded by the culture and politics and secret police. In fact, further, did she not actually remember what was on her own tapes that she said she wanted to bring to the public??!!! What on earth possessed her??? To be clear, she still doesn't remotely deserve even a scintilla of this hell she's now in -- which could end in her "accidental" death or disappearance -- after all, stupidity is not a crime, but my God, what was she thinking??? Assuming "thinking" factored in. And it's not just a question of "What were you thinking????" in terms of transferring in Russia, but her decision from the first to go public that she had these incriminating tapes and would be willing to make them public. That seemed profoundly risky, though at least on the surface somewhat understandable and even admirable, almost noble. But -- what was the opposite is if you're going to do that...at least, for God's sake, go to an Actually Safe Country with a lawyer and several bodyguards before you start to speak out. Or better still, make a totally anonymous, quiet sale under-the-table. But NOT this. Not at home, "I have these tapes of corruption with Russian oligarchs talking about corruption in Russia and manipulating the U.S. presidential election." And then fly to Turkey -- Turkey!!! -- and be so reckless to get arrested there (of all places) for prostitution. In Turkey. And not on false charges, but by all accounts (since it was one of her businesses) the real thing. Oy. Still, her story and current situation is horribly tragic all around. And I'm sure she's asking herself the same question every moment of every day. Her one hope is the massive international attention on her plight. And her wailing, prostrate apologies to Deripaska and endlessly-repeated insistence that she really, truly, honestly doesn't actually have any tapes. But even then, if she does get released, one should not take any bets against one day her not disappearing. Perhaps not, perhaps her tearful disclaimers will do the trick. Maybe she'll now be safe, after her hellish ordeal. Here's hoping. Yet even then the question remains -- what on earth was she thinking????? And yet, when thinking of it all, I just glare at the vote last week when all but 11 Republicans senators voted to overturn the sanctions of Oleg Deripaska. The best I can figure is that many of them have Russian donations and feel compromised too. Or they've already reserved their place in Hell and don't want to muck up the deposit. This is not about Trump. We know who he is. The is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who have enabled this all. I realized that it's been far too long since we've had a video from the wonderful Sara Niemietz, so today that gets rectified. In this, she fronts again for Postmodern Jukebox, which takes current songs and arranges them in the style of much-earlier music. What we have today is Lady Gaga's song "Bad Romance" done in a vintage 1930s style, to which Ms. Niemietz brings her engaging craft and unique enthusiasm. And to make it all the more lively, she's joined by the Sole Sisters with some energetic tap dancing. It all starts out lively, and builds to utterly exuberant I'm still dealing Trump making his case for shutting down the government by pointing to the Great Wall of San Antonio. It's not just that it's so stupid (and not a mere slip of the tongue) but shows his duplicity of not caring about facts and reality to say ANYTHING.
He could have lied about any city in Texas and picked one actually close to the border -- Brownsville or McAllen, for instance. Or Laredo that's actually ON the border. He could have even referenced a location where there actually IS a wall. But picking a random city out of his rear end that's 150 miles away from the Mexican border is the evidence that reality and facts simply don't matter to him. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|