Today's seven and a half hours of Michael Cohen's testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee was fascinating. Millions of people from here and across the world watched it from start to finish to see first-hand what our democratic system could do to investigate wrong-doings by our president and/or those who worked for him. The lines have been drawn for over two years now, which of us are the believers and which the non-believers. Ay, there's the rub. There's the thing that has so divided us that we can no longer even discuss it with anyone but those with whom we side.
Hypothetical #1: If you had a choice between being a great person or a mega-rich person, which would you choose? If even half the allegations against Donald Trump are true, apparently he has chosen wealth. Or maybe his megalomania has told him he could be both. Chairman Cummings today in his summary suggested that Michael Cohen was a credible witness, with nothing to be gained by giving false testimony and only more years in prison if he lied. The republican Trump defenders could say only that Cohen had already admitted he was a liar, so why should he now be telling the truth? Refer back to Chairman Cummings rational--that the man could gain nothing by lying under oath.
This hearing today was a bombshell and I can't wait for further developments. How much longer will the nation have to wait to find out the truth about this man who probably thought he would not win election in 2016, this man who probably thought his winning could serve as a way to further build his Trump empire, this man who having won the election decided he could be both great as well as super wealthy.
Hypothetical #2: Why do people who are already super wealthy feel a need for even greater wealth?
No comments:
Post a Comment