Takeaways from Cohen’s Testimony

I listened to a few political podcasts this morning and was shocked by some of the cynical takeaways from yesterday’s Cohen hearing, so I decided to write down some thoughts. This may be a little rough, as I haven’t had much time to extrapolate everything, and may be improvising some of my points on the fly, so bear with me.

One thing of note was Cohen’s insistence that Trump was involved with every major decision regarding his business and campaign, using his children and fixers to distance himself from direct criminal engagement. He basically uses his children as decoys so that he can escape direct scrutiny. Cohen also acted as his lawyerly muscle in this way, threatening people to keep schtum on Trump’s order around 500 times.

This characterization of Trump is valuable insofar as we already know that several people close to Trump, including Cohen himself and Paul Manafort, have been convicted of serious crimes. If Trump always had a hand in the business dealings of his subordinates, it stands to reason that any criminal activity they committed while working in his company’s name was done at his behest. Though Trump will likely deny any involvement- it’s what he’s best at- it will be harder to paint him as an oblivious innocent when he get a deeper picture of how exactly he conducts his business. This will likely be corroborated by how he is running his White House, with his children acting as his subordinates and stealing focus from him when it comes to questionable dealings.

The Democrats failed to hit home on the main takeaway, that Trump was a criminal before he entered office and continued his criminal activity while in office. The Democrats need to do a better job of making a show of the parts of the testimony that actually are relevant. If any Democrats believe in a path to impeachment via the Mueller investigation, they need to start laying the groundwork now. AOC made an effort, but it would have been better if she’d had more allies. A few lines of questioning from the Democrats- most notably “What is the truth that Trump fears most?”- fell flat and felt like someone asking you to do their homework for them. If you’re at the hearing, you’re supposed to have five minutes worth of substantive questions regarding the testimony, not just blindly swing in the dark for a home run.

Luckily for the Democrats, the Republicans looked lost out there. Jim Jordan’s histrionics were especially undermined by the insistence of so many Republicans that there was book deal behind all of this. Ever notice how Republicans are die-hard anti-taxation capitalists who believe a man’s money is his life until it comes to this book deal? The entire Republican brand seems to be built around the idea that making money is a sign of ingenuity, but not so if you turn on the President. Cohen made mincemeat of a few of them, which was shocking considering how morally bankrupt he is in general. The Democrats had an unlikely friend in this criminal who was calling out the GOP fraudsters on a game he knows all too well.

One of the podcasts I listened to suggested that Cohen’s statement that he ‘didn’t know of any collusion but had his suspicions’ somehow exonerated Trump. This blew my mind. If anything, we should be dissecting every word of Cohen’s testimony very carefully. If we can believe Cohen’s claims, they were working on the testimony late into the night, that being Cohen’s explanation for why it was delivered so late. (This became an immediate point of contention with the GOP, who demanded a delay to read everything over, as if they hadn’t just plowed on through with the Kavanaugh hearings last year.) Later in the hearing, Cohen said something to the effect of ‘I chose my wording very carefully’. Based on his demeanor and repetitious phrasing and work as a lawyer, it’s safe to say every aspect of his testimony was prepared carefully, and that’s why he was able to sail so smoothly through so many emotional lines of questioning from the GOP.

This suggests to me that Cohen might still be lying, but with a few caveats: 1) He is likely withholding information that would embarrass Trump in terms of sexual dealings further, because this seemed to be one of Cohen’s main duties as a fixer, yet he never brought up anything ‘grab her by the pussy’-ish. He painted a picture of Trump as a loving man who would never lay a hand on Melania. This doesn’t ring true, and his silence with regard to anything additionally salacious there suggests to me that the dirt he threw on Trump was a hand-picked selection, not the whole pile of misdeeds. Cohen’s testimony was written like a high-school essay. He set his thesis that Trump was a conman, a cheat and a racist, and he set out to prove those facts, nothing more.

Granted some of what he cannot say may be tied to ongoing investigations, so that could explain away some of it. But it seemed strange that his extramarital dealings and behavior weren’t touched on a little, given that Cohen was directly involved in the whole Stormy situation. Cohen no doubt knew plenty of salacious stories about Trump, and maybe out of fear for causing further marital stress to Trump (?) he shied away from that line of attack. This is after all a betrayal between old friends, not an attack from a long-time enemy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cohen set some ‘do not cross’ lines knowing that whatever he saw Trump do in private wouldn’t be corroborated by any evidence anyway, so he might as well let him off the hook.

The question is, why was racism one of Cohen’s angles when he had only hearsay to back it up? I think racism stood in place of the obvious sexual misconduct that Cohen did not want to discuss. He used racism as a distraction- and distracting it did become- as a way of keeping questioning from touching sexual misconduct, likely a can of worms, considering Cohen threatened people for Trump around 500 times. There is likely a fair amount of sexual misconduct to be caught and killed in 500 threats worth of fixing.

There’s nothing but guesswork to support this theory, but I’m betting Cohen wanted to keep wives and extramarital affairs off the table, as he is in the process of trying to keep his own marriage afloat. Knowing Trump, if he started bringing up strippers and porn stars, Trump would likely have a few stories about Cohen to share (or concoct) as well.

There were a lot of awkward swings and misses from Republicans during the hearing but even one of the worst moments- using a black woman as a prop to prove Trump isn’t racist- became a debacle after the Democrats- as always- took the bait and wasted questioning time getting in an argument with an old white man about whether or not being called racist is the true racism. This resulted in a lady having to back down and look meek while the needs of the old white man were tended to. Once the old white man had his pacifier things could resume, but what an embarrassing display from both sides in that instant. Of course the GOP was using a racist trick- “I have a black friend,” but instead of mocking their senility, the Dems turned it into a battle of emotions, and you are never going to win a battle of emotions with these Trump loving GOP weirdos, because they know the louder and dumber they act, the more Trump will get a kick out of it. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Cohen’s interest in collusion seemed to be genuine, as if he was out of the loop on the whole thing but had inklings it might be real. This is where we see the trail of bread crumbs to the rest of the investigation. You have to think that Mueller wants us to see or hear key bits of testimony at key times, and this seems to be setting the stage for him to put on a show later. But even if we don’t get any additional information from anyone, which is highly unlikely, we still have proof that the President is a criminal.

 

Movie Review: The Social Network

We are entering a new plastic age of cinema. Not only are amusement park rides becoming full-fledged franchises (e.g., Pirates of the Caribbean, the soon-to-be remade Haunted Mansion), Battleship and Monopoly movies loom on the horizon. It is clear that brand reigns supreme in new Hollywood, meaning it is only a matter of time before the epic Clorox and Miracle Whip franchises duke it out on the big screen. The Social Network is a movie based on a website. A website. I can’t stress that enough. But beyond its obvious marketing tie-ins and greedy capitalization on a highly addictive, popular yet soulless service, The Social Network strives to do the impossible: To be a quality film with substance and heart in spite of its mediocre subject matter.

The Social Network is a labor of love from writer Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing). Deeply fascinating, complicated and flawed, this film is the result of a calculated and concerted effort from a very skillful wordsmith. Even acclaimed director David Fincher’s normally assertive visual style is shockingly muted in this picture, serving as the vessel for Sorkin’s staggering humor and wit. I would be remiss not to mention that this screenplay contains some of Sorkin’s most brilliant comic dialog, purveyed in a quieter and more lambent form than his trademark snark and walk-and-talks. Given the humble beginnings of our hero, morally ambiguous Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and the hero’s relatively exponential leaps to success, there is something wonderful about watching Sorkin shift from small-stakes social networking to make-or-break business deals on a casual basis, the intensity of Zuckerberg’s focus being his only constant. Much like his characterization of Zuckerberg, Sorkin seems unconcerned with the things that average people admire, focusing his efforts on wholly original, unique and creative goals. After all, his script reads like a theatrical play, and  how often can a screenwriter claim that?

There’s something Shakespearean and tragic about The Social Network, especially since it records a history yet unfinished. (It might be nice to see an aged Sorkin revisit Zuckerberg in his autumn years for Henry the IV, Part 2.) The basic thrust of the narrative takes place during Zuckerberg’s time at Harvard. He wishes to be admired by the public but on his own terms. After a nasty (yet smoothly written) break-up scene, Zuckerberg lashes out at the female university community on the internet- and thus, The Facebook is born. Zuckerberg’s ambition and myopic (read: robotic) focus on personal gain alienate him from the people that helped him achieve his first few steps toward stardom. The story intercuts between Zuckerberg’s rise to power and the legal proceedings that bookend his social life. Like a true tragic figure, Zuckerberg is left to wallow in the wake of his own creation, not as its king, but with the same dependent loneliness of the average person.

Hopping from scene to scene is a real treat as each story event provides palpable drama and a backdrop for hilarious, taut dialog. The only flaws stem from the natural inadequacy of the film’s story structure. How can Sorkin sculpt a proper dramatic ending for a young and still-living public figure? He attempts something subtle and dramatic on his audience in the end, but after a long and emotional narrative, the subtlety may be lost on a crowd expecting more bang for their buck. Sex and hedonism abound in this tale of self-deprecation, indulgence and promiscuity, but don’t be mistaken: this is a thinking man’s frat party. Few characters, including the villains, are allotted few enough traits as to be flat or one-note, save for one deceivingly shallow girlfriend who makes a bizarrely cornball switch from sanity to pyromania in the second half. My personal favorites were the Winklevoss twins, two preppy yet believable douchebags who incite the fire for Facebook in Zuckerberg’s belly only to double over in agony when they realize that the ‘berg stole their idea and made millions. Both played by the same oddly named actor, Armie Hammer, the twins’ Parent Trap-style doubling is one of Fincher’s few masterfully executed visual gags. For the man who flew his camera through a coffee pot in Panic Room, I expected more tricks outside of the few stray beer bottles, but maybe the director intentionally reeled back his cinematographic enthusiasm to draw reverence to Sorkin’s story. In any case, the tone and execution work on a massive scale, and aside from the necessarily muddy nature of the ending, this is an enjoyable film and clearly one of the year’s best.

Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg is without a doubt his finest performance to date, leaps and bounds beyond the average joe schtick that made him famous in Zombieland. His acting is refined, nuanced and another great example of why Fincher is an ace in the hole when it comes to direction. Even as the director’s love for CGI and camera-movement is restrained, his skill as an acting coach pays off in a big way. Rooney Mara’s all-too-brief screentime is populated by a deeply human and relatable performance as Zuckerberg’s first college girlfriend. Her teary-eyes are heartbreaking. Justin Timberlake manages to play a hateworthy dick convincingly (somehow), a true shame considering his abilities as an actor have greatly improved over the years. (I was really disappointed he didn’t get Green Lantern. His knack for physical comedy would have sold the character for me. After all, how many superheroes can Ryan Reynolds play?) The best and most surprising performance might belong to Andrew Garfield, last seen pissing me off in Dr. Parnassus, and soon to be the latest actor to take up the red pajamas of Spider-Man. After his empathetic and dweeby turn in Social Network as Zuckerberg’s socially maligned and malnourished best friend, it’s clear that this boy can fill the shoes of a superhero as well as many more challenging roles to come.

The Social Network is a triumph of character-based dialog but a few notes stray of a perfect symphony. Maybe it’s the nature of the story being told (it’s about a goddamned website, people) but the partnerships at work here are masterfully executed, and I think it would be a mistake not to team Fincher with Sorkin again in the future, perhaps on subject matter that didn’t beat out Lycos or Dogpile for the fast-track. A cerebral and interesting ride, The Social Network proves that even brand-based filmmaking can result in quality entertainment and palpable drama, so long as there’s a foundation of talent to keep everything grounded.