Michael Cohen expected to claim lying, racism and cheating by Donald Trump
President Donald Trump‘s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is expected to give a behind-the-scenes account of what he will claim is Trump’s lying, racism and cheating, and possibly even criminal conduct, when he testifies publicly before a House committee on Wednesday, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Cohen is expected to provide what he will claim is evidence, in the form of documents, of Trump’s conduct, said the person, who requested anonymity to discuss the confidential testimony. Trump’s former personal “fixer” arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday to begin three days of congressional appearances, starting with a closed-door interview with the Senate intelligence committee. The public won’t have a chance to hear from him until Wednesday, when he testifies before the House Oversight and Reform Committee. He will go behind closed doors again when he talks to the House intelligence committee on Thursday. Lawmakers are alternately suspicious of Cohen, who is set to serve time in prison for lying to the House and Senate intelligence committees in 2017, and eager to hear what Cohen has to say after he turned on his longtime boss. Senators on the intelligence panel are expected to attend Tuesday’s meeting, a departure from the committee’s usual practice, where witness interviews are conducted by staff only. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told The Associated Press that senators will have staff ask questions but will be in the room to observe. He said no topics will be off limits and Cohen “should expect to get any question from anywhere about anything.” Burr said committee members know a lot more than they did when they first interviewed Cohen, who later pleaded guilty to lying to the House and Senate intelligence committees about abandoning a proposal for a Trump Tower in Moscow in January 2016. Cohen has since acknowledged he continued pursuing the project for months after that. Burr suggested that the committee will take steps to ensure Cohen is telling the truth. “I’m sure there will be some questions we know the answers to, so we’ll test him to see whether in fact he’ll be truthful this time,” Burr said. As a close confidant of Trump for many years, Cohen’s testimony is among the most anticipated since the House and Senate started investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties two years ago. In addition to lying to Congress, Cohen pleaded guilty last year to campaign finance violations for his involvement in payments to two women who allege they had affairs with Trump. He is set to begin a three-year prison sentence in May. Federal prosecutors in New York have said Trump directed Cohen to arrange the payments to buy the silence of porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal in the run-up to the 2016 campaign. Trump denies the allegations and says that Cohen lied to get a lighter sentence. The person with knowledge of the matter said Cohen will provide information about Trump’s financial statements that he will claim shows Trump deflated assets to pay lower taxes on golf courses; will provide details of the Daniels payment and claim that Trump organized a cover-up by pretending Cohen would be repaid; and claim that Trump talked to him and asked him questions about the Trump Moscow project throughout 2016. He is also expected to discuss what he knows about a meeting between Trump campaign associates and a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower before the 2016 election, a matter that is of particular interest to special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional investigators. Cohen is only expected to discuss matters related to Russia in the closed-door interviews with the intelligence committees, as House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings has said he doesn’t want to interfere with Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and links to Trump’s campaign. Members of the Oversight panel are expected to ask questions about the campaign finance violations, Trump’s business practices and compliance with tax laws and “the accuracy of the president’s public statements,” according to a memo laying out the scope of that hearing. The hearing’s scope does not include Russia. Cohen’s week of interviews come as House Democrats launch multiple investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia and conflict-of-interest issues within the administration. House Republicans in the last Congress investigated whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia, but ended that probe over Democratic objections, saying that there was no evidence that they did so. The Senate’s Russia investigation is ongoing. Cohen had been scheduled to speak to the three committees earlier this month, but rescheduled all of those appearances for different reasons. He said he needed to recover from surgery and also was concerned about what he considered to be threats to his family from Trump and the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff postponed Cohen’s appearance before that committee saying it was “in the interests of the investigation,” with no additional details. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: Cheating in sports and international trade
Competition is important in economics and sports. Our knowledge about one of these arenas often helps illuminate the other. An important difference exists between economics and sports, however, which leads to a very different impact of cheating, particularly in international trade. Playing by the rules is crucial in sports. All competitors have an ethical obligation to follow the rules. The desire to win, of course, tempts some to break the rules. Widespread cheating, however, destroys the value of sports competitions. Rigged contests will diminish fan interest, while the satisfaction from winning arises from coming out on top against other competitors’ best efforts. And cheating by others definitely makes us worse off. The rules of fair market competition are nowhere written down. But because market exchanges are voluntary, fair competition should involve consumers choosing freely among all available products. Each firm should have to compete on its own, meaning that they pay their full cost of production. We can then say that the “best” product wins in the market. The difference between sports and economics occurs after competition concludes. Contests are the product in sports. College football entertains millions of fans, but the games (or talking about the games or recruiting) provide the value. Businesses compete to sell bread, vacuums, telephones, and cars. Customers then consume the goods, which generates value. Governments can do many things to violate the rules of market competition and help some firms. Suppose that China’s government provides subsidies to the makers of telephones. American firms let’s say get no government assistance (I’m being optimistic here), and so must charge a price which covers all of their costs. The resulting competition is unfair, as evaluated against the rules of the market. In sports, we would demand exclusion or punishment of a cheater to preserve the integrity of the competition. In economics, the Chinese firm can unfairly win customers away from American firms, because government help allows them to charge a lower price. This is unfair, outrageous … and a good deal for American consumers. When a foreign government covers some of a businesses’ costs of selling to Americans, this is the equivalent of giving us a gift. The foreign government effectively says, “We really need to charge $100 for this vacuum, but we’ll only charge you $70.” It’s like finding the items on our shopping list unexpectedly on sale. The resulting low prices help stretch the incomes of American families. If other governments want to continually subsidize exports, we can make a good case for accepting the gifts. Yes, American firms are hurt, but millions of American consumers are better off. Excluding subsidized foreign goods from our market through import restrictions like tariffs hurts American consumers. The benefits to American consumers must factor this into any decision about enforcing the rules of market exchange. Furthermore, leveling the playing field through tariffs would be hard to accomplish. Foreign government subsidies are often hidden, and sometimes foreign manufacturers out compete American firms while playing by the rules. American companies sometimes get lazy, as with automakers in the 1970s, and then cry foul when they lose in competition. Sometimes we will exclude a genuine cheater, but other times we will protect an American company from fair international competition. I think that economists should pay more attention to concerns about fair market competition. Our economy will be more prosperous if people accept the rules of market competition. None of us, however, wants to be on the losing end of even fair competition: being on the losing end means business closures and job losses. The temptation exists to ask government to help whenever things go poorly. If economists want Americans to accept when market competition goes against them, we should be sensitive to complaints about unfair competition. Cheating by sports rivals hurts our favorite teams. In economics, though, American consumers benefit when our trading partners “cheat” and subsidize exports to the U.S. Fair competition is a value, but so are low priced imports. Dealing with cheating in international trade is a complicated proposition. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
