Michael Cohen is the world’s worst witness. Will it matter?

The New Neo Posted on by

Everything depends on whether there is anyone of integrity on the jury. All it would take would be one person, and that person would have to be strong enough to resist extreme pressure and even threats. I wouldn’t count on it, although it’s possible.

The NY case against Trump is bogus in so many ways, many of which have been discussed on this blog and all of which have been touched on elsewhere. No need to recap them at the moment. But the utterly contemptible corruption of the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, grows more apparent every day – and it was amply apparent to begin with.

Yesterday I wrote about how even Anderson Cooper was remarking on it. But today I saw this series of other videos featuring equally gobsmacked TV newspeople noting how poorly Cohen had performed and had well Trump’s attorney had shown him to be a vengeful former employee who had been lying constantly, and lying on the stand as well.

You might want to follow that link and take a look at the videos there. But here’s an especially colorful one:

And here’s Jonathan Turley, speaking about Cohen even before yesterday’s dramatic testimony on the stand:

So, what does it all mean? Nothing, as I said, unless there’s at least one juror with integrity and courage. If the judge had any integrity and courage, this case would be decided for Trump in a directed verdict, because no evidence has been produced that could reasonably convict him. But I feel pretty safe in saying that this judge will not do that. If the prosecutors had any integrity (I know; don’t ask for something impossible) this case would never have been brought in the first place. But it was, and here we are.

They didn’t televise this trial despite the fact that it would have gotten very high ratings, because they knew how terrible it would look. They knew it would expose the hollowness of the case against Trump and the duplicity of the prosecutors and the witnesses against him. Too many people watching it might be shocked enough to vote for Trump when they saw for themselves, up close and personal, just how corrupt these people are, and how completely and utterly unprincipled the whole thing is.

So they thought they’d filter it for the public through the MSM and could count on the jury to convict, and although a conviction would probably be reversed that didn’t matter because it would happen after the election. But what they didn’t quite bargain for was that Cohen would be so awful that even the MSM would notice and some sort of vestigial reporting instinct would kick in for some people, at least for a day.

I doubt that instinct will last any longer than that.

I would dearly love to see a video of what happened in that courtroom yesterday. But we’ll probably never get to see it, and I doubt it even was allowed to be filmed. But apparently there was a real Perry Mason moment, the type of drama that was common on the TV series but actually is rare in real life.

It is also informative to listen to Costello, who was Michael Cohen’s attorney (the one referenced by Turley in the above clip). Costello has his own tale to tell of Cohen’s motives and statements:

NOTE: Court is not in session today because they allowed Trump to attend his son Barron’s high school graduation. How very kind of them.

As it dawns on Anderson Cooper that Michael Cohen might not be the most reliable witness in the world

The New Neo Posted on by

How bad must it be for Anderson Cooper to admit that Michael Cohen appears to be a liar?

Of course, the jury might not care, because they hate Trump so much. And Cooper tries to limit the idea of Cohen as a liar to just this little itty bitty bit:

It was another bad day for the case against Donald Trump after the former president’s legal team absolutely destroyed Michael Cohen. But don’t take my word for it. Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, was so effective at boxing Cohen in on his lies that he left CNN’s Anderson Cooper absolutely stunned.

“But the last 20 minutes of court today right before the lunch break, it was incredible,” he admitted. “Elie Honig on my program last night had talked about, on a cross-examination, lawyers want to kind of put the witness in a — build a box around the witness and then slam it shut. That’s what Todd Blanche did to Michael Cohen.” …

“I think it’s devastating,” Cooper added later. “I mean, for Michael Cohen’s credibility on this, I mean, on this one particular topic.” [The topic was a certain phone call in which text messages both before and after the phone call contradicted Cohen’s testimony about the call itself.]

[Cooper] added, “Yes, I think, if I was a juror in this case, watching that, I would think this guy’s making this up as he’s going along or he’s making this particular story up.”

This particular story.

Actually, you could say about Cohen more or less what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman: every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

The Netherlands’ government moves further towards supporting Israel

The New Neo Posted on by

Recently:

In an advanced draft for a coalition agreement between four right-wing Dutch political factions, the partners agreed to look for the “appropriate time” for moving the embassy of the Netherlands to Jerusalem.

The draft agreement published Thursday morning follows the November general elections in the Netherlands, in which the pro-Israel, far-right Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders received the highest share of the vote with 37 seats out of 150 in the Dutch lower house.

The draft states that research will be conducted into “the appropriate time in which the move of the embassy to Jerusalem can occur.”

If the Netherlands does follow through, it will be the sixth country to open an embassy in Jerusalem, following Papua New Guinea, Kosovo, Honduras, Guatemala and the US.

This was started by Trump, of course, when he announced such a move for the US.

There’s also this:

One clause on immigration in the draft agreement states that the Holocaust will be included in the integration exam, which anyone seeking Dutch citizenship needs to pass.

Another said Dutch asylum and immigration protocols would be reviewed. “Concrete steps will be taken towards the strictest ever entry rules for asylum and the most comprehensive ever package to control migration,” the agreement said.

Interesting. Elections have consequences.

NOTE: If I were to ask people, “What do The Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Kosovo, Honduras, Guatemala, and the US have in common?” I doubt whether anyone but those reading this post could answer the question.

King Charles’ portrait: the Red King or the King of Hearts and Butterflies?

The New Neo Posted on by

My goodness. Take a look at Charles’ portrait (copying it seems to be blocked, but if you click on the link you can view it):

The bold portrait, painted by British artist Jonathan Yeo, is the first official portrait of the 75-year-old king since his May 2023 coronation. It was unveiled inside Buckingham Palace on May 14.

The portrait, drenched in the color red, depicts Charles wearing the red military uniform of the Welsh Guards, as he sits with his hand on his sword, amid a vibrant red background. A monarch butterfly hovers over the king’s right shoulder.

Everything looks red except the king’s face, and that is painted realistically and showing every line and sag.

The artist says:

… [M]uch like the butterfly I’ve painted hovering over his shoulder, this portrait has evolved as the subject’s role in our public life has transformed. I do my best to capture the life experiences and humanity etched into any individual sitter’s face, and I hope that is what I have achieved in this portrait.

Count it achieved.

I actually think if the artist had painted the rest of the portrait in that same style and with realistic colors, it would have been fine. But then it wouldn’t have been talked about so much. It would have have in line with tradition – although I suppose that tradition dictates a more flattering and softening look, particularly for the face.

I remember Charles as a little boy, when I was a little girl. ‘Nuff said.

The overwhelming redness of the painting gives the whole thing an otherworldly and creepy air. It also reminds me of Lewis Carrol’s queens. There’s the Red Queen (the metaphor being a game of chess):

And the Queen of Hearts (the metaphor being a card game):

Romney: Biden should have pardoned Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Gee Willikers, says Romney:

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, argued that President Joe Biden should have pardoned Donald Trump after the Justice Department brought indictments against the former president and pressured New York prosecutors not to pursue Trump’s ongoing hush money trial. …

“I think it’s a terrible fault for our country to see people attacking our legal system — that’s an enormous mistake. I think it’s also demeaning for people to quite apparently try and run for vice president by donning a red tie and standing outside the courthouse. It’s just — I’d have felt awkward.”

Fascinating. Note the strong word “attacking” – in “attacking our legal system.” Our legal system is an institution that people need to respect in order for it to function properly and to maintain civil order; that’s me writing; not a quote from Romney, but it’s what I think he’s trying to say. And it’s true.

But what Romney leaves out – and it’s not a detail but rather the heart of the matter – is that in order to be respected, the legal system or any other system must act in a way that earns that respect. And what’s happening now in that courtroom is a perversion of our legal system and an outrage.

As a lawyer, Romney should know that. Does he know that? Or is he saying this cynically, despite knowing it? Perhaps, but my guess is that he’s still living in a dreamworld in which if we all just acted with decorum then everything would be just fine and dandy and peachy keen. And Trump – terribly disrespectful and coarse, not Romney’s “type” at all – has upset everything. Romney is keen to show us that he, Romney, is very much a different type. A polite type.

Trump and those who support Trump make Romney feel awkward.

On the other hand, Romney says:

The Utah Republican argued that Biden should have pardoned Trump when the Justice Department announced charges against him and that the president “made an enormous error” by not pressuring New York prosecutors to drop their case against Trump. (Presidents can pardon only in federal cases.)

“He should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward,” Romney said, referring to Biden. “It was a win-win for Donald Trump.”

The word “error” leaps out there. In a sense, it may have been an error on the part of Biden and company – but only because it may end up backfiring and causing a great deal of sympathy for Trump, especially among minority groups but also just in general. Oops! Not their intent. But otherwise it was no error, and in fact it was orchestrated by Biden and/or his aides and/or the Democrats as a whole, as were all the prosecutions. This was not Bragg acting on his own; the thought is ludicrous.

And yet you have to say that – at least so far – Romney is correct in the practical sense when he says that Biden “should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward … It was a win-win for Donald Trump.” It is also true in the moral sense that Biden should have prevented it, but neither Biden nor the left is operating morally, except that they think that anything is morally acceptable in order to stop Trump.

Romney added:

… [H]ad I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him. I’d have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.

So Romney, when you voted to convict Trump after he’d been impeached on bogus charges, did you do it because you thought it made you the big guy or the little guy? My answer is “the little guy.” What’s yours?

So it looks as though there will be presidential debates after all

The New Neo Posted on by

And with the unusual twist that both of the two participants – Biden and Trump – actually have been presidents.

Biden suddenly accepted two debates under certain terms that were favorable to him, and Trump agreed. The two debates will take place in June and September. Trump must think he can wipe the floor with Biden, but that didn’t happen last time because even 50% coherence from Biden was considered a victory, and of course the playing field will once again be slanted towards Biden: CNN.

Biden went into macho swagger mode and acted as though Trump had been the one dragging his feet:

Roundup!

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Victor Davis Hanson has a good summary of the lawfare against Trump. Sometimes it’s hard to keep it all straight, but Hanson is a help.

(2) Here’s a book that seems relevant. I haven’t read it, but it’s on my list. It’s by Dara Horn, came out in 2021, and is entitled The World Loves Dead Jews. It’s a thought I’ve had independently: the Jews as victims are okay with a lot more people than Jews defending themselves against those who would make them victims.

(3) There were no mass graves of native Americans in Canada:

The announcement sparked international outrage. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it “a shameful chapter of our country’s history.” Millions of dollars were allocated for relief and the recovery effort. The Pope was compelled to issue formal apologies on behalf of the Catholic Church. The anger generated led to over 80 churches being burned or vandalized, arson leading to many that were over a century old being reduced to cinders.

This was all over the announcement that a mass grave had been discovered in Kamloops, at a former Catholic Residential School location. A local tribe announced that ground-penetrating radar technology exposed the location where hundreds of native children were buried in a mass grave. This was said to be the result of systematic racism in Catholic schools for decades. …

This media-generated outrage ended up leading to a violent catharsis in Canada. … Anger swept through the nation and the violence lashed across the provinces as dozens of Catholic churches were targeted, many becoming destroyed.

It has all been over nothing substantial.

As the BBC had reported at the time, at the Kamloops school property, the remains of 215 children had been found – except that term was completely inaccurate. No actual remains were uncovered, just indications through the radar research of anomalies in the ground indicating the presence of graves. In the ensuing years, a number of excavations have taken place at several locations. By last summer, it was becoming obvious this was a completely overblown hysteria.

(4) My restaurant-going is way down. Looks like I’m not alone in this. Several of my longtime favorite local restaurants are no more, and the rest have just about doubled in price.

(5) More on plummeting fertility rates.

“… the light in his heart blinded him to the gleam of the knife. The longing for peace deafened him to the sound of the murders lying in wait.”

The New Neo Posted on by

That is from an article appearing in Tablet, written by Michael Doran and Can Kasapoglu. It is a quotation from a eulogy delivered by Moshe Dayan in 1956 at the funeral of Ro’i Rothberg, who was the security officer at kibbutz Nahal Oz and was murdered by terrorists. Here’s another quote from the 1956 eulogy:

The residents of Nahal Oz, Dayan said, carry “the heavy gates of Gaza on their shoulders, gates behind which hundreds of thousands of eyes and hands pray that we will weaken so that they may tear us to pieces—have we forgotten that?”

Sound familiar? It could have been said at the funerals of many of the Israelis killed on October 7, because so many of them were idealistic leftists who deeply desired peace with Palestinians and believed it could happen. That’s one of the reasons they were willing to live relatively close to the border.

That does not mean I am faulting or blaming those Israelis. They bear no responsibility for the barbaric behavior of their sadistic assailants. Those Israelis dreamed a dream that was understandably seductive, and the alternative was (and remains) almost too awful to contemplate: that Israel is surrounded by enemies many of whom would like to murder and torture every Israeli and every Jew on earth, and that much of the world would either shrug or applaud were those enemies to succeed.

Many former Israeli peaceniks no longer believe in the possibility of a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, and they have plenty of evidence for that change of heart.

The article is basically about how Israel’s security was too reliant on technology for intelligence rather than human intelligence, and had remade the military based on incorrect assumptions as well:

In place of its former doctrines and force structure, Israel had adopted a more modern military approach favoring a “small and smart” force reliant on precision airpower, special forces, and technology-centric intelligence. As a result, almost without exception, Israel’s leaders failed to foresee not only October 7, but also the kind of war the military is now fighting: Not quick, surgical strikes lasting for several days at most, but a multi-front conflict requiring the taking and holding of contested land positions over the course of months and possibly years. …

As a result of this lack of vision and forward planning, Israel does not have the right force structure, defense technological industrial base, or alliances to ensure a longer-term victory.

I’ve read many articles saying essentially the same thing, and I wrote a number of posts about them. So this information isn’t new, although it bears repeating. Many of the ideas on which the Israelis relied came from the US and Europe, and the ideas are wrong – particularly for Israel but probably for all of us:

Big wars will not happen, so the thinking went, due to the technological superiority of the Western countries. The assessment rests on two key assumptions, namely, that technological advantages deter states; and that technological superiority itself can be the sole determinant of victory in war.

Why anyone of intelligence would have thought those two things were true, even before 10/7, is puzzling. Just look at Vietnam – which ended around fifty years ago – and anyone should be able to have seen the assumptions to be false.

The article is a very good – although depressing – summary of the situation. The West, and that includes Israel, had better get a lot more nimble and a lot more smart.

Trump’s rallies and the election (plus Biden says the polls are wrong)

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump’s rallies draw a lot of people. An awful lot, even in blue states like New Jersey. Does this matter in terms of the 2024 election?

It’s certainly a good sign. It certainly means that, once again, he speaks to a great many people who are deeply frustrated with and angry at the Biden administration, the state of the country, and the state of the world. These people not only plan to vote for him, they plan to vote for him with enormous motivation and energy, as though the fate of the country and the world depends on it.

Because it very well may.

But I maintain that the rallies tell us little about who will win the actual election. Part of the reason is, of course, the opportunity for the Democrats to cheat, especially in big blue cities. Democrat voters are strongly motivated too, but in a different way. Few like Biden or want to go see him. But they regard him as the person who is standing in the way of a Trump re-election.

And so they will hold their noses and do whatever it takes to vote for him, whether they want to go see him speak or not. And it’s mostly “not.”

I wrote something similar in 2020. An excerpt:

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump has a ton of voters and that many of them are wildly enthusiastic rally-goers and voted for him with extreme intensity of purpose. If that was enough, he would have won in a landslide, and fraud couldn’t have kept up with it.

There’s also no question in my mind that Biden has almost no supporters at all, and that a great many of those who voted for him did so with ether relative distaste or indifference. His “rallies” were marked by nearly zero attendance. …

Biden’s campaign was counting on something entirely different from enthusiasm for candidate Biden himself to bring his voters to the polls: the strength of their hatred for Trump. The media and the Democrats had spent four long years drumming up hatred of the president, and I can attest to the fact that every Democrat I know (and I know a lot of them) has been fully on board with that hatred ever since Trump announced his candidacy long ago.

I’ve never seen anything like it. …

So there was plenty of enthusiasm on the Biden side, as well as the Trump side. But it was the enthusiastic drive produced by hatred.

I don’t mean to be completely negative about the prospects for a Trump win. It could happen. I hope it happens. It’s just that I’ve seen it slip away in 2020, plus of course there was the red wave of 2022 that barely rippled. I’ve also seen the last eight years of unremitting lies about Trump, and the current lawfare that is so outrageous.

I know that Democrats are determined to do whatever it takes to defeat him no matter how popular he is. The only question is whether they will succeed, not whether they will try everything humanly possible.

ADDENDUM:

Oh, and apparently Biden is busy saying that the polls are wrong and he’s really ahead:

President Biden doesn’t believe his bad poll numbers, and neither do many of his closest advisers, according to people familiar with the matter.

Why it matters: The dismissiveness of the poor polling is sincere, not public spin, according to Democrats who have spoken privately with the president and his team.

Well then, that settles it. “Democrats who have spoken privately with the president and his team” say so.

Although that was sarcasm on my part, I suppose it might be true. They might be sincere about polls; we certainly recall that the right is not immune to such beliefs about candidates on the right, either. And politician are narcissists – Biden most definitely is – and aides often tell the narcissists what the narcissists want to believe.

But I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I actually think that they know the polls are bad but they think they can either come up with some October surprise that can change things, or they think they can overcome the deficit by fraud, or both. Certainly they want to be able to say “I told you so” if the fix is in and Biden wins.