Michael Cohen’s statement further stirred the feud between Republicans and Democrats.
The testimony of Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen before Congress made the president’s situation even more embarrassing for a president whose campaign is currently under microscopic scrutiny as the result of a most diverse range of inquiries.
Cohen stated that during Trump’s presidential campaign, his ex-client managed a construction project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, a project which also involved his children, Ivanka and Donald Jr., as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Cohen also said that he was instructed to pay $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence regarding her affair with the current president.
The action of silencing possible detractors has supposedly been continuous and, according to Cohen, David Pecker, the executive who controls the National Enquirer, facilitated it. The paper bought the rights to negative pieces about Trump to keep them from being published.
Cohen went on to say that political adviser Roger Stone — who has had a long and polemic career since the days he worked with Richard Nixon (1969-1974) — kept in contact with Julian Assange, who was responsible for leaking Hillary Clinton’s emails. The case had widespread repercussions for the Democratic presidential campaign.
Even though Cohen avoided topics that are currently being investigated by the special counsel and stuck to matters that are public, the lawyer added new elements, offering a behind the scenes point of view and not hesitating to call out the president, labeling him a cheat, a liar and a racist.
As predicted, the hearing blew the feud between the Republicans and the Democrats wide open, further stirring the feud between the parties which are now focusing on next year’s elections.
The first group, siding with Trump, are trying to disqualify Cohen by claiming he was convicted for violating campaign financing rules and lying to Congress.
Democrats are using the allegations to further damage the president’s image and to consider the idea of impeaching Trump. However, the pressures regarding this subject are encountering resistance from moderate Democrats.
The debate around the lawyer’s accusations will indeed deepen the political polarization and strengthen Trump’s defense among his supporters.
Depoimento de Michael Cohen acirra contenda entre republicanos e democratas
A prática de silenciar possÃveis detratores seria antiga e, segundo o depoente, contava, como já se noticiou, com o auxÃlio de David Pecker, empresário que controla o tabloide National Enquirer. A publicação compraria direitos de histórias prejudiciais a Trump para evitar que fossem divulgadas.
Cohen disse ainda que o conselheiro polÃtico Roger Stone —com longa e polêmica carreira desde quando trabalhou com Richard Nixon (1969-1974)— teria mantido contatos com Julian Assange, responsável por vazamentos de emails de Hillary Clinton. O caso teve ampla repercussão em desfavor da candidatura democrata.
Embora tenha evitado alguns temas que estão sendo investigados por procuradores, preferindo concentrar-se em episódios já conhecidos, o advogado acrescentou novos elementos, ofereceu visão de bastidores e não hesitou em disparar contra o presidente, chamando-o de trapaceiro, mentiroso e racista.
A audiência, como se previa, teve efeito bombástico e acirrou a contenda entre republicanos e democratas, agora com vistas ao pleito presidencial do ano que vem.
Os primeiros, em sintonia com Trump, procuram desqualificar Cohen apontando que ele foi condenado por violar regras de financiamento de campanha e prestar falso testemunho ao Congresso.
De fato, o debate em torno das acusações do advogado tende a aprofundar a polarização polÃtico-partidária e fortalecer a defesa de Trump entre seus apoiadores.
Mesmo sem impeachment, as tensões polÃticas tendem a tornar mais árdua a tentativa de reeleição do republicano —que, por enquanto, tem nos bons resultados da economia seu maior trunfo.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.