As this is being written, Michael Cohen is testifying before the same congress he was convicted of lying to. This time he claims that he is telling the truth, despite that past lie. As would be expected, Democrats are focused on using Cohen’s testimony against Trump and the Republicans. As would also be expected, Republicans are claiming the hearing is a waste of time and are focusing on discrediting Cohen. As would be suspected, the public will tend to line up along ideological lines—the left accepting the negative things Cohen say about Trump, the right rushing to defend Trump by attacking Cohen.
Since Cohen lied to congress in defense of Donald Trump and has an impressive criminal record composed primarily of fraud and deceit, it is no surprise that the Republicans are focusing on these facts. The gist of their attack on him is that what he says about Trump should be rejected because he is a known liar. Interestingly, this approach can turn out to be an ad hominem fallacy or a legitimate assessment of credibility, depending on the reasoning being used.
The ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected based on some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Premise 1. Person A makes claim X.
Premise 2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
Conclusion. Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
If the Republican argument is as follows, then it would be the ad hominem fallacy:
Premise 1. Michael Cohen claims Trump knew in advance about the WikiLeaks plan.
Premise 2. Michael Cohen is a liar.
Conclusion. Therefore, Trump did not know in advance about the WikiLeaks plan.
This is obviously bad logic, as is shown by the following example:
Premise 1. Michael Cohen said that he is married.
Premise 2. Michael Cohen is a liar.
Conclusion. Therefore, Michael Cohen is not married.
Or, to really drive the point home,
Premise 1. Michael Cohen said that 2+2=4.
Premise 2. Michael Cohen is a liar.
Conclusion. Therefore, 2+2 does not equal 4.
So, to conclude that a specific claim made by Cohen is false because Cohen is a liar and a convicted criminal would be to fall victim to this fallacy. As always, it must be noted that the conclusion of a fallacy can be true—to infer that a fallacy must have a false conclusion would be to fall victim to the fallacy fallacy. As such, the claims that Cohen makes must be assessed on their merits—the fact that he is a criminal and a liar is not evidence that any specific claim he makes is not true.
At this point one might be thinking the obvious—surely the fact that he is a liar and a criminal has some relevance! It does—these facts reduce his credibility. When it comes to assessing credibility, many factors come into play and these obviously include the honesty and character of the person. A person who is known to be a liar and to have committed crimes of deceit clearly has reduced credibility. This reduced credibility does not, as discussed above, prove that a specific claim made by the person is false. However, reduced credibility means that one has less reason to accept a claim made by the person.
Given that Cohen has been shown to have lied to benefit Trump and himself in the past, it is rational to consider that he might be lying now. Thus, it would be sensible to be skeptical about his claims. However, a lack of credibility does not count as evidence against a claim, it just means that one has reason to be concerned about accepting a claim based on the person’s credibility. In practical terms, it would be unwise to believe a claim solely based on Cohen’s testimony. However, his lack of credibility does not diminish or reduce the support provided by other evidence. For example, the evidence is overwhelming that Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money at the behest of Trump. The fact that Cohen is a liar and said this before congress does not make that claim false.
In sum, attacking Cohen does not prove his specific claims are false—they must be assessed on their own merits. However, Cohen’s track record of lying does reduce his credibility so his testimony alone does not suffice to establish a claim.
I think that to characterize any of these as “proofs” , or even attempted proofs, is a stretch. We really don’t know what goes on behind the closed doors of Congress or the courts; all of this is trotted out to sway public opinion. it is not without a great deal of glee that the press has chosen to keep this story above the fold, while the potentially historic meeting between Trump and Kim in Vietnam is below.
Like Kavanaugh, like all of the smear campaigns that populate the news these days, it’s not about proof. Who needs proof? This is the court of public opinion, where anything goes.
It boils down to credibility. Like this:
Premise 1. Michael Cohen told his wife he was working late all last week.
Premise 2. Michael Cohen has a history of telling that to his wife, when in fact he was meeting women in hotel rooms. .
Conclusion. Therefore, Michael Cohen’s wife would be pretty stupid to just take him at his word (again), and really ought to seek some corroborating evidence.
So you are correct when you say,
“Given that Cohen has been shown to have lied to benefit Trump and himself in the past, it is rational to consider that he might be lying now. Thus, it would be sensible to be skeptical about his claims.”
But I’m unconvinced that either the concerned political parties or the press are really all that concerned with truth, or “proof” or due process or any of that. They’re only interested in what they can make “stick” to further their own political ends.
As you note, the battle tends to be one over posturing with rhetoric and fallacies as the primary weapons. Each party can claim victory if it gets its base to accept their narrative.
As you say, Cohen’s credibility is very low: it has been established that he has no qualms about deceit and is motivated by self-interest. He was an insider so he does have direct access to key information, but anything he claims requires corroboration from supporting evidence or a credible source. As others have noted, he does not seem to have any direct observation of collusion with Russia. However, he does seem to have provided more evidence of crimes we already know about.
I guess we have learned that with enough pressure you can get lawyers to turn on their clients.
Attorney/client privilege was nice while it lasted. Thanks, Dems.
I don’t think that applies to crimes committed by the attorney at the behest of a client.
What’s really sad about this is that for the most part, America and the media all seem to agree that this little festival of trashing Donald Trump was more important than the rather historic summit between the President of the United States and the dictator of North Korea. Apparently a very sensitive meeting about the denuclearization of a rogue dictatorship is not as important as driving home the “Trump is a [insert epithet here], as indicated by the relative placement of these two stories above and below the fold (or whatever the Web equivalent might be).
Whether or not you agree with Trump on policy issues, whether or not you agree with Cohen on his personal attacks on Trump, the United States has always had an unwritten policy of leaving domestic issues “at the water’s edge”, so to speak. And when the American President is overseas on diplomatic business, there is (or should be) a pause in the rhetoric.
Trump was absolutely correct in his characterization of these so-called hearings. It was completely inappropriate to carry on like this domestically while he was engaged in such an important and sensitive mission. It could have waited a couple of days.
Well, maybe not. The unmitigated glee on the part of the left was just too much to hold back. They are so blinded by their hatred of Trump as a person and politician that they seem to truly believe that this kind of circus must be the highest priority, the mandate that rises above all other causes.
It would certainly make political sense to time the hearings this way. If I was interested in scoring political points against Trump, I would have done the same thing. I would also hope it would provoke him into a twitter rant of open threats against Cohen.
But, as you said, the right thing to do for the US is to not mess with the national interest to score domestic political points. However, this cannot be used to justify just giving a free pass to the president.
The fact that Dems don’t accept the result of the election makes me question their belief in democracy. Don’t they understand that about half the time the other side is going to win?
Which election? If you mean the 2016 election, the results were accepted. The key questions are about whether anything illegal was done during the process. Trump is president, but that could change if it turns out he did enough crimes to warrant impeachment.
If you mean the 2016 election, the results were accepted.
Why lie when the truth will suffice? I think you’ve answered your own question.