Michael Cohen Had a Lot of Accusations. But Not That One.

At one point in Wednesday’s circus of a hearing with Michael Cohen, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) succeeded in getting Cohen to speculate on whether or not Donald Trump was the kind of person who would collude with the Russian to win an election.

After first choosing not to indulge in that speculation, Cohen eventually came around to saying that his former boss was indeed the sort of dude who would collaborate with a foreign villain to usurp the United States and commit a crime against his country. You know, this dude who he remained happily employed by for TEN YEARS.

But other than that moment of rank speculation – worth little when you consider the content of Mr. Cohen’s own character and worth less when you figure out what Cohen was on Capitol Hill to accomplish – there was no new evidence to suggest that Trump had anything to do with the crime at the center of the Russian meddling theory; i.e., the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

The best Cohen could do was tell Congress that Trump had taken a call from Roger Stone at some point, at which time Stone told him that WikiLeaks had a bunch of Democrat emails they were getting ready to release. Trump was pleased, as we’re sure Hillary would have been if the situation were reversed. Evidence of a crime, much less treason, this was not.

Oh, Cohen came armed with a bucketload of accusations, to be sure. Trump bought a painting. Trump said some mean things about black people. Trump might have inflated his worth a time or two. Trump knew about the payments to Stormy Daniels. Put all of those accusations together and you might even conclude that, if he’s not extremely lucky, Donald J. Trump might one day have to pay a fine.

Really, Democrats? This is what we’re wasting our time on now?

But Wednesday’s hearings gave us a preview of what the Democrats plan to do with themselves for the next two years. Call unscrupulous rat witness after unscrupulous rat witness, put them on television, and have them make up anecdotes about the president in an effort to turn the country against him. But if the president’s main lawyer for the last decade hasn’t got the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that Trump colluded with the Russians, we can safely assume that no such evidence exists. In other words, it never happened.

That would be the bombshell news coming out of this hearing with any other president, at any other time, with any other media.

But at this time, with this president, with this media, they seem to want us to forget all about that.