To what extent did Michael Cohen contribute to Trump's Hanoi walkout?

Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a UK-based political analyst. The article reflects the author's views, and not necessarily those of APD.

The second Trump-Kim summit was finished in Hanoi on February 27. Unlike the previous optimistic forecast, the summit failed to reach any agreements. The U.S. President Donald Trump's ill-fated summit in Hanoi with Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) leader Kim Jong Un coincided with some unfavorable domestic politics for him, that is Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

An ongoing and ever tense process, it is a political scandal that has dogged the president since the very beginning and continues to the turn the political heat up on him, of which he repeatedly dismisses as a “witch hunt.” Last week's testimony, however, was particularly uncomfortable for Trump, whereby Cohen, his former lawyer, openly attacked the president as a “liar,” “racist,” “conman” and “cheat”– all while Trump met with Kim far away in Vietnam.

Trump has a history of volatile reactions against developments of this nature. He reacts abrasively on Twitter, makes offensive remarks and usually insults or distracts blame to another. This has resulted in an outburst over the past few days. However, one particular tweet caused surprise, that is the president's own admission he could have ended the Hanoi summit on the back of news related to the Cohen testimony.

He tweeted: “For the Democrats to interview in open hearings a convicted liar fraudster, at the same time as the very important Nuclear Summit with North Korea (DPRK), is perhaps a new low in American politics and may have contributed to the “walk.” Never done when a president is overseas. Shame!”

Trump's tweet.

Could the president have seriously ended a deal at Hanoi over this? While it is the very nature of Trump to generate endless controversy and distraction to dictate coverage over his will, of which he proceeded to do in the midst of this, there is no convincing evidence to argue the Hanoi summit fell part on the basis of this alone, with disagreement over key demands and comments from Trump's colleagues upholding the prevailing explanations of the outcome.

Instead, the president should not be taken at his own word, ever. The tweet is just an unconvincing attempt to shift blame onto Democrats and distract from the increasingly fragile position of his administration.

Trump is a master of distractions. It cannot be said enough. Trump, having spent decades on reality television, is skilled at courting coverage and publicity through saying absurd, insulting and offensive things. It is what ultimately got him through his presidential campaign.

The mainstream media, despite its criticism of the president, play fiddle to this game and give his ludicrous remarks leading coverage. For example, Trump will say something offensive, it quickly becomes the leading story on the BBC, CNN and so on. Time and time again he has played this card to his advantage in order to divert all coverage away from real, politically damaging news against him.

Given this oft applied strategy, some might argue that cutting short the summit at Hanoi was a deliberate, self-centered move to kill off focus on Michael Cohen's stinging remarks against the president in front of the U.S Senate. A tweet from Trump himself seems to all but confirm this. For all such a theory fits into the sheer absurdness of Trump, it is not convincing. While there is evidence that Trump employed this tactic while at the summit itself in other ways, there is no evidence that this anyhow contributed to the summit's outcome as a whole, with the allegations themselves standing as a tactful distraction.

Michael D. Cohen walks out after testifying before the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, DC, February 29, 2019. /VCG Photo

We must continue to assess the summit in terms of foreign policy differences between the U.S. and the DPRK. It is worth noting on these grounds that firstly, a signed and completed agreement at the summit would have received just as much publicity for Trump, if not more, than canceling it.

Not only that, but it would have allowed Trump to claim a political victory, something he always is known for exaggerating. It would have been scrutinized by many voices, but he would likely not have cared. Secondly, key members of his presidential cabinet also opposed the deal and warned Trump against it, including John Bolton, who made that clear in a recent interview that what Kim was proposing “wasn't denuclearizing.” This indicates the long-held dilemma of denuclearization vs. sanctions relief continues to be the wedge issue and a structural problem.

With these wider foreign policy dilemmas, clearly hanging over the outcome of the summit, it must be noted that Trump's “distraction” to Cohen instead manifested itself in remarks publicly dismissing Kim Jong Un of responsibility for the death of American student Otto Warmbier. The comments, which were unnecessary, caused widespread outrage throughout American politics, media, and society– serving the purpose Trump likely intended them to have. Given this and the above, he didn't really feel politically compelled to cancel the summit at all.

To summarize: if we take Trump at his word at this, we are being locked into his “whataboutery” game of blame, distraction, and attention seeking. This gives us a powerful reminder: We should not take Trump at his word– not now or ever – and even less so whatever he tweets. Ultimately, the real reason he blamed the summit's cancellation on Cohen was to use it as a political stick to beat congressional Democrats with, a desperate attempt if you will to both distract and of course blame his growing failures on others. If we are to see through Trump, we must be on continual guard against this kind of behavior.

（CGTN）