There have been some sensational scenes in US politics this week, with Michael Cohen, the one-time attorney of US president, Donald Trump, freely admitting under questioning that he had previously lied to Congress when he said that Trump had ceased negotiations to build a 'Trump tower' in Moscow during the US Presidential Elections of 2016, when he had not.
Cohen says he lied out of loyalty to 'individual 1', another term for President Trump.
The importance of 'who-did-what-and-when', however, pales into insignificance when Cohen's turnaround is considered.
Several political analysts have already pointed out that, if Cohen is now saying he previously lied to Congress, no less, how naïve would we be to believe him?
Or rather, if he is saying:
"As God is my witness, I swear to you upon all the is Holy, I was lying,"
should we believe this? A man who can, seemingly swear on something one minute, then admit that he was lying about it in the next, is a difficult customer to handle.
"That statement to Congress, when I swore to tell the truth, that wasn't true, but what I'm saying now, is."
And, if he can lie as easily as he seems to be able to, isn't it possible he's also lying now, and actually didn't lie to Congress, that he told the truth, and that his recent admission that he lied to Congress was the real lie?
It's all very confusing, isn't it?
Only in America!