These Handwritten Notes on Michael Cohen Payments Could Doom Trump

At Donald Trump’s hush-money trial Monday, a former Trump Organization executive appears to have, through some handwritten notes, exposed serious tax fraud from the former president.

Jeffrey McConney, the former corporate controller at the Trump Organization, testified in court about a reimbursement payment of $360,000 in 2016 to former Trump attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen. That payment was “grossed up” from a $180,000 expense, to offset income taxes. The details were handwritten on Trump stationary by McConney, who was taking notes while speaking to Allen Weisselberg, the company’s chief financial officer, who told him that Cohen was owed money.

The written notes outlined a $180,000 reimbursement to Cohen, which consisted of a $130,000 wire transfer (the same amount paid to Stormy Daniels) and $50,000 for tech services, plus an additional bonus of $60,000. This total amount of $240,000 was then grossed up 50 percent to $360,000 to offset income taxes, a fact that Trump lawyer Emil Bove unsuccessfully moved to strike from the record.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo noted that reimbursement payments usually don’t exceed the amount of expenses, but that Cohen received double the amount of a $180,000 expense. Colangelo asked McConney if he could recall any other instance where an expense reimbursement was doubled for tax purposes. McConney replied no. In other words, a major exception seems to have been made to reimburse Cohen for the hush-money payments.

The prosecution hopes that to the jury, all of this is a convincing paper trail of Trump’s payments to Cohen, and thus to Daniels, in order to cover up Trump’s affair with the adult film actress prior to the 2016 elections.

Trump is facing 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime, and has pleaded not guilty. Daniels and Cohen have yet to testify, and when Cohen takes the stand, prosecutors will not only seek his confirmation of the payments, but also that they lead directly to Daniels.

As his hush-money trial proceeds, Donald Trump has been left searching for new angles with which to claim victimhood. His newest: Gag orders are unconstitutional.

Outside the New York City courthouse where his trial is taking place, Trump answered questions from the press pool on Monday. When reporters asked if he thought Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer now set to testify against him, was a liar, and if Trump was going to testify, the former president launched into a tirade against basic courtroom procedures.

“As you know, they’ve taken away my constitutional rights, so I’m not allowed to answer that question. This has never happened in this country before—it’s a ridiculous thing,” he responded.

Trump is referring to the gag order imposed on him by Judge Juan Merchan, which prohibits him from publicly commenting on witnesses and jurors, and was expanded after he attacked Merchan’s daughter. Trump currently owes $10,000 for his gag order violations in this trial alone—not to mention the $15,000 he owes for violating the gag order in his civil fraud trial—and could face jail time if he keeps breaking the order.

The former president is correct that the order prevents him from opining on Cohen publicly. But publicly impugning witnesses’ credibility during a trial is not a constitutional right, and Trump is hardly the first defendant to have had a gag order issued against them.

Trump has frequently claimed that the legal proceedings against him, from his impeachments to his postpresidency trials, constitute a “witch hunt.” But claiming that a prohibition on his ability to post on Truth Social or answer press poolers’ questions about key witnesses is an unprecedented violation of his rights strains credulity, to say the least.

Utah Senator Mitt Romney revealed the motivation for the bipartisan consensus to ban TikTok, and it has little to do with protecting users’ data.

Speaking at the McCain Institute on Friday alongside Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Romney lamented Israel’s inability to control the flow of information out of and about Gaza, despite its best efforts to restrict press access.

“I mean, typically the Israelis are good at P.R. What’s happened here? How have they—how have they, and we, been so ineffective at communicating the realities there and our point of view?” Romney asked Blinken, seemingly in disbelief that images of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Gaza have prompted outrage in the United States.

Then Romney explained that the TikTok ban overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Congress because of the widespread Palestinian advocacy on the app.

“Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts. So I’d note that’s of real interest, and the President will get the chance to make action in that regard,” Romney said.

The admission is not exactly surprising. Republican Representative Mike Gallagher argued in November that the app was “digital fentanyl” turning young Americans into “Hamas supporters.” Still, Romney’s openness, after supporters of the ban bleated about data security and privacy concerns for months, is shocking.

Romney’s comments betray a general bipartisan disinterest in engaging Israel’s conduct in Gaza on its own terms, preferring instead to complain about protesters, interrogate university presidents, and, apparently, muse about social media’s role in boosting pro-Palestinian activism. As Israel moves closer to a catastrophic invasion of Rafah, having already banned Al Jazeera in the country, Romney and Blinken would be wise to consider whether TikTok is the real problem.

Senator Tim Scott over the weekend exposed exactly where the Republican Party is headed, when he refused to answer a question on whether he would accept the 2024 election results.

MSNBC’s Kristen Welker on Sunday asked the South Carolina Republican point-blank if he would accept the 2024 election results, “no matter who wins.”

Scott replied, “At the end of the day, the forty-seventh president of the United States will be President Donald Trump.” When pressed further, he said, “That is my statement.”

Scott is a top contender for Trump’s 2024 running mate. And Trump of course has long refused to say whether he’d accept election results where he lost, even in 2016, when he often complained of a “rigged election” on the campaign trail. Just weeks before November’s election, he claimed he’d accept the results only “if I win.”

In 2020, Americans saw what Trump meant with those words. He refused to concede his loss to Joe Biden, fighting the results with fake elector schemes from his lawyers and even arguably inciting an insurrection at the Capitol building on the day the country’s election results were certified. His refusal to acknowledge his loss would become the Big Lie: that the 2020 election win was stolen from him, the legitimate winner. As Tim Scott’s words demonstrate, many of his faithful supporters still believe it in earnest.

Scott’s answer sounds much like those of other contenders for Trump’s V.P. In the past, J.D. Vance and Elise Stefanik, for example, both admitted they would not have certified the 2020 election results if they were in Vice President Mike Pence’s shoes on January 6.

Scott went on in the interview to assert that the Democratic Party is supporting “abortion up until the day of birth,” only to get pushback from Welker, who noted that no Democrats have said that.

It’s not the first time that Scott has tried and failed to give an answer on abortion, as was the case in April 2023, when he could only manage a word salad in two different attempts. While this time he attempted to attack Democrats for their supposed stances, he still didn’t articulate a policy of his own. If Scott, Trump, and the rest of the GOP plan to win in November, it would be smart to actually give concrete answers, whether it’s on abortion or a peaceful transition of power.

Kristi Noem just dug her grave deeper over the revelation that she lied in her upcoming book about meeting North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un while she served in Congress.

Politicians’ books are typically barely read and quickly forgotten, bought back in bulk by campaigns to artificially boost sales numbers and garner good press. Noem’s is a rare exception: Her upcoming book has tanked her stock as a vice presidential contender after she revealed in it that she shot and killed her family dog, Cricket.

Now another embarrassment has surfaced during her press tour: She claimed to have met Kim when she served on the House Armed Services Committee … but there are no congressional records backing up her statement.

Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan confronted the South Dakota governor Sunday with an outlandish passage from the book about a meeting with Kim, asking straightforwardly, “Did you meet Kim Jong Un?”

“As soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this passage, and I’ve met with many, many world leaders,” Noem replied. When Brennan pressed for a clarification, Noem was evasive, refusing to admit that she had not, in fact, met with Kim. She talked in circles for the better part of a minute, before finally conceding that “this anecdote shouldn’t have been in the book.”

This latest debacle may prove to be a nail in the coffin of Noem’s vice presidential bid. Once Noem was seen as a favorite to join Donald Trump on the Republican 2024 ticket for her loyalty to the former president and perceived ability to shore up cratering support among women voters, but her book, apparently an animal-cruelty confessional, has all but ended her prospects.

Brennan returned to the book to ask Noem about another passage where Noem appears to call for dog murder, this time of President Biden’s dog, Commander. “Commander, say hello to Cricket,” she wrote.

“Are you doing this to try to look tough?” Brennan asked. Noem proceeded to rattle off the Biden dog’s bite statistics and called for Biden to be “held accountable.”

No dogs are safe from Noem, evidently.