U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–230 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

HEARING WITH MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER 

ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Serial No. 116–03 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

( 

Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Harley Rouda, California 

Katie Hill, California 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Jackie Speier, California 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Ro Khanna, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York 

Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts 

Rashida Tlaib, Michigan 

Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority Member 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Bob Gibbs, Ohio 

Clay Higgins, Louisiana 

Ralph Norman, South Carolina 

Chip Roy, Texas 

Carol D. Miller, West Virginia 

Mark E. Green, Tennessee 

Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota 

W. Gregory Steube, Florida 

DAVID RAPALLO, Staff Director 

PETER KENNY, Counsel 

ELISA LANIER, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations 

CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 27, 2019 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Michael Cohen, Former Attorney to President Donald Trump 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

INDEX OF INSERTS

Page 

Statement of Lynne Patton .............................................................................. 35 

Referral of Michael Cohen for Potential Violation ......................................... 39 

Common Cause Letter ...................................................................................... 108 

Dr. Darrell Scott Tweet .................................................................................... 154 

Bo Dietl Tweet .................................................................................................. 156 

Letter to Chairman Cummings ....................................................................... 158 

Cohen Sentencing Statement .......................................................................... 168 

State of New York Court Order on Cohen ...................................................... 172 

(1) 

HEARING WITH MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER 

ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 

Tuesday, February 27, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah Cummings 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, 

Lynch, Cooper, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Hill, 

Wasserman Schultz, Sarbanes, Welch, Speier, Kelly, DeSaulnier, 

Lawrence, Plaskett, Khanna, Gomez, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, 

Tlaib, Jordan, Amash, Gosar, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, Hice, 

Grothman, Comer, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman, Roy, Miller, 

Green, Armstrong, and Steube. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The committee will come to order. Without 

objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. The full committee hearing is convening to 

hear the testimony of Michael Cohen, former attorney to President 

Donald Trump. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. You’ll state your point of order. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Rule 9(f) of the committee rules say that any testimony from your witness needs to be here 24 hours in advance. 

The committee and the chairman know well that at 10:08, we received the written testimony, and then we received evidence this 

morning at 7:54. 

Now, if this was just an oversight, Mr. Chairman, I could look 

beyond it. But it was an intentional effort by this witness and his 

advisors to, once again, show his disdain for this body. 

With that, I move that we postpone this hearing. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman. 

Let me say this, that we got the testimony late last night. We 

did. And we got it to you all pretty much the same time that we 

got it. 

I want to move forward with this hearing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this is a violation of the rule. And if it was not intentional, 

I would not have a problem. I’m not saying it was intentional on 

your part. I’m saying it’s intentional on his part, because Mr. Dean, 

last night on a cable news network, actually made it all very evident. John Dean. And I’ll quote, Mr. Chairman. He said, ‘‘As a 

former committee counsel in the House Judiciary Committee, and 
2 

then a long-term witness, sitting alone at the table is important, 

quote, ’holding your statement as long as you can so the other side 

can’t chew it up is important as well,’ ’’ closed quote. 

And so it was advice that our witness got for this particular 

body. And, Mr. Chairman, when you were in the minority, you 

wouldn’t have stood for it. And I can tell you that we should not 

stand for it as a body. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Let me say this—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Let me say this. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yes. Katie Hill. 

Ms. HILL. I move to table. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Is there a second? 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman. I was asked to be recognized before 

the motion. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The vote is on tabling the motion. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know who had this material before all the 

members of the committee? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Excuse me. 

Mr. JORDAN. CNN had it before we did. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. CNN had the exhibits before we did. 

Well, I just want to be recognized. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yes, well, the vote is on tabling the motion 

to postpone. 

All in favor say aye. 

All opposed say no. The ayes have it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I appeal the ruling of the chair. 

Yes, I can assure you it’s in the rules. I appeal the ruling of the 

chair. 

Mr. HICE. Do the rules matter, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I recognize the gentlelady. 

Ms. HILL. Move to waive the rules. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. There’s a motion to table. 

Ms. HILL. Move to table. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The vote is—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, she made two motions. What’s the motion? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The vote is on tabling—— 

Ms. HILL. I move to table the appeal to the ruling of the chair. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The vote is on that. 

All in favor say aye. 

All opposed say no. 

The ayes have it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Very well. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The Clerk. Mr. Cummings? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Cummings votes yes. 

Ms. Maloney? 

Ms. MALONEY. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Maloney votes yes. 
3 

Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes. 

Mr. Clay? 

Mr. CLAY. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Clay votes yes. 

Mr. Lynch? 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes yes. 

Mr. Cooper? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Cooper votes yes. 

Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi? 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes yes. 

Mr. Raskin? 

Mr. RASKIN. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes yes. 

Mr. Rouda? 

Mr. ROUDA. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Rouda votes yes. 

Ms. Hill? 

Ms. HILL. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Hill votes yes. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz votes yes. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes yes. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Welch votes yes. 

Ms. Speier? 

Ms. SPEIER. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Speier votes yes. 

Ms. Kelly? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Kelly votes yes. 

Mr. DeSaulnier? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier votes yes. 

Mrs. Lawrence? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Lawrence votes yes. 

Ms. Plaskett? 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Plaskett votes yes. 

Mr. Khanna? 

Mr. KHANNA. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes yes. 

Mr. Gomez? 
4 

Mr. GOMEZ. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes yes. 

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez? 

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes yes. 

Ms. Pressley? 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Pressley votes yes. 

Ms. Tlaib? 

Ms. TLAIB. Yes. 

The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes yes. 

Mr. Jordan? 

Mr. JORDAN. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes no. 

Mr. Amash? 

Mr. AMASH. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Amash votes no. 

Mr. Gosar? 

Mr. GOSAR. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no. 

Ms. Foxx? 

Ms. FOXX. No. 

The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no. 

Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes no. 

Mr. Meadows? 

Mr. MEADOWS. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Meadows votes no. 

Mr. Hice? 

Mr. HICE. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Hice votes no. 

Mr. Grothman? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no. 

Mr. Comer? 

Mr. COMER. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Comer votes no. 

Mr. Cloud? 

Mr. CLOUD. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes no. 

Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. No. 

The Clerk. Ms. Gibbs votes no. 

Mr. Higgins? 

[No response.] 

The Clerk. Mr. Norman? 

Mr. NORMAN. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes no. 

Mr. Roy? 

Mr. ROY. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Roy votes no. 

Mrs. Miller? 

Mrs. MILLER. No. 
5 

The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Green votes no. 

Mr. Armstrong? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no. 

Mr. Steube? 

Mr. STEUBE. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Steube votes no. 

On this vote, we have 24 yeses, 17 noes. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. OK. The motion to table is agreed to. 

Let me say this: You’ve made it clear that you do not want the 

American people to hear what Mr. Cohen has to say. But the 

American people have a right to hear him, so we’re going to proceed. The American people can judge his credibility for themselves. 

Now—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. We did not say that. We just said we wanted to follow the rules. We had—he didn’t say stop the hearing. He just said 

postpone it so we could get his testimony and the exhibits when we 

were supposed to get them according to the rules of this committee. 

That’s all we said. We didn’t say we didn’t want to hear from the 

guy. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. We want to follow the rule. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening statement. 

Today, the committee will hear the testimony of Michael Cohen, 

President Donald Trump’s long-time personal attorney, and one of 

his closest and most trusted advisers over the last decade. On August 21, Mr. Cohen appeared in Federal court, and admitted to arranging secret payoffs of hundreds of thousands of dollars on the 

eve of the election, to silence women alleging affairs with Donald 

Trump. 

Mr. Cohen admitted to violating campaign finance laws and 

other laws. He admitted to committing these felonies, quote, ‘‘in coordination with and at the direction of,’’ unquote, President Trump. 

And he admitted, he admitted, to lying about his actions to protect 

the President. 

Some will certainly ask, if Mr. Cohen was lying then, why should 

we believe him now? 

Mr. JORDAN. Good question. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. This is a legitimate question. 

As a trial lawyer for many years, I faced this situation over and 

over again, and I asked the same question. 

Here is how I view our role. Every one of us in this room has 

a duty to serve as an independent check on the executive branch. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in search of the truth. The President 

has made many statements of his own, and now the American people have a right to hear the other side. They can watch Mr. Cohen’s 

testimony and make their own judgment. 
6 

We received a copy of Mr. Cohen’s written statement late last 

night. It includes not only personal eyewitness accounts of meetings with Donald Trump, as President inside the Oval Office, but 

it also includes documents and other corroborating evidence of 

some of Mr. Cohen’s statements. 

For example, Mr. Cohen has provided a copy of a check sent 

while President Trump was in office, with Donald Trump’s signature on it to reimburse Mr. Cohen for the hush money payment to 

Stormy Daniels. This is new—this new evidence raises a host of 

troubling legal and ethical concerns about the President’s actions 

in the White House and before. 

Would you all close that door, please? 

Thank you. 

This check is dated August 1, 2017. Six months later, in April 

2018, the President denied anything about it. In April 2018, President Trump was flying on Air Force One when a reporter asked 

him a question, Did you know about a $130,000 payment to Stormy 

Daniels? The answer was, quote, ‘‘No.’’ 

A month after that, the President admitted to making payments 

to Mr. Cohen, proclaimed they were part of a, quote, ‘‘a monthly 

retainer,’’ unquote, for legal services. This claim fell apart in August when Federal prosecutors concluded, and I quote, ‘‘in truth 

and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement,’’ end of quote. 

Today, we will also hear Mr. Cohen’s account of a meeting in 

2016 in Donald Trump’s office during which Roger Stone said over 

speaker phone that he had just spoken with Julian Assange, who 

said there would be a, quote, ‘‘massive dump of emails that would 

damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign,’’ end of quote. 

According to Cohen, Mr. Trump replied, quote, ‘‘Wouldn’t that be 

great,’’ end of quote. 

The testimony that Michael Cohen will provide today, ladies and 

gentlemen, is deeply disturbing, and it should be troubling to all 

Americans. We will all have to make our own evaluation of the evidence and Mr. Cohen’s credibility as he admits he has repeatedly 

lied in the past. I agree with Ranking Member Jordan that this is 

an important factor we need to weigh, but we must weigh it, and 

we must hear from him. 

But where I disagree fundamentally with the ranking member 

involves his efforts to prevent the American people from hearing 

from Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen’s testimony raises grave questions 

about the legality of Donald Trump’s—President Donald Trump’s 

conduct and the truthfulness of statements while he was President. 

We need to assess and investigate this new evidence as we uphold 

our constitutional—our oversight responsibilities. And we will continue after today to gather more documents and testimony in our 

search for the truth. 

I have made it abundantly clear to Mr. Cohen that if he comes 

here today and he does not tell him the truth—tell us the truth, 

I will be the first one to refer that—those untruthful statements to 

DOJ. So when people say he doesn’t have anything to lose, he does 

have a lot to lose if he lies. 

And the American people, by the way, voted for accountability in 

November. And they have a right to hear Mr. Cohen in public so 

they can make their own judgments. 
7 

Mr. Cohen’s testimony is the beginning of the process, not the 

end. Ladies and gentlemen, the days of this committee protecting 

the President at all costs are over. They’re over. 

Before I close, I want to comment about the scope of today’s 

hearing. At the request of the House Intelligence Committee and 

my very good friend, Adam Schiff, Congressman Adam Schiff, the 

chairman, I intended, over the objections of the ranking member of 

our committee, to limit the scope of today’s hearing to avoid questions about Russia. 

However, Mr. Cohen’s written testimony—in his written testimony, he’s made statements relating to Russia, and these are topics that, we understand, do not raise concern from the Department 

of Justice. 

So in fairness to the ranking member and all committee members, we will not restrict questions relating to the witness’s testimony or related questions he is willing to answer. 

Finally, I remind members that we will need to remain mindful 

of those areas where there are ongoing Department of Justice investigations. Those scoping limitations have not changed. 

Finally, and to Mr. Cohen, Martin Luther King, Mr. Cohen, said 

some words that I leave with you today before you testify. He said, 

Faith is taking the first step even when you can’t see the whole 

staircase. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal. Our 

lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that truly 

matter. In the end he says, we will remember not the words of our 

enemies but the silence of our friends. 

And with that, I yield to the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of our committee, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. To the point that—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Jordan is recognized. Mr. Jordan is 

recognized for his opening statement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, here we go. Here we go. Your first 

big hearing, your first announced witness, Michael Cohen. I want 

everyone in this room to think about this. The first announced witness for the 116th Congress is a guy who is going to prison in two 

months for lying to Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, your chairmanship will always be identified with 

this hearing. And we all need to understand what this is. This is 

the Michael Cohen hearing presented by Lanny Davis. That’s right. 

Lanny Davis choreographed the whole darn thing. The Clintons’ 

best friend, loyalist, operative. Lanny Davis put this all together. 

Do you know how we know? He told our staff. He told the committee staff. He said the hearing was his idea. He selected this 

committee. He had to talk Michael Cohen into coming. And most 

importantly, he had to persuade the chairman to actually have it. 

He told us it took two months to get that job done. But here we 

are. He talked him into it. 

This might be the first time someone convicted of lying to Congress has appeared again so quickly in front of Congress. Certainly, 

it’s the first time a convicted perjurer has been brought back to be 

a star witness in a hearing. And there’s a reason this is a first, because no other committee would do it. 
8 

Think about this. With Mr. Cohen here, this committee, we got 

lots of lawyers on this committee, this committee is actually encouraging a witness to violate attorney-client privilege. 

Mr. Chairman, when we legitimize dishonesty, we delegitimize 

this institution. We’re supposed to pursue the truth. But you have 

stacked the deck against the truth. We’re only allowed to ask certain questions. Even with that amendment you just told us about, 

well, Russia is now on the table. 

You additionally told us we can’t ask questions about the special 

counsel, can’t ask questions about the Southern District of New 

York, can’t ask questions about Russia. Nope. Nope. Only subjects 

we can talk about are ones you think are going to be harmful to 

the President of the United States. And the answers to those questions are going to come from a guy who can’t be trusted. 

Here’s what the U.S. attorney said about Mr. Cohen. While Mr. 

Cohen enjoyed a privileged life, his desire for ever-greater wealth 

and influence precipitated an extensive course of criminal conduct. 

Mr. Cohen committed four, four distinct Federal crimes over a period of several years. He was motivated to do so by personal greed. 

And repeatedly, repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends. 

But the Democrats don’t care. They don’t care. They just want 

to use you, Mr. Cohen. You’re their patsy today. They got to find 

somebody somewhere to say something so they can try to remove 

the President from office, because Tom Steyer told him to. 

Tom Steyer last week organized a town hall. Guess where? 

Chairman Nadler’s district in Manhattan. Two nights ago, Tom 

Steyer organized a town hall. Guess where? Chairman Cummings’ 

district in Baltimore. The best they can find—the best they can 

find to start this process, Michael Cohen. Fraudster, a cheat, a convicted felon, and in two months, a Federal inmate. Well, actually, 

they didn’t find him. Lanny Davis found him. 

I’ll say one thing about the Democrats. They stick to the playbook. Remember—remember how all this started. The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie law firm who hired Glenn Simpson who 

hired a foreigner, Christopher Steele, who put together the fake 

dossier that the FBI used to go get a warrant to spy on the Trump 

campaign. 

But when that whole scheme failed and the American people said 

we’re going to make Donald Trump President, they said, We got to 

do something else. So now Clinton loyalist, Clinton operative 

Lanny Davis has persuaded the chairman of the Oversight Committee to give a convicted felon a forum to tell stories and lie about 

the President of the United States so they can all start their impeachment process. 

Mr. Chairman, we are better than this. We are better than this. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I wanted to note. 

Mr. JORDAN. Actually, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have to 

motion. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I have a motion. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman is not recognized. 

Mr. JORDAN. I have a motion under rule 2(k)6 of Rule 11. 
9 

Chairman CUMMINGS. You yielded back, sir. You yielded back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, you took 7 minutes. I took 4. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Well, the gentleman yielded back. 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s how you’re going to operate? 

First you don’t follow the rules, and now you’re going to say— 

so you don’t get—you get to—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Point of order. You—regular order. 

Mr. JORDAN. You get to deviate from the rules. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Regular order. 

Mr. JORDAN. I just have a simple motion, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Regular order. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. It’s a regular order to have the testimony 24 hours 

in advance. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Excuse me. I wanted to note that—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We’ve addressed that. 

Chairman CUMMINGS [continuing]. until Rule 11 Clause 4, all 

media and photographers must be officially credentialed to record 

these proceedings and take photographs. 

I also wanted to briefly address the spectators in the hearing 

room today. We welcome you and we respect your right to be here. 

We also ask, in turn, for your respect as we proceed with the business of the committee today. It is the intention of the committee 

to proceed without any disruptions. Any disruption of this committee will result in the United States Capitol Police restoring 

order, and that protesters will be removed. And we are grateful for 

your presence here today and your cooperation. 

Now I want to welcome Mr. Cohen and thank him for participating in today’s hearing. 

Mr. Cohen, if you would please rise, and I will begin to swear 

you in. 

Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 

that you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. COHEN. I do. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. And thank you. And you may be seated. 

The microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into 

them. Without objection, your written statement will be made a 

part of the record. 

With that, Mr. Cohen, you are now recognized to give an oral 

presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY TO 

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 

Mr. COHEN. Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. 

I have asked this committee to ensure that my family be protected 

from Presidential threats, and that the committee be sensitive to 

the questions pertaining to ongoing investigations. I thank you for 

your help and for your understanding. 

I am here under oath to correct the record, to answer the committee’s questions truthfully, and to offer the American people 

what I know about President Trump. I recognize that some of you 
10 

may doubt and attack me on my credibility. It is for this reason 

that I have incorporated into this opening statement documents 

that are irrefutable, and demonstrate that the information you will 

hear is accurate and truthful. 

Never in a million years did I imagine when I accepted a job in 

2007 to work for Donald Trump that he would one day run for the 

presidency, to launch a campaign on a platform of hate and intolerance, and actively win. I regret the day I said yes to Mr. Trump. 

I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way. I am 

ashamed of my own failings and publicly accepted responsibility for 

them by pleading guilty in the Southern District of New York. I am 

ashamed of my weakness and my misplaced loyalty of the things 

I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him. 

I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. 

Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience. I 

am ashamed, because I know what Mr. Trump is. He is a racist, 

he is a con man, and he is a cheat. 

He was a Presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was 

talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop on Democratic National Committee emails. And I will explain each in a few 

moments. 

I am providing the committee today with several documents, and 

these include a copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal 

bank account, after he became President, to reimburse me for the 

hush money payments I made to cover up his affair with an adult 

film star, and to prevent damage to his campaign. Copies of financial statements from 2011, 2012, and 2013 that he gave to such institutions such as Deutsche Bank, a copy of an article with Mr. 

Trump’s handwriting on it that reported on the auction of a portrait of himself that he arranged for the bidder ahead of time and 

then reimbursed the bidder from the account of his nonprofit charitable foundation, with the picture now hanging in one of his country clubs, and copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction 

that threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board not 

to release his grades or SAT scores. 

I hope my appearance here today, my guilty plea, and my work 

with law enforcement agencies are steps along a path of redemption that will restore faith in me and help this country understand 

our President better. 

Before going further, I want to apologize to each member, to you 

as Congress, as a whole. The last time I appeared before Congress, 

I came to protect Mr. Trump. Today, I am here to tell the truth 

about Mr. Trump. I lied to Congress when Mr. Trump stopped negotiating the Moscow tower project in Russia. I stated that we 

stopped negotiating in January 2016. That was false. Our negotiations continued for months later during the campaign. 

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not 

how he operates. In conversations we had during the campaign, at 

the same time, I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he 

would look me in the eye and tell me, there’s no Russian business, 

and then go on to lie to the American people by saying the same 

thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie. 
11 

There are at least a half a dozen times between the Iowa caucus 

in January 2016 and the end of June when he would ask me how’s 

it going in Russia, referring to the Moscow tower project. 

You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed 

and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow tower negotiations before I gave it. So to be clear, Mr. Trump 

knew of and directed the Trump-Moscow negotiations throughout 

the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never 

expected to win. He also lied about it because he stood to make 

hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project. 

So I lied about it too, because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, 

through his personal statements to me that we both knew to be 

false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie. 

And he made it clear to me, because his personal attorneys reviewed my statement before I gave it to Congress. 

Over the past two years, I have been smeared as a rat by the 

President of the United States. The truth is much different. And 

let me take a brief moment to introduce myself. 

My name is Michael Dean Cohen, and I am a blessed husband 

of 24 years and a father to an incredible daughter and son. 

When I married my wife, I promised her that I would love her, 

I would cherish her, and I would protect her. As my father said 

countless times throughout my childhood, you, my wife, and you, 

my children, are the air that I breathe. 

So to my Laura and to my Sami, and to my Jake, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to protect you. 

I have always tried to live a life of loyalty, friendship, generosity, 

and compassion. It is qualities my parents engrained in my siblings 

and me since childhood. My father survived the Holocaust. Thanks 

to the compassion and selfless acts of others, he was helped by 

many who put themselves in harm’s way to do what they knew was 

right. And that is why my first instinct has always been to help 

those in need. And Mom and Dad, I am sorry I let you down. 

As the many people that know me best would say, I am the person that they call at 3 a.m. if they needed help. And I proudly remember being the emergency contact for many of my children’s 

friends when they were growing up, because their parents knew 

that I would drop everything and care for them as if they were my 

own. 

Yet last fall, I pled guilty in Federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with individual No. 

1. And for the record, individual No. 1 is President Donald J. 

Trump. 

It is painful to admit that I was motivated by ambition at times. 

It is even more painful to admit that many times I ignored my conscience and acted loyal to a man when I should not have. Sitting 

here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by 

Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew 

were absolutely wrong. For that reason, I have come here to apologize to my family, to my government, and to the American people. 

Accordingly, let me now tell you about Mr. Trump. 

I got to know him very well working very closely with him for 

more than 10 years as his executive vice president and special 

counsel, and then as personal attorney when he became President. 
12 

When I first met Mr. Trump, he was a successful entrepreneur, 

a real estate giant, and an icon. Being around Mr. Trump was intoxicating. When you were in his presence, you felt like you were 

involved in something greater than yourself, that you were somehow changing the world. I wound up touting the Trump narrative 

for over a decade. That was my job. Always stay on message. Always defend. It monopolized my life. 

At first, I worked mostly on real estate developments and other 

business transactions. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump brought me 

into his personal life and private dealings. Over time, I saw his 

true character revealed. 

Mr. Trump is an enigma. He is complicated, as am I. He is both 

good and bad, as are we all. But the bad far outweighs the good. 

And since taking office, he has become the worst version of himself. 

He is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not kind. He is capable of committing acts of generosity, but he is not generous. He is 

capable of being loyal, but he is fundamentally disloyal. 

Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand 

great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention 

to lead this Nation, only to market himself and to build his wealth 

and power. 

Mr. Trump would often say this campaign was going to be the 

greatest infomercial in political history. He never expected to win 

the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The 

campaign for him was always a marketing opportunity. 

I knew early on in my work for Mr. Trump that he would direct 

me to lie to further his business interests. And I am ashamed to 

say that when it was for a real estate mogul in the private sector, 

I considered it trivial. As the President, I consider it significant 

and dangerous. 

In the mix, lying for Mr. Trump was normalized, and no one 

around him questioned it. In fairness, no one around him today 

questions it either. A lot of people have asked me about whether 

Mr. Trump knew about the release of the hacked documents, the 

Democratic National Committee emails ahead of time. And the answer is yes. 

As I earlier stated, Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks drop of emails. In July 2016, days before the Democratic Convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when 

his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. 

Trump put Mr. Stone on the speaker phone. Mr. Stone told Mr. 

Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange, 

and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that within a couple of days, 

there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect, Wouldn’t that be 

great. 

Mr. Trump is a racist. The country has seen Mr. Trump court 

white supremacists and bigots. You have heard him call poorer 

countries shitholes. His private—in private he is even worse. 

He once asked me if I can name a country run by a black person 

that wasn’t a shithole. This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States. And while we were once driving through 

a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only 
13 

black people could live that way. And he told me that black people 

would never vote for him because they were too stupid. And yet, 

I continued to work for him. 

Mr. Trump is a cheat. As previously stated, I am giving to the 

committee today three years of Mr. Trump’s personal financial 

statements from 2011, 2012, and 2013, which he gave to Deutsche 

Bank to inquire about a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills and to Forbes. 

These are exhibits 1A, 1B,and 1C to my testimony. [Exhibits are 

available at: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/ 

Michael%20Cohen.02.27.2019.Exhibits.pdf.] 

It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets 

when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed amongst 

the wealthiest people in Forbes and deflated his assets to reduce 

his real estate taxes. 

I’m sharing with you two newspaper articles side-by-side that are 

examples of Mr. Trump inflating and deflating his assets, as I said, 

to suit his financial interests. These are exhibit 2 to my testimony. 

As I noted, I’m giving the committee today an article he wrote 

on and sent to me that reported on an auction of a portrait of Mr. 

Trump. This is exhibit 3A to my testimony. Mr. Trump directed me 

to find a straw bidder to purchase a portrait of him that was being 

auctioned off at an art Hampton’s event. The objective was to ensure that this portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would 

go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait 

was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. 

Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to 

be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. And please see exhibit 3B to my testimony. 

It should come as no surprise that one of my more common responsibilities was that Mr. Trump directed me to call business 

owners, many of whom are small businesses, that were owed 

money for their services and told them that no payment or a reduced payment would be coming. When I asked Mr. Trump—or 

when I told Mr. Trump of my success, he actually reveled in it. And 

yet, I continued to work for him. 

Mr. Trump is a con man. He asked me to pay off an adult film 

star with whom he had an affair, and to lie about it to his wife, 

which I did. And lying to the First Lady is one of my biggest regrets, because she is a kind, good person, and I respect her greatly. 

And she did not deserve that. 

I am giving the committee today a copy of the $130,000 wire 

transfer from me to Ms. Clifford’s attorney during the closing days 

of the Presidential campaign that was demanded by Ms. Clifford to 

maintain her silence about her affair with Mr. Trump. And this is 

exhibit 4 to my testimony. 

Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a 

home equity line of credit to avoid any money being traced back to 

him that could negatively impact his campaign. And I did that too, 

without bothering to consider whether that was improper much 

less whether it was the right thing to do, or how it would impact 

me, my family, or the public. And I am going to jail, in part, because of my decision to help Mr. Trump hide that payment from 

the American people before they voted a few days later. 
14 

As exhibit 5A to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of a $35,000 check that President Trump personally signed from his 

personal bank account on August 1 of 2017, when he was President 

of the United States, pursuant to the coverup which was the basis 

of my guilty plea to reimburse me, the word used by Mr. Trump’s 

TV lawyer for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf. This $35,000 check was one of 11 check installments that was 

paid throughout the year while he was President. Other checks to 

reimburse me for the hush money payments were signed by Donald 

Trump, Jr., and Allen Weisselberg. And see that example, 5B. 

The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check 

for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. And you can find the details of that 

scheme directed by Mr. Trump in the pleadings in the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of New York. 

So picture this scene. In February 2017, one month into his presidency, I’m visiting President Trump in the oval office for the first 

time, and it’s truthfully awe-inspiring. He’s showing me all around 

and pointing to different paintings. And he says to me something 

to the effect of, Don’t worry, Michael. Your January and February 

reimbursement checks are coming. They were FedEx’d from New 

York. And it takes a while for that to get through the White House 

system. 

As he promised, I received the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000 not long thereafter. 

When I say con man, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant, but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT 

scores. As I mentioned, I’m giving the committee today copies of a 

letter I sent at Mr. Trump’s direction, threatening these schools 

with civil and criminal actions if Mr. Trump’s grades or SAT scores 

were ever disclosed without his permission. And these are under 

exhibit 6. 

The irony wasn’t lost on me at the time that Mr. Trump, in 2011, 

had strongly criticized President Obama for not releasing his 

grades. As you can see in exhibit 7, Mr. Trump declared, Let him 

show his records, after calling President Obama a terrible student. 

The sad fact is that I never heard Mr. Trump say anything in 

private that led me to believe he loved our Nation or wanted to 

make it better. In fact, he did the opposite. When telling me in 

2008 or 2009 that he was cutting employees’ salaries in half, including mine. He showed me what he claimed was a $10 million 

IRS tax refund. And he said that he could not believe how stupid 

the government was for giving someone like him that much money 

back. 

During the campaign, Mr. Trump said that he did not consider 

Vietnam veteran and prisoner of war, Senator John McCain, to be 

a hero because he likes people who weren’t captured. At the same 

time, Mr. Trump tasked me to handle the negative press surrounding his medical deferment from the Vietnam draft. 

Mr. Trump claimed it was because of a bone spur. But when I 

asked for medical records, he gave me none and said that there 

was no surgery. He told me not to answer the specific questions by 

reporters, but rather, offer simply the fact that he received a med-
15 

ical deferment. He finished the conversation with the following 

comment. ‘‘You think I’m stupid? I’m not going to Vietnam.’’ And 

I find it ironic, Mr. President, that you are in Vietnam right now. 

And yet, I continued to work for him. 

The questions have been raised about whether I know of direct 

evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I 

do not. And I want to be clear. But I have my suspicions. 

Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that 

there had been a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving 

Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a 

representative of the Russian Government, and an email setting up 

the meeting with the subject line, Dirt on Hillary Clinton. 

Something clicked in my mind. I remembered being in a room 

with Mr. Trump, probably in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Trump, Jr. came into the room and walked 

behind his father’s desk, which in and of itself was unusual. People 

didn’t just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. 

I recalled Don Jr. leaning over to his father and speaking in a 

low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying, The meeting is 

all set. And I remember Mr. Trump saying, ‘‘OK. Good. Let me 

know.’’ 

What struck me as I look back and thought about the exchange 

between Don Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst 

judgment of anyone in the world. And also that Don Jr. would 

never set up any meeting of significance alone, and certainly not 

without checking with his father. 

I also knew that nothing went on in Trump world, especially the 

campaign, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge and approval. So I concluded that Don Jr. was referring to that June 2016 Trump Tower 

meeting about dirt on Hillary with the Russian representatives 

when he walked behind his dad’s desk that day, and that Mr. 

Trump knew that was the meeting Don Jr. was talking about when 

he said, That’s good. Let me know. 

Over the past year or so, I have done some real soul searching. 

And I see now that my ambition and the intoxication of Trump 

power had much to do with the bad decisions in part that I made. 

And to you, Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member Jordan, 

the other members of this committee, the members of the House 

and Senate, I am sorry for my lies and for lying to Congress. And 

to our Nation, I am sorry for actively working to hide from you the 

truth about Mr. Trump when you needed it most. 

For those who question my motives for being here today, I understand. I have lied. But I am not a liar. And I have done bad things, 

but I am not a bad man. I have fixed things, but I am no longer 

your fixer, Mr. Trump. And I am going to prison and have shattered the safety and security that I tried so hard to provide for my 

family. 

My testimony certainly does not diminish the pain that I have 

caused my family and my friends. Nothing can do that. And I have 

never asked for, nor would I accept a pardon from President 

Trump. 
16 

By coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal, scurrilous attacks by the President and his lawyer trying to 

intimidate me from appearing before this panel. 

Mr. Trump called me a rat for choosing to tell the truth, much 

like a mobster would do when one of his men decides to cooperate 

with the government. And as exhibit 8 shows, I have provided the 

committee with copies of tweets that Mr. Trump posted attacking 

me and my family. Only someone burying his head in the sand 

would not recognize them for what they are. It’s encouragement to 

someone to do harm to me and my family. 

I never imagined that he would engage in vicious, false attacks 

on my family, and unleash his TV lawyer to do the same. And I 

hope this committee, and all Members of Congress on both sides of 

the aisle, make it clear that, as a Nation, we should not tolerate 

attempts to intimidate witnesses before Congress, and attacks on 

family are out of bounds and not acceptable. 

I wish to especially thank Speaker Pelosi for her statements, it’s 

exhibit 9, to protect this institution and me, and the chairman of 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam 

Schiff, and you, Chairman Cummings, for likewise defending the 

institution and my family against the attacks by Mr. Trump, and 

also the many Republicans who have admonished the President as 

well. 

I am not a perfect man. I have done things I am not proud of. 

And I will live with the consequences of my actions for the rest of 

my life. But today, I get to decide the example that I set for my 

children, and how I attempt to change how history will remember 

me. I may not be able to change the past, but I can do right by 

the American people here today. 

I thank you for your attention, and I’m happy to answer the committee’s questions. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL D. COHEN COMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND REFORM U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me here today. 

I have asked this Committee to ensure that my family be protected from Presidential threats, and that the Committee be sensitive to the questions pertaining to 

ongoing investigations. Thank you for your help and for your understanding. 

I am here under oath to correct the record, to answer the Committee’s questions 

truthfully, and to offer the American people what I know about President Trump. 

I recognize that some of you may doubt and attack me on my credibility. It is for 

this reason that I have incorporated into this opening statement documents that are 

irrefutable, and demonstrate that the information you will hear is accurate and 

truthful. 

Never in a million years did I imagine, when I accepted a job in 2007 to work 

for Donald Trump, that he would one day run for President, launch a campaign on 

a platform of hate and intolerance, and actually win. I regret the day I said yes to 

Mr. Trump. I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way. 

I am ashamed of my own failings, and I publicly accepted responsibility for them 

by pleading guilty in the Southern District of New York. 

I am ashamed of my weakness and misplaced loyalty — of the things I did for 

Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him. 

I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience. 

I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is. 
17 

He is a racist. 

He is a conman. 

He is a cheat. 

He was a presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails. 

I will explain each in a few moments. 

I am providing the Committee today with several documents. These include: 

• A copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account — after 

he became president — to reimburse me for the hush money payments I made 

to cover up his affair with an adult film star and prevent damage to his campaign; • Copies of financial statements for 2011 – 2013 that he gave to such institutions 

as Deutsche Bank; • A copy of an article with Mr. Trump’s handwriting on it that reported on the 

auction of a portrait of himself — he arranged for the bidder ahead of time and 

then reimbursed the bidder from the account of his non-profit charitable foundation, with the picture now hanging in one of his country clubs; and • Copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high 

school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores. 

I hope my appearance here today, my guilty plea, and my work with law enforcement agencies are steps along a path of redemption that will restore faith in me 

and help this country understand our president better. 

* * * * * * * 

Before going further, I want to apologize to each of you and to Congress as a 

whole. 

The last time I appeared before Congress, I came to protect Mr. Trump. Today, 

I’m here to tell the truth about Mr. Trump. 

I lied to Congress about when Mr. Trump stopped negotiating the Moscow Tower 

project in Russia. I stated that we stopped negotiating in January 2016. That was 

false — our negotiations continued for months later during the campaign. 

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates. 

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively 

negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tellme there’s no 

business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the 

same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie. 

There were at least a half-dozen times between the Iowa Caucus in January 2016 

and the end of June when he would ask me ′′it going in Russia?′′ referring to the 

Moscow Tower project. 

You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my 

statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before 

I gave it. 

To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations 

throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds 

of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project. 

And so I lied about it, too — because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, through 

his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies 

to the country, that he wanted me to lie. And he made itclear to me because his 

personal attorneys reviewed my statement before I gave it to Congress. 

* * * * * * * 

Over the past two years, I have been smeared as ′′a rat′′ by the President of the 

United States. The truth is much different, and let me take a brief moment to introduce myself. 

My name is Michael Dean Cohen. 

I am a blessed husband of 24 years and a father to an incredible daughter and 

son. When I married my wife, I promised her that I would love her, cherish her, 

and protect her. As my father said countless times throughout my childhood, ′′you 

my wife, and you my children, are the air that I breathe.′′ To my Laura, my Sami, 

and my Jake, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to protect you. 

I have always tried to live a life of loyalty, friendship, generosity, and compassion 

— qualities my parents ingrained in my siblings and me since childhood. My father 

survived the Holocaust thanks to the compassion and selfless acts of others. He was 

helped by many who put themselves in harm’s way to do what they knew was right. 

That is why my first instinct has always been to help those in need. Mom and 

Dad...I am sorry that I let you down. 
18 

As many people that know me best would say, I am the person they would call 

at 3AM if they needed help. I proudly remember being the emergency contact for 

many of my children’s friends when they were growing up because their parents 

knew that I would drop everything and care for them as if they were my own. 

Yet, last fall I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual #1. 

For the record: Individual #1 is President Donald J. Trump. 

It is painful to admit that I was motivated by ambition at times. It is even more 

painful to admit that many times I ignored my conscience and acted loyal to a man 

when I should not have. Sitting here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were 

absolutely wrong. 

For that reason, I have come here to apologize to my family, to the government, 

and to the American people. 

* * * * * * * 

Accordingly, let me now tell you about Mr. Trump. 

I got to know him very well, working very closely with him for more than 10 

years, as his Executive Vice President and Special Counsel and then personal attorney when he became President. When I first met Mr. Trump, he was a successful 

entrepreneur, a real estate giant, and an icon. Being around Mr. Trump was intoxicating. When you were in his presence, you felt like you were involved in something 

greater than yourself — that you were somehow changing the world. 

I wound up touting the Trump narrative for over a decade. That was my job. Always stay on message. Always defend. It monopolized my life. At first, I worked 

mostly on real estate developments and other business transactions. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump brought me into his personal life and private dealings. Over time, 

I saw his true character revealed. 

Mr. Trump is an enigma. He is complicated, as am I. He has both good and bad, 

as do we all. But the bad far outweighs the good, and since taking office, he has 

become the worst version of himself. He is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not 

kind. He is capable of committing acts of generosity, but he is not generous. He is 

capable of being loyal, but he is fundamentally disloyal. 

Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make 

our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation — only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say, this 

campaign was going to be the ′′greatest infomercial in political history.′′ 

He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign — for him — was always a marketing opportunity. 

I knew early on in my work for Mr. Trump that he would direct me to lie to further his business interests. I am ashamed to say, that when it was for a real estate 

mogul in the private sector, I considered it trivial. As the President, I consider it 

significant and dangerous. 

But in the mix, lying for Mr. Trump was normalized, and no one around him 

questioned it. In fairness, no one around him today questions it, either. 

A lot of people have asked me about whether Mr. Trump knew about the release 

of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of time. The answer is 

yes. 

As I earlier stated, Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the 

WikiLeaks drop of emails. 

In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office 

when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put 

Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten 

off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within 

a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of ′′wouldn’t that be great.′′ 

Mr. Trump is a racist. The country has seen Mr. Trump court white supremacists 

and bigots. You have heard him call poorer countries ′′shitholes.′′ 

In private, he is even worse. 

He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t 

a ′′shithole.′′ This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States. 

While we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he 

commented that only black people could live that way. 

And, he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were 

too stupid. 

And yet I continued to work for him. 

Mr. Trump is a cheat. 
19 

As previously stated, I’m giving the Committee today three years of President 

Trump’s financial statements, from 2011-2013, which he gave to Deutsche Bank to 

inquire about a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills and to Forbes. These are Exhibits 1a, 

1b, and 1c to my testimony. 

It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his 

purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and 

deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes. 

I am sharing with you two newspaper articles, side by side, that are examples 

of Mr. Trump inflating and deflating his assets, as I said, to suit his financial interests. These are Exhibit 2 to my testimony. 

As I noted, I’m giving the Committee today an article he wrote on, and sent me, 

that reported on an auction of a portrait of Mr. Trump. This is Exhibit3A to my 

testimony. 

Mr. Trump directed me to find a straw bidder to purchase a portrait of him that 

was being auctioned at an Art Hamptons Event. The objective was to ensure that 

his portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price 

of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for 

$60,000. Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. 

Please see Exhibit 3B to my testimony. 

And it should come as no surprise that one of my more common responsibilities 

was that Mr. Trump directed me to call business owners, many of whom were small 

businesses, that were owed money for their services and told them no payment or 

a reduced payment would be coming. When I advised Mr. Trump of my success, he 

actually reveled in it. 

And yet, I continued to work for him. 

Mr. Trump is a conman. 

He asked me to pay off an adult film star with whom he had an affair, and to 

lie to his wife about it, which I did. Lying to the First Lady is one of my biggest 

regrets. She is a kind, good person. I respect her greatly — and she did not deserve 

that. 

I am giving the Committee today a copy of the $130,000 wire transfer from me 

to Ms. Clifford’s attorney during the closing days of the presidential campaign that 

was demanded by Ms. Clifford to maintain her silence about her affair with Mr. 

Trump. This is Exhibit 4 to my testimony. 

Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a Home Equity Line 

of Credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact 

his campaign. I did that, too — without bothering to consider whether that was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do or how it would impact me, 

my family, or the public. 

I am going to jail in part because of my decision to help Mr. Trump hide that 

payment from the American people before they voted a few days later. 

As Exhibit 5 to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of a $35,000 check 

that President Trump personally signed from his personal bank account on August 

1, 2017 — when he was President of the United States — pursuant to the coverup, which was the basis of my guilty plea, to reimburse me — the word used by 

Mr. Trump’s TV lawyer — for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf. This 

$35,000 check was one of 11 check installments that was paid throughout the year 

— while he was President. 

The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check for the payment 

of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. You 

can find the details of that scheme, directed by Mr. Trump, in the pleadings in the 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

So picture this scene — in February 2017, one month into his presidency, I’m visiting President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time. It’s truly awe-inspiring, 

he’s showing me around and pointing to different paintings, and he says to me 

something to the effect of ...Don’t worry, Michael, your January and February reimbursement checks are coming. They were Fed- Exed from New York and it takes 

a while for that to get through the White House system.′′ As he promised, I received 

the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000 not long thereafter. 

When I say conman, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but 

directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never 

release his grades or SAT scores. 

As I mentioned, I’m giving the Committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr. 

Trump’s direction threatening these schools with civil and criminal actions if Mr. 

Trump’s grades or SAT scores were ever disclosed without his permission. These are 

Exhibit 6. 
20 

The irony wasn’t lost on me at the time that Mr. Trump in 2011 had strongly 

criticized President Obama for not releasing his grades. As you can see in Exhibit 

7, Mr. Trump declared ′′Let him show his records′′ after calling President Obama 

′′a terrible student.′′ 

The sad fact is that I never heard Mr. Trump say anything in private that led 

me to believe he loved our nation or wanted to make it better. In fact, he did the 

opposite. 

When telling me in 2008 that he was cutting employees’ salaries in half including 

mine he showed me what he claimed was a $10 million IRS tax refund, and he said 

that he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving ′′someone like 

him′′ that much money back. 

During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he did not consider Vietnam Veteran, and 

Prisoner of War, Senator John McCain to be ′′a hero′′ because he likes people who 

weren’t captured. At the same time, Mr. Trump tasked me to handle the negative 

press surrounding his medical deferment from the Vietnam draft. 

Mr. Trump claimed it was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical 

records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery. He told me not to answer 

the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received 

a medical deferment. 

He finished the conversation with the following comment. ′′You think I’m stupid, 

I wasn’t going to Vietnam.′′I find it ironic, President Trump, that you are in Vietnam right now. And yet, I continued to work for him. 

* * * * * * * 

Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. 

Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I 

have my suspicions. 

Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that there had been 

a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a representative of the Russian government, and an 

email setting up the meeting with the subject line, ′′Dirt on Hillary Clinton.′′ Something clicked in my mind. I remember being in the room with Mr. Trump, probably 

in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Jr. came into the room 

and walked behind his father’ desk — which in itself was unusual. People didn’t 

just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. I recalled Don Jr. leaning over 

to his father and speaking in a low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying: 

′′The meeting is all set.′′I remember Mr. Trump saying, ′′Ok good...let me know.′′ 

What struck me as I looked back and thought about that exchange between Don 

Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that 

his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in theworld. And also, that Don 

Jr. would never set up any meeting of any significance alone — and certainly not 

without checking with his father.I also knew that nothing went on in Trump world, 

especially the campaign, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge and approval. So, I concluded that Don Jr. was referring to that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting about 

dirt on Hillary with the Russian representative when he walked behind his dad’s 

desk that day — and that Mr. Trump knew that was the meeting Don Jr. was talking about when he said, ′′That’s good...let me know.′′ 

* * * * * * * 

Over the past year or so, I have done some real soul searching. I see now that 

my ambition and the intoxication of Trump power had much to do with the bad decisions I made. 

To you, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, the other members of 

this Committee, and the other members of the House and Senate, I am sorry for 

my lies and for lying to Congress. 

To our nation, I am sorry for actively working to hide from you the truth about 

Mr. Trump when you needed it most. 

For those who question my motives for being here today, I understand. I have 

lied, but I am not a liar. I have done bad things, but I am not a bad man. I have 

fixed things, but I am no longer your ′′fixer,′′ Mr. Trump. 

I am going to prison and have shattered the safety and security that I tried so 

hard to provide for my family. My testimony certainly does not diminishthe pain I 

caused my family and friends — nothing can do that. And I have never asked for, 

nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump. 

And, by coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal, scurrilous attacks by the President and his lawyer — trying to intimidate me from appearing before this panel. Mr. Trump called me a ′′rat′′ for choosing to tell the truth 
21 

— much like a mobster would do when one of his men decides to cooperate with 

the government. 

As Exhibit 8 shows, I have provided the Committee with copies of Tweets that 

Mr. Trump posted, attacking me and my family — only someone burying his head 

in the sand would not recognize them for what they are: encouragement to someone 

to do harm to me and my family. 

I never imagined that he would engage in vicious, false attacks on my family — 

and unleash his TV-lawyer to do the same. I hope this committee and all members 

of Congress on both sides of the aisle will make it clear: As a nation, we should 

not tolerate attempts to intimidate witnesses before congress and attacks on family 

are out of bounds and not acceptable. 

I wish to especially thank Speaker Pelosi for her statements in Exhibit 9 to protect this institution and me, and the Chairman of the House PermanentSelect Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff and Chairman Cummings for likewise defending 

this institution and my family against the attacks by Mr. Trump, and also the many 

Republicans who have admonished the President as well. 

I am not a perfect man. I have done things I am not proud of, and I will live with 

the consequences of my actions for the rest of my life. 

But today, I get to decide the example I set for my children and how I attempt 

to change how history will remember me. I may not be able to change the past, but 

I can do right by the American people here today. 

Thank you for your attention. I am happy to answer the Committee’s questions. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen. I now 

recognize myself. 

Mr. Cohen, before I start, I want to make sure you really understand something. You have admitted lying to Congress, to this very 

body, and now you’re going to prison for it. 

Do you, Mr. Cohen, recognize the gravity of your offenses? 

You are a lawyer, right? 

Mr. COHEN. As of yesterday, I am no longer a lawyer. I have lost 

my law license, amongst other things. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. But you understand the gravity of this moment? 

Mr. COHEN. I most certainly do, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I want you to really hear this, Mr. Cohen. 

We will not tolerate lying to this Congress by anybody. We’re in 

search of the truth. 

Do you understand that? 

Mr. COHEN. I do. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The President has also made numerous 

statements that turned out to be inaccurate. For example, he said 

he knew nothing about the hush money payments to Ms. Clifford. 

And his 2017 financial disclosure form said he never owed money 

to reimburse you for those payments. Yet in your testimony, Mr. 

Cohen, you said that you met with the President in the Oval Office 

in February 2017 and discussed his plans to reimburse you for 

money you paid. 

You say he told you, and I quote, ‘‘Don’t worry, Michael. Your 

January and February reimbursement checks are coming.’’ Is that 

accurate? And was that in the oval office? 

Mr. COHEN. The statement is accurate, but the discussions regarding the reimbursement occurred long before he became President. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Would you explain that? 

Mr. COHEN. Back in 2017 when—actually, I apologize. In 2016, 

prior to the election, I was contacted by Keith Davidson, who is the 

attorney—or was the attorney for Ms. Clifford, or Stormy Daniels. 
22 

And after several rounds of conversations with him about purchasing her life rights for $130,000, what I did, each and every 

time, is go straight into Mr. Trump’s office and discuss the issue 

with him, when it was ultimately determined, and this was days 

before the election, that Mr. Trump was going to pay the $130,000, 

in the office with me was Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. He acknowledged to Allen that he 

was going to pay the 130,000, and that Allen and I should go back 

to his office and figure out how to do it. 

So, yes, sir I stand by the statement that I gave, but there was 

a history to it. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. In your testimony, you said you bought 

some checks; is that right? 

You said you brought some checks? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Let me ask you about one of these. 

This is from the Trump Trust that holds the President’s businesses, can you tell me who signed this check? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe that the top signature is Donald Trump, 

Jr., and that the bottom signature, I believe, is Allen Weisselberg’s. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. And can you tell me the date of that 

check? 

Mr. COHEN. March 17 of 2017. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Now, wait, wait a minute. Hold up. The 

date on the check is after President Trump held his big press conference claiming that he gave up control of his businesses. How 

could the President have arranged for you to get this check if he 

was supposedly playing no role in his business? 

Mr. COHEN. Because the payments were designed to be paid over 

the course of 12 months, and it was declared to be a retainer for 

services that would be provided for the year of 2017. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Was there a retainer agreement? 

Mr. COHEN. There was no retainer agreement. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Would Don Jr. or Mr. Weisselberg have 

more information about that? 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Weisselberg for sure about the entire discussions 

and negotiations prior to the election, and Don Jr. would have cursory information. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Now here’s another one. This one appears 

to be signed by Donald Trump himself. Is that his signature? 

Mr. COHEN. That is Donald Trump’s signature. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. So let me make sure I understand. Donald 

Trump wrote you a check out of his personal account while he was 

serving as President of the United States of America to reimburse 

you for hush money payments to Ms. Clifford. Is that what you are 

telling the American people today? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. One final question. The President claimed 

he knew nothing about these payments. His ethics filing said he 

owed nothing to you. Based on your conversations with him is 

there any doubt in your mind that President Trump knew exactly 

what he was paying for? 
23 

Mr. COHEN. There is no doubt in my mind, and I truly believe 

there is no doubt in the mind of the people of the United States 

of America. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. And these new documents appear to corroborate what you just told us. 

With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. JORDAN. I will make sure that you and I meet one day while 

we are in the courthouse, and I will take you for every penny you 

still don’t have, and I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know. So I am warning you, tread very 

f’ing lightly because what I am going to do to you is going to be 

f’ing disgusting. Do you understand me? 

Mr. Cohen, who said that. 

Mr. COHEN. I did. 

Mr. JORDAN. And did you say that, Mr. Cohen—in your testimony on page 2 you said you did things for Mr. Trump in an effort 

to protect him. Was that Statement that I just read that you admitted to saying, did you do that to protect Donald Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. I did it to protect Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., 

Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump. 

Mr. JORDAN. And in your sentencing statement back in December 

in front of the judge you said this, Mr. Cohen: My weakness can 

be characterized as a blind loyalty to Donald Trump, a blind loyalty 

that led me to choose a path of darkness. Is that accurate, Mr. 

Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. I wrote that. 

Mr. JORDAN. You wrote that and said that in front of the judge. 

Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me read a few other things here, and let me ask 

you why you did some of these things. 

When you filed a false tax return in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 

2016, was all that out of blind loyalty to the President? 

Mr. COHEN. No, it was not. 

Mr.JORDAN. When you failed to report $4 million in income to 

the Internal Revenue Service did you do that to protect Donald 

Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. No, I did not. 

Mr. JORDAN. And when you failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes — 

I got constituents who don’t make that in a lifetime — when you 

failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes to the U.S. Treasury was that 

out of some blind loyalty to the President of the United States? 

Mr. COHEN. It was not. But the number was 1.38 and change, 

and I have paid that money back to the IRS at this time. 

Mr. JORDAN. I think the American people will appreciate that 

1.38 versus 1.4. 

Mr. COHEN. And I would also just like to say it was over a course 

of five years, approximately $260,000 a year. 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s what I said, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, that’s 

five years. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Got it. When you made false statements to financial 

institutions concerning a home equity line of credit, taxi medallions, and your Park Avenue apartment in 2013, 2014, and 2015, 
24 

you pled guilty to making those false statements to those banks, 

was that all done to protect the President? 

Mr. COHEN. No, it was not. 

Mr. JORDAN. How about this one. When you created the fake 

Twitter account Women for Cohen and paid a firm to post tweets 

like this one, ‘‘In a world of lies, deception, and fraud we appreciate 

this honest guy @MichaelCohen, #TGIF, #handsome, #sexy,’’ was 

that done to protect the President? 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Jordan, I didn’t actually set that up. It was done 

by a young lady that worked for RedFinch. And during the course 

of the campaign, which you would know, it is somewhat crazy and 

wild. We were having fun. That’s what it was, sir. We were having 

fun. 

Mr. JORDAN. Was it done to protect the President? 

Mr. COHEN. That was not done to protect the President. 

Mr. JORDAN. Was it a fake Twitter account? 

Mr. COHEN. That was—no, that was a real Twitter account. It 

exists. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you pay a firm to create this Twitter account 

Women for Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. I didn’t pay the firm to do that. It was done by a 

young lady that works for the firm. And, again, sir, we were having 

fun during a stressful time. 

Mr. JORDAN. The point is, Mr. Cohen, did you lie to protect the 

President or did you lie to help yourself? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not sure how that helped me, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m not sure how it did either. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. The point is I think—— 

Mr. COHEN. And I would like to also note that more than half 

the people—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And here’s the point—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. on that site are men. 

Mr. JORDAN. Here’s the point. The chairman just gave you a 30- 

minute opening statement, and you have a history of lying over 

and over and over again. 

And, frankly, don’t take my word for it, take what the court said, 

take what the Southern District of New York said: Cohen did 

crimes that were marked by a pattern of deception and that permeated his professional life. These crimes were distinct in their 

harms but bear a common set of circumstances. They each involved 

deception and were each, each motivated by personal greed and 

ambition. 

A pattern of deception for personal greed and ambition. And you 

just got 30 minutes of an opening statement where you trashed the 

President of the United States of America. 

Mr. Cohen, how long did you work for Donald Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. Approximately a decade. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ten years? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. And you said all these bad things about the President there in that last 30 minutes, and yet you worked for him for 

10 years? All those bad things. I mean, if it is that bad I can see 
25 

you working for him for 10 days, maybe 10 weeks, maybe even 10 

months, but you worked for him for 10 years. 

Mr. Cohen, how long did you work in the White House? 

Mr. COHEN. I never worked in the White House. 

Mr. JORDAN. And that’s the point, isn’t it, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, it is. 

Mr. COHEN. No, it is not, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. You wanted to work in the White House—— 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. and you didn’t get brought to the 

dance. And now—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, I was extremely proud to be personal attorney 

to the President of the United States of America. I did not want 

to go to the White House. I was offered jobs. I can tell you a story 

of Mr. Trump reaming out Reince Priebus because I had not taken 

a job where Mr. Trump wanted me to, which is working with Don 

McGahn at the White House General Counsel’s Office. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cohen, you worked for the President for—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, one second. All right. What I said at the time, 

and I brought a lawyer in who produced a memo as to why I should 

not go in, because there would be no attorney-client privilege. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cohen—— 

Mr. COHEN. And in order to handle some of the matters that I 

talked about in my opening, that it would be best suited for me not 

to go in and that every President had a personal attorney. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cohen, here’s what I see, here’s what I see. I 

see a guy who worked for 10 years and is here trashing the guy 

he worked for for 10 years, didn’t get a job in the White House, and 

now—and now you are behaving just like everyone else who’s got 

fired or didn’t get the job they wanted, like Andy McCabe, like 

James Comey, same kind of selfish motivation after you don’t get 

the thing you want. That’s what I see here today, and I think that’s 

what the American people see. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Jordan, all I wanted was what I got, to be personal attorney to the President, to enjoy the senior year of my son 

in high school and waiting for my daughter who is graduating from 

college to come back to New York. I got exactly what I want. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. JORDAN. Exactly what you want? 

Mr. COHEN. What I wanted. That’s right. 

Mr. JORDAN. You are going to prison. 

Mr. COHEN. I received exactly what I wanted. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, thank you for being here today. 

As you likely know, I served as the chair of the Democratic National Committee at the time of the Russian hacks and when Russia weaponized the messages that it had stolen. 

But I want to be clear my questions are not about the harm done 

to any individual by WikiLeaks and the Russians, it is about the 

possible and likely harm to the United States of America and our 
26 

democracy. I have a series of questions that I hope will connect 

more of these dots. 

Mr. Cohen, is it your testimony that Mr. Trump had advance 

knowledge of the Russia–WikiLeaks release of the DNC’s emails? 

Mr. COHEN. I can’t — I cannot answer that in a yes or no. He 

had advance notice that there was going to be a dump of emails, 

but at no time did I hear the specificity of what those emails were 

going to be. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But you do testify today that he had 

advance knowledge of their imminent release. 

Mr. COHEN. That is what I had stated in my testimony. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that he shared that outcome? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Did Mr. Trump likely share this information with his daughter Ivanka, son Don Jr., or Jared Kushner? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Was Ivanka, Jared, or Don Jr. still involved in the Russian Tower deal at that time? 

Mr. COHEN. The company was involved in the deal, which meant 

that the family was involved in the deal. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If Mr. Trump and his daughter 

Ivanka and son Donald Jr. are involved in the Russian Trump 

Tower deal, is it possible the whole family is conflicted or compromised with a foreign adversary in the months before the election? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Based on your experience with the 

President and knowledge of his relationship with Mr. Stone, do you 

have reason to believe that the President explicitly or implicitly authorized Mr. Stone to make contact with WikiLeaks and to indicate 

the campaign’s interest in the strategic release of these illegally 

hacked materials? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Was Mr. Stone a free agent reporting 

back to the President what he had done or was he an agent of the 

campaign acting on behalf of the President and with his apparent 

authority? 

Mr. COHEN. No, he was a free agent. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A free agent that was reporting back 

to the President what he had done? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. He frequently reached out to Mr. Trump, 

and Mr. Trump was very happy to take his calls. It was free service. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Roger Stone says he never spoke with 

Mr. Trump about WikiLeaks. How can we corroborate what you are 

saying? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know, but I suspect that the special counsel’s 

office and other government agencies have the information that you 

are seeking. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Moving on to a little later in 2016, a 

major WikiLeaks dump happens hours after the Access Hollywood 

tape is released. Do you believe or are you aware of Mr. Trump coordinating or signaling for this email dump? 
27 

Mr.COHEN. I’m unaware of that. I actually was not even in the 

country at the time of the Billy Bush tape. I was in London visiting 

my daughter. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Knowing how Mr. Trump operates 

with his winning at all costs mentality, do you believe that he 

would cooperate or collude with a foreign power to win the Presidency? Is he capable of that? 

Mr. COHEN. It calls on so much speculation, ma’am, it would be 

unfair for me to give an answer to that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I understand, but you have a tremendous amount of experience—— 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Trump, he is all about winning, and he will do 

what is necessary to win. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And in your opinion and experience, 

would he have the potential to cooperate or collude with a foreign 

power to win the Presidency at all costs? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Based on what you know, would Mr. 

Trump or did he lie about colluding and coordinating with the Russians at any point during the campaign? 

Mr. COHEN. So as I stated in my testimony, I wouldn’t use the 

word colluding. Was there something odd about the back and forth 

praise with President Putin? Yes. But I’m not really sure that I can 

answer that question in terms of collusion. 

I was not part of the campaign. I don’t know the other conversations that Mr. Trump had with other individuals. There’s just so 

many dots that all seem to lead to the same direction. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Finally, before my time expires, Mr. 

Cohen, the campaign and the entire Trump Organization appeared 

to be filthy with Russian contacts. There are Russian business contacts, there are campaign Russian contacts, there are lies about all 

of those contacts. And then we have Roger Stone informing the 

President just before the Democratic National Convention that 

WikiLeaks was going to drop documents in the public arena that 

we knew at that point were hacked and stolen by Russia from the 

Democratic National Committee. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. You 

may answer her inquiry quickly. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My question is, given all those connections, is it likely that Donald Trump was fully aware and had every 

intent of working with Russia to help make sure that he could win 

the Presidency at all costs? 

Mr. COHEN. So let me say that this is a matter that’s currently 

being handled by the House Select and the Senate Select Intelligence Committees, as I would rather not answer that specific 

question, other than just to tell you that Mr. Trump’s desire to win 

would have him work with anyone. 

And one other thing that I had said in my statement is that 

when it came to the Trump Tower Moscow project, it was worth 

hundreds of millions of dollars, and we never expected to win the 

election. So this was just business as usual. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Green of Tennessee. 
28 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jordan. 

The chairman and this committee have promised members of the 

American people a fair and open process, yet the Democrats have 

vastly limited the scope of this hearing. They issued a gag order 

to try to tell members of this committee what we can and cannot 

talk about. 

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that they want 

the truth, that they want transparency and fair oversight, yet the 

Democrats’ witness to testify before Congress today is none other 

than a scorned man who is going to prison for lying to Congress. 

Let that sink in. He is going to prison for lying to Congress, and 

he is the star witness to Congress. 

If you read the sentencing report on Mr. Cohen words like ‘‘deceptive’’ and ‘‘greedy’’ are scattered throughout that report. It 

paints a picture of a narcissist, a bully who cannot tell the truth, 

whether it is about the President or about his own personal life. 

But today he is the majority party’s star witness. 

If the Democrats were after the truth, they’d have an honest person here testifying. And if they were really after the truth, they’d 

not restrict the questioning to just a few topics. But let’s take a 

look at those restricted topics. 

Mr. Chairman, the first topic in your limited scope that I can ask 

Mr. Cohen is about the President’s debts. But, Mr. Chairman, 

didn’t Mr. Cohen plead guilty to lying to banks about his personal 

finances? So we are asking a guy going to jail for lying about his 

debts to comment about the President’s debts. He is the expert. 

Mr. Chairman, your next couple of topics say that I can ask Mr. 

Cohen about the President’s compliance with financial disclosures 

and campaign finance laws. But didn’t Mr. Cohen on two occasions 

break campaign finance law with his own donations? So again, the 

majority party’s star witness on the President’s compliance is a guy 

who broke compliance laws himself. 

Mr. Chairman, you graciously allow us to ask questions of Mr. 

Cohen on the President’s dealings with the IRS and tax law. Your 

star witness here broke the law with regards to the IRS at least 

five times. He pled guilty on cheating on his taxes, lying to the 

IRS. He’s the best witness you got? 

Next up, with the permission of the chairman I get to ask Mr. 

Cohen about his perspective on the President’s business dealings. 

Let me get this straight. The witness lied to multiple financial institutions to get loans to pay off other loans just to keep himself 

afloat, and he is going to be the expert on business practices. 

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the witness may produce documents 

that he suggests incriminates the President, yet he lies to banks. 

All of those lies were done on fraudulent documents, documents 

that he forged. Nothing he says or produces has any credibility. Apparently he even lied about delivering his own child, which his wife 

had to correct the record. 

Ladies and gentlemen, how on earth is this witness credible? 

With all the lies and deception, the self-serving fraud, it begs the 

question, what is the majority party doing here? No one can see 

this guy as credible. He will say whatever he wants to accomplish 

his own personal goals. He is a fake witness, and his presence here 
29 

is a travesty. I hope the American people see through this. I know 

the people back in Tennessee will. 

And with that statement, sir, I have a few questions for the witness. 

With your loss of your law license—I think you mentioned in 

your opening statement that you had been disbarred—what is your 

source of income in the future? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t expect I’m going to have a source of income 

when I’m in Federal penitentiary. 

Mr. GREEN. Is there a book deal coming or anything like that? 

Mr. COHEN. I have no book deal right now in the process. I have 

been contacted by many, including for television, a movie. If you 

want to tell me who you would like to play you I’m more than 

happy to write the name down. 

Mr. GREEN. I’m sure there is a very attractive man. 

Mr. COHEN. I would also like to turn around and just to correct 

your statement on me. No individual—— 

Mr. GREEN. Let me ask one other question, though. I only have 

a limited amount of time. 

Mr. COHEN. No individual—— 

Mr. GREEN. One quick question. Who paid your expenses to be 

here today? 

Mr. COHEN. Who has paid my expenses? 

Mr. GREEN. To be here today. 

Mr. COHEN. I paid my expenses. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remaining 

of my time to the ranking member. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cohen, how many times did you talk to the special counsel’s office? 

Mr. COHEN. Seven. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did they talk to you at all in preparation for today’s 

hearing between the seven times you talked to them prior to your 

sentencing? Have you had any conversations with the special counsel’s office between sentencing and today? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, sir. I don’t understand your question. 

Mr. JORDAN. You talked to them seven times, that’s in the sentencing memorandums that were in front of the court back in December. What I’m asking is how many times you have talked to the 

special counsel’s office since then up to today’s appearance here in 

Congress? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You 

may answer the question, though, that one question. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry. I don’t have the answer to that. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Maloney. 

Mr. JORDAN. That wasn’t—well, I will come back to that. 

Ms. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Cohen, in your 10 years of working for Donald Trump 

did he control everything that went on in the Trump Organization? 

And did you have to get his permission in advance and report back 

after every meeting of any importance. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. There was nothing that happened at The 

Trump Organization, from whether it was a response, as the Daily 

Beast story that you referred to, Ranking Member, that did not go 
30 

through Mr. Trump with his approval and sign-off, as in the case 

of the payments. 

Ms. MALONEY. How many times did the President, Michael, ask 

you or direct you to try to reach settlements with women in 2015 

and 2016? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, ma’am, I don’t have the answer to that. 

I’d have to go back and try to recollect. It’s certainly the two that 

we know about. 

Ms. MALONEY. And why do you think the President did not provide the accurate information in his 2017 financial disclosure form? 

What was he trying to hide? He corrected other forms, but he 

didn’t correct this one. 

Mr. COHEN. The payments on the reimbursement of the funds 

that I extended on his behalf. 

Ms. MALONEY. All right. Can you elaborate more? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, going back into the story as I stated, when we, 

Allen Weisselberg and I, left the office and we went to his office 

in order to make the determination on how the money was going 

to be wired to the IOLA, the interest on the lawyer’s account for 

Keith Davidson in California, I had asked Allen to use his money, 

didn’t want to use mine, and he said he couldn’t, and we then decided how else we can do it. 

And he asked me whether or not I know anybody who wants to 

have a party at one of his clubs that could pay me instead or somebody who may have wanted to become a member of one of the golf 

clubs, and I also don’t have anybody that was interested in that. 

And it got to the point where it was down to the wire, it was either somebody wire the funds and purchase the life rights to the 

story from Ms. Clifford or it was going to end up being sold to television, and that would have embarrassed the President and it 

would have interfered with the election. 

Ms. MALONEY. But the President has never amended his 2017 

form to this day, and while you are facing the consequences of 

going to jail, he is not. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I believe that they amended a financial disclosure form and there is a footnote somewhere buried. I don’t recall 

specifically what it says, but there is a footnote buried somewhere. 

Ms. MALONEY. Can you describe, Michael, to the American people, catch and kill? 

Mr. COHEN. So catch and kill is a method that exists when you 

are working with a news outlet — in this specific case it was AMI, 

National Enquirer, David Pecker, Dylan Howard, and others — 

where they would contact me or Mr. Trump or someone and state 

that there’s a story that’s percolating out there that you may be interested in. And then what you do is you contact that individual 

and you purchase the rights to that story from them. 

Ms. MALONEY. And you practiced this for the President? 

Mr. COHEN. I was involved in several of these catch and kill episodes. But these catch and kill scenarios existed between David 

Pecker and Mr. Trump long before I started working for him in 

2007. 

Ms. MALONEY. Michael, can you suggest who else this committee 

should talk to for additional information on this or anything else? 
31 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I believe David Pecker, Dylan Howard, Barry 

Levine of AMI, as well, Allen Weisselberg, Alan Garten of Trump 

Organization, as well. 

Ms. MALONEY. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

And, Mr. Chairman, this is a story of redemption. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Comer. 

Mr. COMER. Mr. Cohen, in your testimony you stated that you 

began work for The Trump Organization as a lawyer dealing with 

real estate transactions. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. COMER. Prior to coming to Congress, I served as the director 

of two different banks, so I have seen hundreds of loan applications. And to try to determine your credibility here today I just 

wanted to ask you a couple of real estate transaction questions just 

to see how, in fact, you operate. 

According to the Southern District of New York prosecutors, you 

lied to banks to secure loans by falsely stating the amount of debt 

you were carrying. Mr. Cohen, my question to you, was it Donald 

Trump’s fault that you knowingly committed a crime of deception 

to defraud a bank? 

Mr. COHEN. No, it’s not. 

Mr. COMER. Was that fraudulent loan you obtained for The 

Trump Organization or for you personally? 

Mr. COHEN. It would be for me, though I’m not familiar with 

which loan that you are referring to. 

I would like to say one thing. Sir, I would like just to respond. 

The loan that you are talking about when we are talking about the 

home equity line of credit, which is what I believe you are referring 

to, no — no individual—— 

Mr. COMER. We are also referring to — I’m going to ask a question pertaining to your summer home that you purchased. 

Mr. COHEN. I never purchased a summer home. No individual or 

no bank in the 22 years that I have had loans have ever lost a dollar with me. I owe no money to any bank. 

Mr. COMER. Well, the banks usually find out if someone is trying 

to deceive them. 

Did your so-called blind loyalty—— 

Mr. COHEN. In 22 years I have no money that’s ever been owed 

to any individual or any bank. 

Mr. COMER. Mr. Cohen, did your so-called blind loyalty to the 

President cause you to defraud the bank for your own personal 

gain? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, I take exception to that because there’s never 

been a fraud on a — I never defrauded any bank. 

Mr. COMER. Well, let’s dig a little deeper on that, on the bank 

fraud. According to the Southern District of New York, you failed 

to disclose more than $20 million in liabilities, as well as tens of 

thousands of dollars of monthly expenses. That’s according to the 

Southern District of New York. 

Now, Mr. Cohen, you being lawyer, surely you knew you were 

breaking the law. Now, why would you have done that? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, I’m not a CPA. And I pled guilty. I am going 

to prison as a result of it. 
32 

Mr. COMER. Because you’re a con? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir, because I pled guilty, and I am going to be 

doing the time. I have caused tremendous, tremendous pain to my 

family, and I take no happiness—— 

Mr. COMER. Let’s go back to the — one last question about the 

bank. When the bank found out about the liabilities that you failed 

to disclose you lied again to the bank — this according to the 

Southern District of New York — and said it had been expunged 

when, in fact, you just shifted the debt to another bank. 

So apparently, according to the information that we received, 

your intent to defraud the bank was for the desire to purchase the 

summer home for $8.5 million? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. COMER. That’s not correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That would have been off of an equity line considering I had less than a 50 percent loan to value on the assets. And 

there was a preexisting line of credit that existed years before the 

date that you are referring to where—this is all surrounding New 

York City taxi medallions. 

Mr. COMER. But you understand that when you fail to disclose 

liabilities, especially $20 million in liabilities, that is, in fact, 

fraud? 

Mr. COHEN. Except even with the $20 million in liability—— 

Mr. COMER. How much was it? 

Mr. COHEN. The medallions were at that time worth over $45 

million. 

Mr. COMER. Mr. Cohen, you called Donald Trump a cheat in your 

opening testimony. What would you call yourself? 

Mr. COHEN. A fool. 

Mr. COMER. You calling — OK. Well, no comment on that. 

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, we said we were in search of the 

truth. I don’t believe that Michael Cohen is capable of telling the 

truth. 

And I would hope that as this committee moves forward that 

when we have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses we subpoena 

witnesses that are not recently disbarred, are not convicted felons, 

and witnesses that haven’t committed bank fraud and tax fraud. 

That is how we’re going to determine the truth. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I would just make one point. We just had a five-minute debate 

where Mr. Cohen disputes what the Southern District of New York 

found, what the judge found, that he was actually guilty of committing bank fraud. 

If this statement back here doesn’t say it all: Cohen’s consciousness of wrongdoing is fleeting. His remorse is minimal. His instinct 

to blame others is strong. 

There’s only one thing wrong with that statement: His remorse 

is nonexistent. He just debated a Member of Congress saying: I 

really didn’t do anything wrong with the false bank things that I’m 

guilty of and going to prison for. 
33 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Jordan, that’s not what I said, and you know 

that that’s not what I said. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COHEN. I said I pled guilty and I take responsibility for my 

actions. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You 

may answer the question. 

Mr. COHEN. Shame on you, Mr. Jordan. That’s not what I said. 

Shame on you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s not what I said. What I said is I took responsibility and I take responsibility. What I was doing is explaining 

to the gentleman that his facts are inaccurate. 

I still — I take responsibility for my mistakes, all right? I am remorseful, and I am going to prison. I will be away from my wife 

and family for years. So before you turn around and you cast more 

aspersions—— 

Mr. JORDAN. We all feel for that. I understand that. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. please understand there are people 

watching you today that know me a whole lot better. 

I made mistakes. I own them. And I didn’t fight with the Southern District of New York. I didn’t put the system through an entire 

scenario. But what I did do is I pled guilty, and I am going to be, 

again, going to prison. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cohen, at the center of the reasons you are 

going to prison is convictions for campaign finance violations, and 

they center around some salacious revelations. 

The Washington Post reported or aired an Access Hollywood 

video. It set a record for the number of people who watched, 

crashed the newspaper’s server. 

But this happened in early October on the cusp of the election. 

What was Mr. Trump’s reaction to the video becoming public at 

that time and was he concerned about the impact of that video on 

the election? 

Mr. COHEN. The answer is yes. As I stated before, I was in London at the time visiting my daughter, who is studying there for a 

Washington semester abroad, and I received a phone call during 

the dinner from Hope Hicks stating that she had just spoken to 

Mr. Trump and we need you to start making phone calls to the various different news outlets that you have relationships with, and 

we need to spin this. What we want to do is just to claim that this 

was men locker room talk. 

Ms. NORTON. Was the concern about the election in particular? 

Mr. COHEN. The answer is yes. 

Then, couple that with Karen McDougal, which then came out 

around the same time. And then on top of that the Stormy Daniels 

matter. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah, and these things happened in the month before the election and almost one after the other. The Stormy Daniels revelation where prosecutors and officials—the prosecutors 

learned of that—of that matter and prosecutors stated that the officials at the magazine contacted you about the story. And the maga-
34 

zine, of course, is the National Enquirer. Is that correct, that they 

did come to you? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Were you concerned about this news story becoming public right after the Access Hollywood study in terms of impact on the election? 

Mr. COHEN. I was concerned about it, but more importantly, Mr. 

Trump was concerned about it. 

Ms. NORTON. That was my next question. What was the President’s concern about these matters becoming public in October as 

we were about to go into an election? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t think anybody would dispute this belief that 

after the wildfire that encompassed the Billy Bush tape, that a second followup to it would have been pleasant. And he was concerned 

with the effect that it had had on the campaign, on how women 

were seeing him, and ultimately whether or not he would have a 

shot in the general election. 

Ms. NORTON. And so you negotiated the $130,000 payment. 

Mr. COHEN. The $130,000 number was not a number that was 

actually negotiated. It was told to me by Keith Davidson that this 

is a number that Ms. Clifford wanted. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you finally completed that deal, as it were, 

on October the 25th. 

Mr. COHEN. Twenty-eighth. 

Ms. NORTON. Days before the election. What happened in the interim? 

Mr. COHEN. Contemplated whether or not to do it. Wasn’t sure 

if she was really going to go public. It was again some communications back and forth between myself and Keith Davidson. 

And ultimately it came to either do it or don’t, at which time, 

again, I had gone into Mr. Trump’s office, as I did after each and 

every conversation, and he had told me that he had spoken to a 

couple of friends, and it is 130,000, it is not a lot of money, and 

we should just do it, so go ahead and do it. And I was at the time 

with Allen Weisselberg, where he directed us to go back to Mr. 

Weisselberg’s office and figure this all out. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Cohen, do you know Lynne Patton? I’m right 

here. 

Mr. COHEN. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you know Lynne Patton? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I asked Lynne to come today in her personal capacity to actually shed some light. 

How long have you known Ms. Patton? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m responsible for Lynne Patton joining The Trump 

Organization and the job that she currently holds. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, that’s — I’m glad you acknowledged that, 

because you made some very demeaning comments about the President that Ms. Patton doesn’t agree with. In fact, it has to do with 

your claim of racism. She says that as a daughter of a man born 

in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way that she would 

work for an individual who was racist. 
35 

How do you reconcile the two of those? 

Mr. COHEN. As neither should I, as the son of a Holocaust survivor. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But, Mr. Cohen, I guess what I’m saying is, is I 

have talked to the President over 300 times. I have not heard one 

time a racist comment out of his mouth in private. 

So how do you reconcile it? Do you have proof of those conversations? 

Mr. COHEN. I would ask you to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you have tape recordings of those conversations? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you have taped everybody else, why 

wouldn’t you have a tape of—— 

Mr. COHEN. That’s also not true, sir. That’s not true. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You haven’t taped anybody? 

Mr. COHEN. I have taped individuals. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many times have you taped individuals? 

Mr. COHEN. Maybe 100 times over 10 years. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is that a low estimate? Because I have heard it 

is over 200 times. 

Mr. COHEN. No, I don’t think. I think it is approximately about 

100, from what I recall. But I was asked—you asked me a question, 

sir, so here’s—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you have proof? Do you have proof, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. I do. I do. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Where is the proof? 

Mr. COHEN. Ask Ms. Patton how many people who are Black are 

executives at The Trump Organization, and the answer is zero. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Cohen, we can go through this. 

I would ask unanimous consent that her entire statement be put 

in the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Statement from Lynne Patton 

As someone who considered Michael Cohen one of my very best friends for the 

past 10–plus years, virtually inseparable during our tenure at the Trump Organization (and even before) having personally introduced me to the Trump family, leading 

to my subsequent employment therein, and arguably, my current job, the only word 

that comes to mind this week is sad. 

I am sad that Michael has elected to leverage his own personal illegal activities 

into nothing more than political theater this week with the sole partisan purpose 

to embarrass a sitting President with unfounded personal or professional gossip . 

I am sad that Michael would turn his back on a man to whom he has repeatedly 

said he owes everything in the hope of a reduced prison sentence. 

Lastly, I’m sad for myself. 

Sad that I have wasted so much time and energy caring, supporting and loving 

a man I now realize I truly never knew. 

If Michael Cohen had anything of substance to offer against the President of the 

United States, Mueller would not have rejected his plea for leniency and Cohen 

would not be going to jail. Period. 

Above all, I am sad that Michael would, once again, on a world stage, levy unsubstantiated claims, particularly against a man who has single–handedly raised five 

of the most unbiased and open–minded children I’ve ever known. Four of whom I 

count among my very best friends, to date. 

I stated this in my viral video back in 2015 and I’ll say it again: as the daughter 

of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, there is no amount of money in the world 
36 

that would make me work for a man who I thought harbored bigoted or racist 

ideologies. People who have known this man far less than I have have been offered 

over seven figures to write best-selling works of fiction, yet the thought has never 

crossed my mind. So I truly mean it when I say there is no amount of money in 

the world to make me either work for (nor sell out) this family. Zero. 

The bottom line is that, much like Omarosa Manigault Newman, it does not take 

someone 15 years to figure out someone is a racist. Unless of course, they’re not one. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Let me go on a little bit further. 

Did you collect $1.2 million or so from Novartis? 

Mr. COHEN. I did. 

Mr. MEADOWS. For access to the Trump administration? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Why did you collect it? 

Mr. COHEN. Because they came to me based upon my knowledge 

of the enigma Donald Trump, what he thinks—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they paid—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, please let me finish. 

Mr. MEADOWS. No. Did they pay you $1.2 million—— 

Mr. COHEN. We’ve already said that. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. to give them advice? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, they did. A multibillion-dollar conglomerate 

came to me looking for information, not something that’s unusual 

here in D.C., looking for information, and they believed that I had 

a value. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many times did you meet with them? 

Mr. COHEN. And that the value was the insight that I was capable of offering them—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many times—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. and they were willing to pay. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many times did you meet with them? For 

$1.2 million, how many times did you meet with them? 

Mr. COHEN. I provided them with both in-person as well as telephone access whenever they needed. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many times — that’s a question, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t recall sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So did you ever talk to them? 

Mr. COHEN. I spoke to them on several occasions, yes 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many? 

Mr. COHEN. Six times. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Six times. Wow, $200,000 a call? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, I also would like to bring to your attention—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Hold on. This is my five minutes, Mr. Cohen, not 

yours. 

Did you get money from the Bank of Kazakhstan. 

Mr. COHEN. It’s not a Bank of Kazakhstan, it’s called BTA. 

Mr. MEADOWS. BTA Bank. Kazakhstan, BTA bank, did you get 

money from them? 

Mr. COHEN. I did. 

Mr. MEADOWS. For what purpose? 

Mr. COHEN. The purpose was because the former CEO of that 

bank had absconded with over—between $4 to $6 billion. And some 

of that money was here in the United States, and they sought my 

assistance in terms of finding, locating that money, and helping 

them to recollect it. 
37 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you saying that all the reports that you 

were paid in some estimates over $4 million to have access and understanding of the Trump administration, you are saying that all 

of that was just paid to you just because you’re a nice guy? 

Mr. COHEN. I am a nice guy, but more importantly—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I would beg to differ. The record reflects 

that you are not a nice guy. 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, each and every contract contained the clause, in 

my contracts, that said I will not lobby, and I do not do government 

relations work. In fact, in fact, Novartis sent me their contract, 

which stated specifically that they wanted me to lobby, that they 

wanted me to provide access to government, including the President. 

That information, that paragraph was crossed out by me, initialed, and written in my own handwriting that says I will not 

lobby or do government relations work. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So Novartis representatives say that it was like 

they were hiring a nonregistered lobbyist. So you disagree with 

that? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know what they said, sir, but the contract 

speaks for itself. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Have you contacted anybody in the administration? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. To advocate on behalf of any aspect of any of your 

contracts? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I ask 

unanimous consent—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You 

may answer the question. 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know what you are referring to, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Clay. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, I’m pleased you agreed to testify today voluntarily. 

In my view, we are all here for just one reason, and that’s the 

American people are tired of being lied to. They have been lied to 

by President Trump. They have been lied to by the President’s children. They have been lied to by the President’s legal representatives. And it pains me to say that they have been even lied to by 

his congressional enablers who are still devoted to perpetuating 

and protecting this giant con game on the American people. 

Now, Mr. Cohen, I would like to talk to you about the President’s 

assets, since by law these must be reported accurately on his Federal financial disclosure and when he submits them for a bank 

loan. 

Mr. Cohen, you served for nearly a decade as then businessman 

Trump’s personal attorney and so-called fixer. Did you also have an 

understanding of the President’s assets and how he valued those 

items? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 
38 

Mr. CLAY. In November 2017 Crain’s New York Business reported that The Trump Organization provided, quote, flagrantly 

untrue revenue figures going back to at least 2010 to influence 

Crane’s ranking of the largest private companies in New York. According to the reports, while The Trump Organization reported 

nearly $9.5 billion in revenues in 2016, public filings suggested revenues were actually less than one–tenth of that. 

To your knowledge, did the President or his company ever inflate 

assets or revenues? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. CLAY. And was that done with the President’s knowledge or 

direction? 

Mr. COHEN. Everything was done with the knowledge and at the 

direction of Mr. Trump. 

Mr. CLAY. Tell us why he would do that and what purpose did 

it serve. 

Mr. COHEN. It depends upon the situation. There were times that 

I was asked, again with Allen Weisselberg, the CFO, to go back 

and to speak with an individual from Forbes, because Mr. Trump 

wanted each year to have his net worth rise on the Forbes wealthiest individuals list. 

And so, what you do is you look at the assets and you try to finds 

an asset that has, say, for example, 40 Wall Street, which is about 

1.2 million square feet, find an asset that is comparable, find the 

highest price per square foot that’s achieved in the area, and apply 

it to that building. 

Or, if you are going off of your rent roll, you go by the gross rent 

roll times a multiple and you make up the multiple, which is something that he had talked about, and it is based upon what he wanted to value the asset at. 

Mr. CLAY. You know, you have provided this committee with copies of the President’s financial statements or parts of them from 

2011, 2012, and ’13. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit those for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the statements to the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered.[Cohen exhibits are available at: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/ 

Michael%20Cohen.02.27.2019.Exhibits.pdf.] 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Can you explain why you had these financial statements and 

what you used them for? 

Mr. COHEN. So these financial statements were used by me for 

two purposes. One was discussing with media, whether it was 

Forbes or other magazines, to demonstrate Mr. Trump’s significant 

net worth. That was one function. 

Another was when we were dealing later on with insurance companies we would provide them with these copies so that they would 

understand that the premium, which is based sometimes on the individual’s capabilities to pay, would be reduced. 

Mr. CLAY. And all of this was done at the President’s direction 

and with his knowledge? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, because whatever the numbers would come 

back to be we would immediately report it back. 
39 

Mr. CLAY. And did this information provided to us inflate the 

President’s assets? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe these numbers are inflated. 

Mr. CLAY. And, of course, inviting—inflating assets to win a 

newspaper poll to boost your ego is not a crime. But to your knowledge, did the President ever provide inflated assets to a bank in 

order to help him obtain a loan? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you 

may answer that question. 

Mr. COHEN. These documents and others were provided to Deutsche Bank on one occasion where I was with them in our attempt 

to obtain money so that we can put a bid on the Buffalo Bills. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your answers. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Hice of Georgia. 

Mr. HICE. I would like to yield a second to the gentleman from 

North Carolina. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I want to ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article 

from Stat, which indicates that Mr. Cohen’s promise to access not 

just Trump, but also the circle around him, it was almost as if we 

were hiring a lobbyist, close quote. I ask unanimous consent. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection. 

[The Stat article is available at: https://www.statnews.com/ 

pharmalot/2018/05/08/novartis-paid-400000-trump-attorney/] 

Mr. MEADOWS. I ask unanimous consent that we put into the 

record a criminal referral for violating Section 22 U.S.C. of the 

statute number 611. I ask unanimous consent that my letter referring Mr. Cohen for violating FARA for illegal lobbying activity be 

entered into the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 
40 

1 MJ Lee et al., Inside Michael Cohen’s Aggressive Pitch Promising Access to Trump, CNN 

(May 10, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/michael-cohen-trump-lobbying/ 

index.html. 

2 See, e.g., Christopher Brennan, Trump Associate Received More than $21M in Kazakh 

Oligarchs’ Alleged Money laundering Scheme, NY DAILY NEWS (Apr. 25, 2018), https:// 

www.nydailynews,com/news/national/trump-associate-received-21m-alleged-oligarth-scheme-article-1.3953189; Adam Davidson, Trump’s Business of Corruption, NEW YORKER (Aug. 21, 

2017), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption. 

3 Amanda Macias, South Korean Defense Company That Paid Trump Lawyer Cohen $150,000 is poised to Win Part of a $16 Billion Pentagon Deal,CNBC (May 9,2018), https:// 

www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/south-korean-firm-that-paid-trump-lawyer-cohen-poised-to-win-pentagon-deal.html. 

MEMORANDUM 

FROM: Mark Meadows, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, House Oversight and 

Reform Committee 

TO: The Honorable William P. Barr, Attorney General to 

the United States 

RE: Referral of Michael Cohen for Potential 

Violation of 22 U.S.C. §611 et seq. 

As you know, Michael Cohen acted as the personal attorney for President Donald 

J. Trump from 2007 to April 2018. Shortly before the 2016 election, Mr. Cohen created a limited liability company Essential Consultants, LLC, naming himself CEO. 

Evidence reviewed by our Committee strongly suggests Mr. Cohen made specific 

solicitations to foreign companies with business interests pending before the Trump 

administration, promising access to the Administration. Documents and information 

reviewed by our Committee also raises concerns Mr. Cohen’s foreign clients expected 

official favors in return for enlisting him and Essential Consultants’ services. 

Specifically, Cohen solicited Novartis, a pharmaceutical company from Switzerland, with policy objectives pending before the Federal Drug Administration, among 

other agencies. Novartis reportedly paid Mr. Cohen $1.2 million for promised access 

to the White House on health care policy. 1

Kazakhstan’s BTA Bank paid Mr. Cohen an undisclosed sum under a consulting 

agreement with Essential Consultants, LLC. 2

Similarly, Korean Aerospace Industries, a South Korean defense company, hired 

Mr. Cohen as it negotiated an Air Force contract valued at $16 billion. 3

As you know, the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) prohibits individuals from acting as an agent of a foreign principal without first registering with 

the Department of Justice. The financial support Mr. Cohen enjoyed from his aforementioned business dealings with Swiss, Kazakh, and South Korean companies in 

exchange for his engagement in political activities before the Trump Administration 

raise concerns he is in violation of FARA. 

Mr. Cohen’s touting access to President Trump and the Administration with offers 

to influence matters that affect the business of companies like Novartis, BTA Bank, 

and Korean Aerospace Industries crosses into lobbying. Ultimately, Mr. Cohen appears to have been acting as an agent of several foreign principals and represented 

their interests before federal officials. Mr. Cohen actively solicited clients based on 

his proximity to the President and other members of the Administration, he received 

lucrative contracts from foreign clients with business pending before the Administration, and he provided significant, yet unspecified and vague services for these clients in exchange for his services. 

Accordingly, I am referring Michael Cohen to the Department of Justice for investigation of potential violation(s) of 22 U.S.C. §611 et seq. 
41 

Mr. MEADOWS. I ask unanimous consent that the first order of 

business for this committee is for us to look in a bipartisan way 

at criminal referrals at the next business meeting. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. These are not documents, they’re objections. They’re objections. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we’re objecting to a unanimous consent request? Is that what, Mr. Chairman? 

I will yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. All right. Now, let me be clear. Mr. Hice, 

I’m going to give you your whole five minutes, all right? 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. In fairness to you. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Meadows, the chairman made me— 

the ranking member made me aware that I had given a little more 

time to Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I was going to let you do that anyway. But I just want the committee to know that because there’s 

so many members I’m going to be strict on this five minutes, all 

right? All right. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hice, you have five minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, you claim that you’ve lied but you’re not a liar. Just 

to set the record straight, if you lied you are a liar by definition. 

You also said a moment ago that the facts are inaccurate. If they 

are facts they are accurate, and that would make you inaccurate. 

But I would like take a moment to—I would like know who you 

consulted with to prepare for today’s hearing, Lanny Davis and 

who else? 

Mr. COHEN. I consulted with my counsel Lanny Davis, as well as 

Michael Monaco. 

Mr. HICE. All right. Did you or Michael or Lanny Davis or anyone else cooperate with the Democrat majority to prepare for this 

hearing? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, say that again, please. 

Mr. HICE. Did you or anyone else on your team cooperate with 

the Democrat Party in preparing for this hearing? 

Mr. COHEN. We’ve spoken to the party. 

Mr. HICE. OK. Did you prepare with Chairman Cummings or 

anyone on your team? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, what do you mean by prepare? 

Mr. HICE. Prepare for this hearing. 

Mr. COHEN. Prepare? I prepared with my counsel. 

Mr. HICE. Did you prepare with the Democrat majority or Chairman Cummings? 

Mr. COHEN. We spoke with Chairman Cummings and the party. 

Mr. HICE. With Chairman Schiff? 

Mr. COHEN. I spoke with Chairman Schiff and his people, as 

well. 

Mr. HICE. Were there any other individuals acting as a liaise for 

you with the majority party? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, sir, what are you saying? 
42 

Mr. HICE. Did you have a liaison other than that you have mentioned who were working with the majority to prepare for this 

hearing? 

Mr. COHEN. We spoke with the various individuals that you just 

raised, yes. 

Mr. HICE. Tom Steyer, regarding him or any of his representatives, anyone associated with him, is he or any of them paying 

Lanny Davis to represent you? 

Mr. COHEN. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. HICE. Who is paying Lanny Davis? 

Mr. COHEN. At the present moment no one. 

Mr. HICE. So he is doing all this work for nothing? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. I hope so. 

Mr. HICE. I kind of doubt it. 

How did Lanny Davis come to represent you? Did he approach 

you or did you approach him? 

Mr. COHEN. I reached out to Lanny Davis at the recommendation 

of my former counsel over at McDermott Will & Emery, who knew 

Mr. Davis, and Mr. Davis—— 

Mr. HICE. So you reached out to Mr. Davis? 

Mr. COHEN. I did, yes, initially. 

Mr. HICE. OK. So did you want to testify before Congress or did 

he urge you to testify here? 

Mr. COHEN. I was asked to come here. I am here, sir, voluntarily 

because it’s my decision. 

Mr. HICE. You were asked by who? My question is, did he ask 

you to come here? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. HICE. OK. Because he says that he did ask you to come here 

and that he convinced you and also that he did the same with 

Chairman Cummings, as well. 

So your testimony here is that you approached Lanny Davis to 

represent you and to come here, he did not persuade you to come 

here. 

Mr. COHEN. He did not persuade me. Actually, Chairman Cummings, which is part of the conversations that we engaged in with 

his people, as well as Chairman Schiff and others, we spoke in 

order to ask me to come here voluntarily. 

Mr. HICE. I find the connecting of the dots here with Mr. Davis 

and you and, frankly, the chairman, and perhaps others to be rather stunning, that there is an agenda for all this happening here 

today. And I believe, frankly, that that’s to bring the President 

down, to impugn the President. 

You made an oath last time you were here, and that oath meant 

nothing to you then. We had an oath here in this very room about 

a month ago and it was, quote, ‘‘Be clear that I will seek the truth, 

nothing but the truth, so help me God,’’ end quote. 

That sounds like an oath to me. The chairman made that statement in this very room last month, but here we are today, our first 

big hearing, with, as you and we all know, a convicted liar, lying 

to Congress, a criminal. 
43 

And I believe this witness is totally incompatible with the stated 

goal of having to seek the truth in this hearing. This is the first 

time in the history of Congress we have someone testifying here 

who has already been convicted of lying to Congress. So congratulations for being the first in Congress to do that, and Mr. Cummings, 

as well. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Mr. HICE. I can’t believe we have brought this committee to its 

knees in terms of losing its credibility, and it is a shameful mockery of what our purpose is. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just pick up on those last comments. Want to talk about 

a low point? How about Mr. Papadopoulos pled guilty? Mr. 

Manafort convicted, pled guilty to two other charges? Mr. Gates 

pled guilty? Mr. Flynn pled guilty? Mr. Pinedo pled guilty? Mr. van 

der Zwann pled guilty? Mr. Kilimnik indicted for obstruction of justice? 

And for two years, you want to talk about an agenda, my friends 

on the other side of the aisle refused to bring of any of these people 

up before the committee. So today, for the first day, we have one 

witness who voluntarily is coming forward to testify. Your side ran 

away from the truth and we are trying to bring it to the American 

people. 

So, Mr. Cohen, first of all, thank you for voluntarily coming before the committee to testify. I want to ask you about your statements regarding Trump Tower and Moscow, and I want to drill 

down some of the facts and details. 

Now, you may not be aware of it, but this goes back a way. Back 

in 1987 Mr. Trump wrote that he had had ongoing discussions with 

Soviet officials back then to build a luxury—a large luxury hotel 

across from the Kremlin in partnership with the Soviet Union. So 

at that time it was the Soviet Union. 

I want to ask you, in your filing with the Special Counsel 

Mueller’s office, the prosecutors wrote, and I quote, ‘‘Mr. Cohen discussed the status and progress of the Moscow project with Individual 1 on more than the three occasions Mr. Cohen claimed to 

the committee and he briefed family members of Individual 1 with 

the company about the project.’’ 

I know this is redundant, but, Mr. Cohen, who are we referring 

to here when we refer to Individual 1. 

Mr. COHEN. Donald J. Trump. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. And the company? 

Mr. COHEN. The Trump Organization through a subsidiary. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. And who were the family members that you 

briefed on the Trump Tower Moscow project? 

Mr. COHEN. Don Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Now, were these in the regular course of business or did the President or family request the briefings? 

Mr. COHEN. This is the regular course of business. 

Mr. LYNCH. Do you recall — there’s a question on the number 

of briefings. Do you recall how many there might have been? 
44 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. LYNCH. Do you recall how many of these briefings there 

might have been? 

Mr. COHEN. Approximately 10. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. In total. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right. In your written remarks you also wrote, 

and I quote, ‘‘There were at least a half dozen times between the 

Iowa Caucus in January 2016 and the end of June when Mr. 

Trump would ask me, ’How’s it going in Russia,’ referring to the 

Russia Moscow Tower project.’’ 

How did the President communicate those questions to you? Was 

it verbally or over the phone? 

Mr. COHEN. Verbally most of the time or virtually all of the time. 

He would say to me, ‘‘Michael, come walk with me.’’ He was heading to let’s say a rally or to a car, and as I would walk him to the 

elevator he would ask me questions quickly regarding a series of 

issues. 

Mr. LYNCH. Could there be any doubt what he was referring to 

in terms of the project in Russia? 

Mr. COHEN. No, this would be it. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. Otherwise there would have been no reason to ask 

it of me. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right, right. 

You also wrote, and I quote, ‘‘To be clear, Mr. Trump knew of 

and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it,’’ close quote. 

How did the President actually direct the negotiations? 

Mr. COHEN. After each—— 

Mr. LYNCH. What details did he direct? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, after each communication that I had I would 

report back to him, and our goal was to get this project. We were 

interested in building what would have been the largest building 

in all of Europe. 

Sir, just if I can say one last thing in regard to—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Please go ahead. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. the gentleman’s statement and since 

this is on topic. 

The lies that I told to Congress, in fairness, benefited Mr. 

Trump. It was in furtherance of my protection of Mr. Trump, which 

I stated in my testimony. And I am not protecting Mr. Trump anymore. 

And so, while I truly appreciate taking some of your time onto 

it, to attack me every single time about taxes, I have no credibility, 

it is for exactly that reason that I spent the last week searching 

boxes in order to find the information that I did so that you don’t 

have to take my word for it. I don’t want you to. I want you to look 

at the documents, and I want you to make your own decision. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Cohen, I need my last—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sorry, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. That’s OK. Let me just say, I don’t think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid that you’re going 

to lie. I think they’re afraid you’re going to tell truth. 
45 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gosar. 

Mr. GOSAR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. 

Mr. JORDAN. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. 

I just want to respond to Mr. Lynch. I want you to think about 

this. When have you ever seen a Federal agency where this has 

happened? James Comey, Director, fired. Andy McCabe, Deputy Director, fired, lied three times under oath, under investigation right 

as we speak. Jim Baker, FBI Counsel, demoted, then left, currently 

under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Connecticut. 

Lisa Page, demoted, then left. Peter Strzok, deputy head of counterintelligence, demoted, then fired.That’s what happened. That’s 

what we’re concerned about. And today, we actually asked for Rod 

Rosenstein, oh, by the way, we now know—three people have told 

us, Rod Rosenstein actually was contemplating using the 25th 

Amendment to remove the guy from Presidency who the American 

people put there. And we asked for him to be a witness today and 

the chairman said no. And instead, we get 30 minutes from a guy 

who is going to prison, going to prison, in two months for lying to 

Congress. 

Mr. Cohen, I got two quick questions before I yield back to my 

colleague. Mr. Hice asked you who all you talked to. You said 

you’ve talked to—you spoke to Mr. Schiff. Obviously, you spoke to 

Mr. Cummings. You’ve gone in front of both committees. You’re 

here today. You’re going to be in front of Mr. Schiff’s committee tomorrow. Have you spoken to Chairman Nadler or anyone on his 

staff, or have any of your attorneys spoken to Chairman Nadler? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know about my attorneys. I have not spoken 

to—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t know if your attorney spoke—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. Congressman—I have not spoken to 

Congressman Nadler. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think your—— 

Mr. COHEN. And I’m not aware — sir, I’m not aware if my attorneys — I can ask them. 

Mr. JORDAN. Can you turn around and ask? 

Voice. No. 

Mr. COHEN. The answer, sir, is no. 

Mr. JORDAN. OK. And you said, at this present time, Mr. Davis 

is not getting paid. Does that—are you anticipating him receiving 

some kind of compensation in the future? 

Mr. COHEN. When I start to earn a living? 

Mr. JORDAN. Are you going to wait three years? Wow. 

Mr. COHEN. The answer is yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s a first. I’ve never known a lawyer wait 3 

years to get paid. 

Mr. COHEN. I guess he thinks it’s important. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. With that, I yield to the gentleman from 

Arizona. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Cohen, you’re a disgraced lawyer. I mean, you’ve been disbarred. And so, I’m sure you remember — well, maybe you don’t 
46 

remember — duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney/client 

privilege. I think the gentleman over your right side actually understands that very, very well and wouldn’t do what you are doing 

here today. 

So let’s go back at this credibility. You want us to make sure that 

we think of you as a real philanthropic icon, that you’re about justice, that you’re the person that somebody would call at 3 in the 

morning. No, they wouldn’t. Not at all. You saw Mr. Comer dissect 

you. Right in front of this committee, you conflicted your testimony, 

sir. You’re a pathological liar. You don’t know truth from falsehood. 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, are you referring to me or the President? 

Mr. GOSAR. Hey, hey, this is my time. 

Mr. COHEN. Are you referring to me, sir, or the President? 

Mr. GOSAR. When I ask you a question, I’ll ask for an answer. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. GOSAR. Now, are you familiar with Rule 35 of the Federal 

Rules in Criminal Procedures? 

Mr. COHEN. I am now. 

Mr. GOSAR. Oh. So the committee understands that you’ve been 

in contact with the Southern District of New York. Is that true? 

Mr. COHEN. I am in constant contact with the Southern District 

of New York regarding ongoing investigations. 

Mr. GOSAR. And part of that application is to reduce sentencing 

time, is it not? Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. There is a possibility—— 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes. The answer is yes. 

Mr. COHEN. No, it’s not, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes, it is. 

Mr. COHEN. OK. 

Mr. GOSAR. It is. 

Mr. COHEN. It’s not. 

Mr. GOSAR. And so testimony here could actually help you out in 

getting your sentence lessened, isn’t that true? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not really sure how my appearance here today 

is providing substantial information that the Southern District can 

use for the creation of a case. Now, if there is something that this 

group can do for me, I would gladly welcome it. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I got to tell you, you know, America’s watching 

you. I’ve been getting texts right and left, saying, How can anybody 

listen to this pathological person? He’s got a problem. He doesn’t 

know fact from fiction. And that’s what’s sad here, is that, you 

didn’t do this for Donald Trump, to protect Donald Trump. You did 

it for you. This is — no, this is all about you. This is all about this 

Twitter feed—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. GOSAR [continuing]. and — no, let me read one of those — 

another one. Women who love and support Michael Cohen, strong, 

pit bull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business–oriented and ready to 

make a difference—— 

Mr. COHEN. 1,000 followers. 

Mr. GOSAR [continuing]. ready to make a difference against the 

law. That’s pretty sad. You know, over and over again, you know, 

we wanted to have trust. It’s built on the premise that we’re truthful, that we come forward. But there’s no truth with you whatso-
47 

ever. That’s why I — that’s important to you, to look up here and 

look at the old adage that our moms taught us — liar, liar, pants 

on fire. 

No one should ever listen to you and give you credibility. It’s sad. 

It’s sad that we have come — and in fact, I want to quote the 

chairman’s very words. This is a real — hold on—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. GOSAR [continuing]. sad state. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time is expired. Who’s 

next? Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Cohen, several times in your testimony, you 

state the bad things that you did for Mr. Trump, and at some 

point, you apparently changed your course of action. There’s a recurring refrain in your testimony that says, and yet, I continued 

to work for him. But at some point, you changed. What was the 

breaking point at which you decided to start telling the truth? 

Mr. COHEN. There’s several factors. Helsinki, Charlottesville, 

watching the daily destruction of our civility to one another. Putting up silly things like this, really unbecoming of Congress. It’s 

that sort of behavior that I’m responsible for. I’m responsible for 

your silliness, because I did the same thing that you’re doing now, 

for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years, and the fact that 

you pull up a news article that has no value to it, and you want 

to use that as the premise for discrediting me, that I’m not the person that people called at 3 in the morning, would make you inaccurate. In actuality, it would make you a liar, which puts you into 

the same position that I am in. 

And I can only warn people, the more people that follow Mr. 

Trump, as I did blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences 

that I’m suffering. 

Mr. COOPER. What warning would you give young people who are 

tempted, as you were, would you encourage them not to wait 10 

years to see the light? What advice would you give young people, 

in particular, young lawyers, so they do not abuse their bar license 

as you did? 

Mr. COHEN. Look at what’s happened to me. I had a wonderful 

life. I have a beautiful wife. I have two amazing children. And I 

achieved financial success by the age of 39. I didn’t go to work for 

Mr. Trump because I had to. I went to work for him because I 

wanted to. And I’ve lost it all. 

So if I’m not picture perfect—that’s the picture that should be up 

there. If I’m not a picture-perfect example of what not to do, that’s 

the example that I’m trying to set for my children. We make mistakes in life, and I’ve owned them, and I’ve taken responsibility for 

them. And I’m paying a huge price, as is my family. So if that, in 

and of itself, isn’t enough to dissuade somebody from acting in the 

callous manner that I did, I’m not sure that that person has any— 

any chance, very much like I’m in right now. 

Mr. COOPER. A recurring theme in your testimony is concern for 

your family’s safety. What specifically are you most concerned 

about? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, the President, unlike my ‘‘Cohen for Trump’’ 

that has a thousand followers, he’s got over 60 million people. And 

when Mr. Trump turned around early in the campaign and said, 
48 

I can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it — I 

want to be very clear — he’s not joking. He’s telling you the truth. 

You don’t know him. I do. I sat next to this man for 10 years, and 

I watched his back. I’m the one who started the campaign. And I’m 

the one who continued in 2015 to promote him. 

So many things I thought that he can do that are just great, and 

he can and he is doing things that are great. But this destruction 

of our civility to one another is — it’s out of control. And when he 

goes on Twitter, and he starts bringing in my in-laws, my parents, 

my wife, what does he think is going to happen? He’s causing—he’s 

sending out the same message that he can do whatever he wants. 

This is his country. He’s becoming an autocrat. And hopefully, 

something bad will happen to me or my children or my wife, so 

that I will not be here and testify. That’s what his hope was, it was 

to intimidate me. And, again, I thanked everybody who joined and 

said that this is just not right. 

Mr. COOPER. Have you ever seen Mr. Trump personally threaten 

people with physical harm? 

Mr. COHEN. No. He would use others. 

Mr. COOPER. He would hire other people to do that? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not so sure that he had to hire them. They were 

already working there. Everybody’s job at the Trump Organization 

is to protect Mr. Trump. Every day, most of us knew we were coming in and we were going to lie for him on something. And that became the norm. And that’s exactly what’s happening right now in 

this country. And it’s exactly what’s happening here in government, 

sir. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Armstrong? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you. Mr. Cohen—— 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, can we take a break? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Not right now. 

Mr. COHEN. OK. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. All right. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Cohen, did you ask for a break? 

Mr. COHEN. I did, sir. 

That’s OK. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I thought a Member asked. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ten minutes. 

Exactly 10 minutes we’ll start back. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Foxx? 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, you’ve admitted to lying on your taxes. According to 

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, you also 

lied to banks to get loans. The prosecutors wrote, quote, ‘‘To secure 

loans, Cohen falsely understated the amount of debt he was carrying and omitted information from his personal financial statements to induce a bank to lend based on incomplete information,’’ 

end quote. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. FOXX. You lied on financial documents. So you lied to financial institutions in order to secure loans. So we’ve established that 
49 

you lie on your taxes, you lie to banks, and you have been convicted 

of lying to Congress. It seems to me that there’s not much that you 

won’t lie about when you stand to gain from it. 

In fact, the prosecutor for the Southern District of New York 

noted that each of your crimes, quote, ‘‘bear commonsense characteristics with each involving deception and being motivated by your 

personal greed and ambition.’’ Is your appearance here today motivated by your desire to remain in the spotlight for your personal 

benefit? 

Mr. COHEN. No, ma’am. 

Ms. FOXX. You have sought out ways to rehabilitate your image, 

from tax evader, bank swindler, and all-around liar, to an honorable truthful man by appearing before cable news. I’m concerned 

you could be using your story and this congressional platform for 

your personal benefit, such is a desire to make money from book 

deals. So can you commit, under oath, that you have not and will 

not pursue a book or movie deal based on your experiences working 

for the President? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. FOXX. You cannot commit to making money off of a book or 

movie deal based on your work? 

Mr. COHEN. No. What I just—there’s two parts to your question. 

The first part of your question, you asked me whether or not I had 

spoken to people regarding a possible book deal, and I have. And 

I’ve spoken to people who’ve sought me out regarding a movie deal. 

Ms. FOXX. No, I didn’t ask you if you’d spoken to anybody. 

Mr. COHEN. That was the first part of your question. 

Ms. FOXX. I said, can you commit under oath that you will not— 

that you have not and will not pursue a book deal. 

Mr. COHEN. And I would not do that, no. 

Ms. FOXX. OK. Can you commit under oath that you will not pursue opportunities to provide commentary for a major news network 

based on your experiences working for the President? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. FOXX. Can you commit under oath that you will not pursue 

political office in the State of New York? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. FOXX. So you don’t commit to changing your ways, basically, 

because you want to continue to use your background as a liar, a 

cheater, a convicted liar, to make money? That’s what you want to 

do? 

Mr. COHEN. And that’s going to get me a book deal and a movie 

deal and television—and a spot on television? I don’t think so. 

Ms. FOXX. Well, it appears that it will. I yield my remainder of 

my time, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Mr. Cohen, in your sentencing statement to the court in December of last year, you said, I want to apologize to the people of the 

United States; you deserve to know the truth. Approximately a 

month later, BuzzFeed News ran a story that was the story in the 

country for a couple of days. BuzzFeed story ran January 17, 2019. 

On January 18, your counsel went on TV and wouldn’t confirm or 

deny the story. 
50 

The next day, the special counsel’s office did something that’s 

never happened. Never happened. They said the description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office and the characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office regarding 

Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate. 

Why didn’t your lawyer the day that he’s on TV, when this story 

is the biggest things in the news, in the country, why didn’t he 

deny the BuzzFeed story? 

Mr. COHEN. Because I didn’t think it was his responsibility to do 

that. We are not the fact-checkers for BuzzFeed—— 

Mr. JORDAN. He’s on TV to talk about the very story you committed to the court when you were trying to get your sentence reduced that you—that the American people deserve to know the 

truth, you had the golden opportunity to give them the truth on a 

false story, the BuzzFeed story, and your lawyer didn’t say a thing. 

Actually, he said this: I can’t confirm, I can’t deny. You had an opportunity to do exactly what you told the judge you were going to 

do one month after you said it, and you didn’t do it. Why not? 

Mr. COHEN. Again, it wasn’t our responsibility to be the factchecker for the news agency—— 

Mr. JORDAN. This is the biggest story in the country. 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, please, let me—the President says, so far, approximately 9,000—you asked—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me just say one thing. I got eight seconds. I got 

eight seconds. I’ll let you finish. 

Mr. COHEN. Chairman, may I please finish? 

Mr. JORDAN. The special counsel said—— 

Mr. COHEN. Chairman, can I please finish? 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. something they’ve never done—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sir? 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. they said that story was false. Now you 

can respond. 

Mr. COHEN. OK. My response—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. You may respond. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. the President has told something over 

9,000 lies to date. Do I ask Mr. Davis or Mr. Monaco, do I go on 

television in order to correct his mistakes? 

Mr. JORDAN. When—— 

Mr. COHEN. The answer is no. 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. talking about that specific subject, you 

should. 

Mr. COHEN. The answer is no. And I would like—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has—listen up. The 

gentleman’s time has expired. 

You may finish answering the question, and then we are going 

to go to Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. COHEN. All I wanted to say is, I just find it interesting, sir, 

that between yourself and your colleagues, that not one question so 

far since I’m here, has been asked about President Trump. That’s 

actually why I thought I was coming today, not to confess the mistakes that I’ve made. I’ve already done that. And I’ll do it again 

every time you ask me about taxes or mistakes. Yes, I made my 

mistakes, I’ll say it now again, and I’m going to pay the ultimate 

price. 
51 

But I’m not here today—and the American people don’t care 

about my taxes. They want to know what it is that I know about 

Mr. Trump, and not one question so far has been asked about Mr. 

Trump. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, Mr. Cohen, based on your testimony and your 10-year experience, I think you can recognize the behavior you’re being subjected to on the other side of the aisle. Discredit, slander, use any 

trick in the book to prevent your testimony from sticking. The idea 

that a witness would come to us who’s flawed—and you certainly 

are flawed—means they can never tell the truth, and there is no 

validity whatsoever to a single word they say, would discredit every 

single criminal trial of organized crime in the history of the United 

States, because all of them depend on someone who’s turned. It 

would make RICO null and void. We couldn’t use it anymore. 

This Congress, historically, has relied on all kinds of shady figures, who turned. One of the most famous who led to the decapitation of organized crime families in America, Joe Valachi, congressional hearing, he was a witness, and he committed a lot worse 

crimes than you’re convicted of, Mr. Cohen. 

So don’t be fooled by what my friends on the other side of the 

aisle are trying to do today. It is do everything but focus on the 

principle known as ‘‘Individual No. 1’’ in the Southern District of 

New York, as I recall. Is that correct, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Now, Mr. Cohen, I want to ask you about something that is not in your testimony and that so far has not been 

made public. In our committee staff search of documents provided 

by the White House that were otherwise redacted or already in the 

public—and I guess the White House thought that was funny— 

they made one mistake, the White House. 

There was an email from a Special Assistant to the President, to 

a deputy White House counsel, and the e-mail is dated May 16th, 

2017, and it says, and I quote, ‘‘POTUS,’’ meaning the President, 

‘‘requested a meeting on Thursday with Michael Cohen and Jay 

Sekulow. Any idea what this might be about?’’ End quote. 

Do you recall being asked to come to the White House on or 

around that time? With Mr. Sekulow? May 2017? 

Mr. COHEN. Off the top of my head, sir, I don’t. I recall being in 

the White House with Jay Sekulow, and it was in regard to the— 

the documents—the document production, as well as my appearance before the House Select Intel, but I’m not sure if that specifically—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, that—— 

Mr. COHEN. But what I will to do, is, I will check all my records, 

and I’m more than happy to provide you with any documentation 

or a response to this question. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, you sort of touch on, presumably, the purpose of the discussion, at least among others. This occurred, this 

meeting occurred just before your testimony before the Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so, yes. 
52 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Was that a topic of conversation with the President himself? 

Mr. COHEN. If this is the specific instance that I was there with 

Mr. Sekulow, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you had a conversation with the President of 

the United States about your impending testimony before the 

House Intelligence Committee. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What was the nature of that conversation? 

Mr. COHEN. He wanted me to cooperate. He also wanted just to 

ensure I’m making the statement — and I said it in my testimony 

— there is no Russia, there is no collusion, there is no — there is 

no deal. He goes, it’s all a witch hunt, and it’s — he goes, this stuff 

has to end. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Did you take those comments to be suggestive of 

what might flavor your testimony? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, he’s been saying that to me for many, many 

months. And at the end of the day, I knew exactly what he wanted 

me to say. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And why was Mr. Sekulow in the meeting? 

Mr. COHEN. Because he was going to be representing Mr. Trump 

going forward, as one of his personal attorneys in this matter. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it was sort of a handoff meeting? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. In any way — final question — did the President, in any way, from your point of view, coach you in terms of 

how to respond to questions or the content of your testimony before 

a House committee? 

Mr. COHEN. Again, it’s difficult to answer, because he doesn’t tell 

you what he wants. What he does is, again, Michael, there’s no 

Russia, there’s no collusion, there’s no involvement, there’s no interference. I know what he means, because I’ve been around him 

for so long. So if you’re asking me whether or not that’s the message, that’s staying on point, that’s the party line that he created, 

that so many others are now touting, yes, that’s the message that 

he wanted to reinforce. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Cohen, can you just clarify, did you say that at 

times you would do what you thought Mr. Trump wanted you to 

do, not specifically what he told you to do? 

Mr. COHEN. At times, yes. 

Mr. MASSIE. So you just went on your intuition? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know if I would call it intuition, as much as 

I would just say, my knowledge of what he wanted, because it happened before, and I knew what he had wanted. 

Mr. MASSIE. Does a lawyer have a duty to provide his client with 

good legal advice? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Were you a good lawyer to Mr. Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so. 

Mr. MASSIE. When you arranged a payment to Ms. Clifford, you 

say in your testimony—I’m going to quote from your testimony— 
53 

that you did so, quote, ‘‘without bothering to consider whether that 

was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do.’’ You 

said that—unquote. That’s your testimony today. You said you 

didn’t even consider whether it was legal. How could you give your 

client legal advice when you’re not even considering whether it’s 

legal? 

Mr. COHEN. I did what I knew Mr. Trump wanted. This conversation with Mr. Trump—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I didn’t ask—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. started—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I didn’t ask whether you were a good fixer. I asked 

whether you were a good lawyer. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, sometimes you have to meld both together. I 

needed to, at that time, ensure and protect Mr. Trump and—— 

Mr. MASSIE. So—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. if I put my—which I’m clearly, clearly 

suffering the penalty of—I clearly—— 

Mr. MASSIE. You said—let me—you said—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. erred on the—on the side of wrong. 

Mr. MASSIE. So you feel like, by—without bothering whether to 

consider whether it was proper, much less whether it was the right 

thing to do, by ignoring any conscience, if you have one, that you 

were protecting Mr. Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, sir. I don’t understand your question. 

Mr. MASSIE. You feel that was how to protect — as his lawyer, 

you feel that you did a good job. You said you were a good lawyer, 

right? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MASSIE. Is that being a good lawyer? To not even consider 

whether it’s legal or not? 

Mr. COHEN. I didn’t work for the campaign. I was working, and 

I was trying to protect Mr. Trump. 

Mr. MASSIE. I didn’t say anything about the campaign. I didn’t 

ask you about—— 

Mr. COHEN. I sat with Mr. Trump — and this goes back all the 

way to 2011. This wasn’t the first scenario with Ms. Daniels. 

Mr. MASSIE. Let’s go back then. 

Mr. COHEN. So, what my point—my point is, this is — this was 

an ongoing situation. It didn’t just start in—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Right. Let’s — I want to yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. But you have to let me finish. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well—— 

Mr. COHEN. It started in Oc- — it didn’t start in October. 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me — let me ask you specifically on that. 

Mr. COHEN. It started many years earlier. 

Mr. MASSIE. When were you disbarred? 

Mr. COHEN. Yesterday, from what I read in the paper. 

Mr. MASSIE. Yesterday. When should you have been disbarred, 

based on the legal counsel you were giving your client? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t have an answer for your question. 

Mr. MASSIE. How long were you counsel for Mr. Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. Since 2007. 

Mr. MASSIE. When is the first time you gave him bad legal advice, or failed to inform him of his legal obligation, as you testified 
54 

today, you did in the case of the payment to Ms. Clifford? When 

was the first time you did that? Would that qualify for disbarment? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know, sir. I’m not the Bar Association. 

Mr. MASSIE. I think you should consult with them maybe occasionally on some of these things. Has anybody—— 

Mr. COHEN. Well, there’s no point now. I lost my law license. 

Mr. MASSIE. Has anybody — has anybody else promised to pay 

Mr. Davis for representing you? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Mr. MASSIE. Nobody has? 

Mr. COHEN. No. Are you offering? 

Mr. MASSIE. Question, quickly. You said — and this is also in 

your testimony—in the days before the Democratic Convention, you 

became privy to a conversation that some of Hillary Clinton’s 

emails would be leaked. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. 

Mr. MASSIE. OK. Was that in — you said late July. Do you know 

the exact day? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe it was either the 18th or the 19th, and I 

would guess that it would be on the 19th. 

Mr. MASSIE. But it was definitely July? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Do you know that was public knowledge in June? 

This was — Mr. Assange — and I’d like to submit this — unanimous consent to submit this for the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The Assange article referenced above is available at: https:// 

www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publishmore-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange.] 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Assange reported to the media on June 12th 

that those emails would be leaked. So I’m not saying you have fake 

news. I’m saying you have old news, and there’s really not much 

to that. 

I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Cohen, you know, I’m quoting you close, again earlier you 

said, I spent last week looking through boxes to find documents 

that would support your accusations. Where are those boxes, good 

sir? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Where are those boxes? Are they in your garage? 

Mr. COHEN. They’re in storage. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And are these not boxes that should have been 

turned over to investigative authorities, during the many criminal 

investigations you’ve been subject to? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, these are the boxes that were returned to me 

post the raids. 

Mr. HIGGINS. If they — if they include data pertinent to crimes 

that you’ve committed, should they not have been turned over, remanded to investigative authority? Did Mr. Lanny Davis know of 

these boxes? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t understand your question. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

You may answer the question. 
55 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t understand his question, sir. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Mr. Krishnamoorthi? 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Cohen, good morning. Thank you, 

Chairman Cummings, for convening this hearing, and thank you, 

Mr. Cohen, for voluntarily testifying this morning. 

Mr. Cohen, you were the executive vice president and special 

counsel for the Trump Organization, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I was the executive vice president special counsel to 

Donald J. Trump. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And ‘‘special counsel’’ means you are the 

attorney for him. Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. It just means I was there in order to handle matters 

that he felt were significant and important to him individually. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And those included legal matters? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Sir, as a former attorney, you’re familiar 

with legal documents known as nondisclosure agreements, or 

NDAs. Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. So I’m sure you know that NDAs, properly 

written in scope, can be reasonable in certain business contexts, 

but they can also be abused to create a chilling effect to silence 

people, as we’ve seen in the Me Too movement and other places. 

Isn’t that right, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And Mr. Cohen, the Trump Organization 

used NDAs extensively. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Cohen, I’m reading from a recent 

Washington Post article regarding the language in one of these 

types of NDAs where the terms were described as very broad. For 

instance, the terms ‘‘confidential information’’ was defined to be 

anything that, quote, ‘‘Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential, including, but not limited to, any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/or business affairs 

of Mr. Trump or any family member,’’ closed quote. Do those terms 

sound familiar to you? 

Mr. COHEN. I’ve seen that document. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. In fact, there is a class-action lawsuit filed 

this month by former Trump campaign worker Jessica Denson that 

this NDA language is illegal, because it is too broad, too vague, and 

would be used to retaliate against employees who complain of illegality or wrongdoing. 

Would you agree that in the use of the NDA — of these types 

of NDAs with this type of language, and later, when Donald Trump 

sought to enforce them, that he intended to prevent people from 

coming forward with claims of wrongdoing? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Would you agree that the effect of the use 

of these NDAs and their enforcement was to have a chilling effect 

on people or silence them from coming forward? 

Mr. COHEN. I apologize, if you want to define ‘‘chilling,’’ I’m not 

sure—— 
56 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Oh, just that he would — in using these 

NDAs, or trying to enforce them, would basically try to keep people 

silent? 

Mr. COHEN. That was the goal. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And nothing at the Trump Organization 

was ever done unless it was run through President Donald Trump, 

correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s 100 percent certain. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. OK. Mr. Cohen, do you believe that there 

are people out there today, either from the President’s business or 

personal life, who are not coming forward to tell their stories of 

wrongdoing because of the President’s use of NDAs against them? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. OK. Sir, I have a couple other questions 

for you. When was the last communication with President Trump 

or someone acting on his behalf? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t have the specific date, but it was a while ago. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. OK. Do you have a general timeframe? 

Mr. COHEN. I would suspect it was within two months post the 

raid of my — my home, hotel. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. OK. So early fall of last year? Generally? 

Mr. COHEN. Generally. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And what did he or his agent communicate to you? 

Mr. COHEN. Unfortunately, this topic is actually something that’s 

being investigated right now by the Southern District of New York, 

and I’ve been asked by them not to discuss, and not to talk about 

these issues. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Fair enough. Is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump 

that we haven’t yet discussed today? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. And, again, those are part of the investigation 

that’s currently being looked at by the Southern District of New 

York. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Sir, Congressman Cooper asked you about 

whether you were aware of any physical violence committed by 

President Trump. I just have a couple quick questions. Do you have 

any knowledge of President Trump abusing any controlled substances? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of that, no. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Do you have any knowledge of President 

Trump being delinquent on any alimony or child-care payments? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of any of that. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Do you have any knowledge of President 

Trump arranging any healthcare procedures for any women not in 

his family? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of that, no. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Cloud? 

Mr. CLOUD. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, can you tell me the significance of May 6th? 

Mr. COHEN. In terms of, sir? 
57 

Mr. CLOUD. Couple months from now. 

Mr. COHEN. That’s the day that I need to surrender—— 

Mr. CLOUD. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. to Federal prison. 

Mr. CLOUD. Could you, for the record, state what you’ve been 

convicted of. 

Mr. COHEN. I’ve been convicted on five counts of tax evasion. 

There’s one count of misrepresentation of documents to a bank. 

There’s two counts—one dealing with campaign finance for Karen 

McDougal; one count of campaign finance violation for Stormy Daniels, as well as lying to Congress. 

Mr. CLOUD. Thank you. Can you state what your official title 

with the campaign was? 

Mr. COHEN. I did not have a campaign title. 

Mr. CLOUD. And your position in the Trump administration? 

Mr. COHEN. I did not have one. 

Mr. CLOUD. OK. In today’s testimony, you said that you were not 

looking to work in the White House. The Southern District of New 

York, in their statement, their sentencing memo, says this: 

‘‘Cohen’s criminal violations in the Federal election laws were also 

stirred, like other crimes, by his own ambition and greed. Cohen 

privately told friends, colleagues, and including seized text messages, that he expected to be given a prominent role in the new administration. When that did not materialize, Cohen found a way to 

monetize his relationship and access with the President.’’ So were 

they lying, or were you lying today? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not saying it’s a lie. I’m just saying it’s not accurate. I did not want to go to the White House. I retained—and I 

brought an attorney and I sat with Mr. Trump, with him, for well 

over an hour explaining the importance of having a personal attorney. And every President has had one, in order to handle matters 

like the matters I was dealing with, which included, like Summer 

Zervos—— 

Mr. CLOUD. I reclaim my time. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. Stormy Daniels, dealing with Stephanie 

Clifford—— 

Mr. CLOUD. I ask unanimous consent to—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. and other personal matters that needed—— 

Mr. CLOUD. Excuse me. This is my time. Thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit to this memo from the Southern District of New York, New York for the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 
58 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

-v.- 18 Cr. 602 (WHP) 

MICHAEL COHEN, 

Defendant. 

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -X 

THE GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

Andrea M. Griswold 

Rachel Maimin 

Thomas McKay 

Nicolas Roos 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

-Of CounselROBERT KHUZAMI 

Acting United States Attorney for the 

Southern District of New York 

One St. Andrew's Plaza 

New York, New York 10007 
59 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 2 

A. COHEN'S OFFENSE CONDUCT .............................................................................................. 2 

1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 3 

2. Cohen's Willful Tax Evasion .......................................................................................... 4 

3. Cohen's False Statements to Financial Institutions ........................................................ 8 

4. Cohen's illegal Campaign Contributions ...................................................................... 11 

5. Cohen's False Statements to Congress ......................................................................... 14 

B. COHEN'S MEETINGS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ................................................................ 14 

APPLICATION OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ..................................................... 17 

A. THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT'S CALCULATION ............................................................... 17 

B. COHEN'S CHALLENGES TO THE GUIDELINES CALCULATION .............................................. 17 

1. The PSR's Grouping Analysis is Correct ..................................................................... 17 

2. The Guidelines Enhancements Are Not "Overlapping" ............................................... 20 

C. THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION ....................................................... 22 

DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 22 

A. A SUBSTANTIAL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT Is WARRANTED ............................................... 22 

1. The Nature and Seriousness of the Offenses ................................................................ 22 

2. The Need to Promote Respect for the Law and to Afford Adequate Deterrence ......... 28 

B. COHEN'S REQUEST FOR A SENTENCE OF TIME SERVED IS MERITLESS ............................... 30 

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 38 
60 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

------------------------------------X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

-v.-

MICHAEL COHEN, 

Defendant. 

- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

18 Cr. 602 (WHP) 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Defendant Michael Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced on December 12, 2018. The United 

States Attorney's Office for the Southern District ofNew York (the "Office") respectfully submits 

this memorandum in connection with that sentencing and in response to the defendant's sentencing 

memorandum dated November 30, 2018 ("Def. Mem."). 

Cohen, an attorney and businessman, committed four distinct federal crimes over a period 

of several years. He was motivated to do so by personal greed, and repeatedly used his power and 

influence for deceptive ends. Now he seeks extraordinary leniency- a sentence of no jail time -

based principally on his rose-colored view of the seriousness of the crimes; his claims to a 

sympathetic personal history; and his provision of certain information to law enforcement. But 

the crimes committed by Cohen were more serious than his submission allows and were marked 

by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life (and was evidently hidden from the 

friends and family members who wrote on his behalf). 

Cohen did provide information to law enforcement, including information that assisted the 

Special Counsel's Office ("SCO") in ongoing matters, as described in the SCO's memorandum to 

the Court, and the Office agrees that this is a factor to be considered by the Court pursuant to Title 
61 

18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). But Cohen's description of those efforts is overstated in 

some respects and incomplete in others. To be clear: Cohen does not have a cooperation 

agreement and is not receiving a Section 5Kl.l letter either from this Office or the SCO, and 

therefore is not properly described as a "cooperating witness," as that term is commonly used in 

this District. 

As set forth in the Probation Department's Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"), the 

applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") range is 51 to 63 months' 

imprisonment. This range reflects Cohen's extensive, deliberate, and serious criminal conduct, 

and this Office submits that a substantial prison term is required to vindicate the purposes and 

principles of sentencing as set forth in Section 3553(a). And while the Office agrees that Cohen 

should receive credit for his assistance in the s·co investigation, that credit should not approximate 

the credit a traditional cooperating witness would receive, given, among other reasons, Cohen's 

affirmative decision not to become one. For these reasons, the Office respectfully requests that 

this Court impose a substantial term of imprisonment, one that reflects a modest downward 

variance from the applicable Guidelines range. 1 

BACKGROUND 

A. Cohen's Offense Conduct 

As described in the PSR, in Criminal Information 18 Cr. 602, as well as in Criminal 

Information 18 Cr. 850, Cohen committed four separate and serious crimes over the course of 

several years. These crimes-willful tax evasion, making false statements to a financial institution, 

illegal campaign contributions, and making false statements to Congress - were distinct in their 

harms, but bear a common set of characteristics: They each involve deception, and were each 

1 The Probation Department has similarly recommended a modest variance from the Guidelines 

range, recommending a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment, albeit for different reasons. 

2 
62 

motivated by personal greed and ambition. While Cohen as his own submission makes clear 

already enjoyed a privileged life, his desire for even greater wealth and influence precipitated an 

extensive course of criminal conduct, described below. 

1. Background 

Cohen is a licensed attorney and has been since 1992. (PSR ~ 149.) Unti12007, Cohen 

practiced as an attorney for multiple law firms, working on, among other things, negligence and 

malpractice cases. (PSR ~~ 156-157.) For that work, Cohen earned approximately $75,000 per 

year. (!d.) In 2007, Cohen seized on an opportunity. The board of directors of a condominium 

building in which Cohen lived was attempting to remove from the building the name of the owner 

("Individual-!") of a Manhattan-based real estate company (the "Company''). (PSR ~ 155.) Cohen 

intervened, secured the backing of the residents of the building, and was able to remove the entire 

board of directors, thereby fixing the problem for Individual-!. (!d.) Not long after, Cohen was 

hired by the Company to the position of "Executive Vice President" and "Special Counsel" to 

Individual-!. (/d.) He earned approximately $500,000 per year in that position. (/d.) 

In January 2017, Cohen formally left the Company and began holding himself out as the 

"personal attorney'' to Individual-!, who at that point had become the President of the United 

States. In January 2017, Cohen also launched two companies: Michael D. Cohen and Associates, 

P.C., a legal practice, and Essential Consultants LLC, a consulting firm. (PSR ~ 152.) Both 

businesses were operated from the offices of a major law firm located in New York, and that firm 

paid Cohen $500,000 per year as salary. (/d.) Cohen also secured a substantial amount of 

consulting business for himself throughout 2017 by marketing to corporations what he claimed to 

be unique insights about and access to Individual-!. But while Cohen made millions of dollars 

from these consulting arrangements, his promises of insight and access proved essentially hollow. 

3 
63 

Documents obtained by the Government and witness interviews revealed that Cohen performed 

minimal work, and many of the consulting contracts were ultimately terminated. 

During and subsequent to his employment with the Company, Cohen also maintained 

additional sources of income. Most significantly, Cohen owned taxi medallions inN ew York City 

and Chicago worth millions of dollars. Cohen held these medallions as investments and leased 

them to operators who paid Cohen a specified monthly rate per medallion. (PSR ~~ 158-160.) 

Cohen has also made substantial investments in real estate and other business ventures. (PSR 

~~ 161-162.) 

2. Cohen's Willful Tax Evasion 

Between tax years 2012 and 2016, Cohen evaded taxes by failing to report more than $4 

million in income to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), which resulted in the avoidance of 

more than $1.4 million due to the United States Treasury Department. Specifically, Cohen failed 

to report several different streams of income on his tax returns, which he swore were true and 

accurate. (PSR ~~ 18-19.) 

The largest source of undisclosed income was more than $2.4 million that Cohen received 

from a series of personal loans that he made to a taxi operator to whom Cohen leased certain of 

his Chicago taxi medallions ("Taxi Operator-!"), between 2012 and 2015, for a total principal of 

$6 million. Each of these loans carried an interest rate in excess of 12 percent. Cohen funded the 

majority of these loans from a line of credit with an interest rate of less than 5 percent (such that 

Cohen was earning a substantial spread on the difference between the two loan rates). At Cohen's 

direction, Taxi Operator-! made the interest payment checks to Cohen personally. The checks 

were deposited in Cohen's personal bank account or in an account in his wife's name. In total, 

Cohen received more than $2.4 million in interest payments from Taxi Operator-! between 2012 

4 
64 

and 2016. Cohen did not inform his accountant of this arrangement or provide him with 

documentation in support of these loans and interest payments, and intentionally reported none of 

that income to the IRS in order to hide it and evade paying taxes. (PSR ~~ 20-23.) 

Cohen also concealed more than $1.3 million in income he received from another taxi 

operator to whom Cohen leased some of his New York taxi medallions ("Taxi Operator-2"). This 

income took two forms. First, in 2012, Taxi Operator-2 paid Cohen a bonus of at least $870,000 

to induce Cohen to allow him to operate some of Cohen's taxi medallions. Cohen did not report 

$710,000 of this bonus payment. (PSR ~ 25). In addition, Cohen arranged with Taxi Operator-2 

to receive a portion of the medallion income personally- as opposed to having the income paid to 

Cohen's medallion entities. That is, while most of the medallion income was paid to Cohen's 

medallion entities - whose bank statements were provided to his accountant for the purpose of 

calculating the income for these entities and preparing Cohen's tax returns- certain income was 

provided by Taxi Operator-2 directly to Cohen personally and deposited into his personal account. 

Cohen again chose not to notify his accountant of this arrangement or identify this additional 

income to be reported. (PSR ~ 26). 

Finally, Cohen hid several other sources of income from his accountant and the IRS. For 

example, in 2014, Cohen received $100,000 for brokering the sale of a piece of property in a 

private aviation community in Florida. In 2015, Cohen made approximately $30,000 in profit 

from the sale of a rare and highly valuable French handbag. In 2016, Cohen received more than 

$200,000 in consulting income from an assisted living company. Cohen reported none of this to 

the IRS or his accountant. (PSR ~ 27.) 

Cohen's evasion of these taxes was willful. In his sentencing submission and his 

submissions to the Probation Department in connection with the preparation of the PSR, Cohen 

5 
65 

repeatedly attempted to minimize the seriousness of his decision not to report millions of dollars 

of income over a period of years by blaming his accountant for not uncovering the unreported 

income. Specifically, Cohen's submission to the Probation Department asserted that "all relevant 

bank records were provided annually by Cohen to [his accountant] for the relevant years." (PSR 

at 45). Cohen repeats these efforts to blame his accountant in his sentencing submission: 

Michael's case stands out for comparative purposes in that a failure to reasonably 

identify all income to a tax preparer who received all client-related bank statements 

is quite different in kind from the sophisticated and complex schemes typical of 

criminal tax evasion cases. 

(Def. Mem. at 15) (emphasis added). Cohen's assertions are simply false. As the Government 

was prepared to prove at trial, the defendant did not provide his accountant with "all client-related 

bank statements" (Def. Mem. at 15 n.8), and the information Cohen did provide to his accountant 

could not have led his accountant to uncover the unreported income. Between 2014 and 2016, but 

not for 2012 or 2013, Cohen provided his accountant with certain bank records and instructed his 

accountant to identify potential tax deductions. Cohen's accountant did not go through Cohen's 

bank statements looking for potential sources of income, nor did Cohen ever request this. Indeed, 

Cohen routinely refused to pay for any work by his accountant not specifically approved by Cohen. 

In addition, even if Cohen's accountant had gone beyond the agreed scope of the 

assignment, the accountant was not provided with records that would have allowed him to 

reasonably identify the unreported income. Specifically, the bank records Cohen provided to his 

accountant were limited to monthly statements and did not include images of deposited checks or 

deposit slips. The records thus included reference to certain "deposit" or "credit" entries in 

particular amounts, but did not include additional detail that would have allowed the accountant to 

identify the source of these deposits or credits. For example, a page from Cohen's bank records 

from May 12,2015 included a $15,312.50 "deposit." While the Office's investigation identified 

6 
66 

this as a loan interest payment from Taxi Operator-! to Cohen, his accountant had no information 

indicating the source of the deposit, nor that it concerned interest income that source was paying 

to Cohen. In sum, any bank records provided by Cohen to his accountant "were insufficient for 

[the accountant] to identify additional sources of income absent additional information from 

Cohen." (PSR at 47.) As the Probation Department noted in evaluating Cohen's efforts to blame 

his accountant for Cohen's voluntary and intentional efforts to evade taxes, "the defendant's 

contention that he provided the accountant with all relevant bank records appears to minimize his 

responsibility in the instant offense and attempts to place the burden on his accountant." (PSR at 

46). 

Finally, not only did Cohen fail to identify the unreported income for Accountant-!, on at 

least two occasions Cohen took steps to conceal the interest income he was receiving from Taxi 

Operator-!. Specifically, in a memorandum that Cohen's accountant prepared in 2013 when 

Cohen became a client, the accountant flagged the fact that a personal financial statement prepared 

by Cohen's prior accountant "shows Loans Receivables of $4,250,000, but there is no related 

interest income reported on your 2012 personal income tax returns relative to this loan." Cohen 

and his accountant did not discuss the "loans receivables" further at the time because Cohen told 

his accountant he did not ask for and would not pay for the memorandum. Later, when Cohen's 

accountant was helping him prepare an updated personal fmancial statement to provide to Bank2, discussed below, in connection with the renegotiation of certain medallion loans, Cohen crossed 

out the "loans receivable" line item altogether from his personal financial statement, leading his 

accountant to conclude that the entry was mistaken and there was no outstanding personal loan, or 

that it had been paid off, neither of which was true. 

7 
67 

3. Cohen's False Statements to Financial Institutions 

In December 2015, Cohen contacted a bank ("Bank-3") to apply for a home equity line of 

credit ("HELOC"). In his application for the HELOC, Cohen made false statements about his net 

worth and monthly expenses. Specifically, Cohen failed to disclose more than $20 million in debt 

he owed to another bank ("Bank-2"), and also materially understated his monthly expenses to 

Bank-3 by omitting at least $70,000 in monthly interest payments due to Bank-2 on that debt. 

(PSR, 34). These statements were the latest in a series offalse statements Cohen made to fmancial 

institutions in connection with credit applications. 

By way of background, by February 2013, Cohen had obtained a $14 million line of credit 

from another bank ("Bank-!"), collateralized by his taxi medallions.2 In November 2014, Cohen 

refinanced this medallion debt at Bank-1 with Bank-2.3 The transaction was structured as a 

package of individual loans to the entities that owned Cohen's New York medallions, totaling 

more than $20 million, and personally guaranteed by Cohen. Following the closing of these loans, 

the $14 million line of credit with Bank-1 was closed. (PSR, 28-30.) 

In 2013, Cohen made a successful application to Bank -3 the bank to which he later would 

make false statements in connection with the HELOC application - for a mortgage on his Park 

A venue condominium. In that application, Cohen did not disclose the $14 million line of credit 

he had with Bank-! at the time. (PSR, 31.) 

In February 2015, Cohen attempted to secure financing from Bank-3 to purchase a summer 

home for approximately $8.5 million. Once again, he concealed the $14 million line of credit, 

2 Cohen separately maintained a $6.4 million medallion-related loan with Bank-1. This loan was 

disclosed in Cohen's subsequent credit applications to Bank-2 and Bank-3. 

3 Bank-2 shared the debt with a New York-based credit union, pursuant to a participation 

agreement. For ease of reference, this memorandum will simply refer to the debt at Bank-2. 

8 
68 

which by this point took the form of the $20 million in refinanced loans with Bank-2. In 

connection with the summer home application, Cohen had to go to great and deliberate lengths to 

keep the debt hidden from Bank-3. Specifically, in connection with this proposed transaction, 

Bank-3 obtained a personal financial statement that Cohen had provided to Bank-2 in connection 

with the $20 million refinancing with Bank-2 in 2014. This personal statement listed the $14 

million line of credit Cohen was seeking to refinance and increase with Bank-2. A representative 

ofBank-3 specifically asked Cohen about the $14 million line of credit reflected on that statement 

(which, as noted, had not been reflected on Cohen's 2013 application to Bank-3 for a mortgage). 

Cohen falsely stated that the $14 million line of credit was undrawn and that he would close it. In 

truth, Cohen had effectively overdrawn the line of credit, by swapping it out for a fully drawn, 

larger $20 million loan from Bank-2. Moreover, when Bank-3 informed Cohen that it would only 

provide financing if Cohen closed the line of credit, Cohen lied again, misleadingly stating in an 

email that "[t]he medallion line was closed in the middle of November 2014." (PSR mJ 32-33.) 

This series oflies culminated in Cohen's application for a HELOC. As noted, Cohen failed 

to disclose the more than $20 million in refinanced medallion liability on that application, and 

Bank-3 had no reason to question Cohen about the omission of this liability, because he had 

affirmatively told the bank that the $14line of credit was closed. 

In addition to failing to disclose more than $20 million in medallion liability, Cohen also 

intentionally omitted the tens of thousands in monthly interest payments he was making on that 

debt. Cohen's monthly cash flow or "debt ratio" of expenses to income was a core component of 

Bank-3 's underwriting processes that considered an applicant's ability to make loan payments and 

guard against the bank's need to enter into lengthy foreclosure proceedings. In evaluating 

prospective loans, Bank-3 typically required that a borrower's monthly expenses represent no more 

9 
69 

than 45 percent of his monthly income. Based on the incomplete information contained in the 

HELOC application, Cohen's debt ratio appeared to be below the benchmark set by Bank-3. Had 

Cohen truthfully disclosed his expenses, including the extent of the monthly interest payments he 

was required to make to Bank-3, Cohen's debt ratio would have significantly exceeded the 

benchmark. In April2016, Bank-3 approved Cohen for a $500,000 HELOC, which it would not 

have approved but for Cohen's concealment of truthful information about his financial condition. 

(PSR mJ34-35.) 

Notably, each of the foregoing false statements involved Cohen overstating his assets or 

understating his liabilities, as in these instances it served his purposes to appear to have a higher 

net worth. In contrast, when it served Cohen's purposes to understate his net worth to financial 

institutions, he did so by concealing income and assets from his creditors. Specifically, documents 

and witness interviews from the Government's investigation revealed that in 2017 and early 2018, 

Cohen wanted Bank-2 to restructure his more than $20 million in medallion debt on terms more 

favorable to Cohen. Cohen thus shifted gears, halting monthly payments to Bank-2 and falsely 

representing orally and in writing that he had a negative net worth and less than $1.5 million in 

cash, despite his receipt of nearly $4 million in "consulting" fees between January 2017 and March 

2018. By early April2018, Bank-2 and Cohen reached a deal in principle, premised on Bank-2's 

receipt of an updated personal fmancial statement confirming, in writing, the negative fmancial 

information represented by Cohen. On April 9, 2018, the FBI executed a series of search warrants 

on Cohen, including at his residence, hotel, and office, which put him on notice that he was being 

investigated for, among other things, bank fraud and explicitly referenced Bank-2. Following the 

execution of the warrants, counsel for Cohen informed Bank-2 that Cohen would be unable at that 

time to provide the previously promised updated personal financial statement. To save the deal, 

10 
70 

Cohen agreed to post his Park Avenue residence as collateral, which he had previously refused to 

do. An updated financial statement Cohen provided at closing reflected a positive $17 million net 

worth in addition to previously undisclosed liquid assets, a nearly $20 million increase from the 

false financial information Cohen had provided to Bank-2 just weeks earlier in the negotiations. 

Thus, the false statement to Bank-3 to which Cohen pleaded guilty was far from an isolated 

event: It was one in a long-series of self-serving lies Cohen told to numerous fmancial institutions. 

4. Cohen's Illegal Campaign Contributions 

On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-!, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began 

an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States. Cohen had no formal title 

with the campaign, but had a campaign email address, and, at various times advised the campaign, 

including on matters of interest to the press. Cohen also made media appearances as a surrogate 

and supporter of Individual-!. (PSR ~ 39). 

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the 

rights to stories- each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-! so as 

to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to 

both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen 

coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings 

and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ~51). In particular, and 

as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with 

and at the direction of Individual-!. (PSR ~~ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen's actions, neither 

woman spoke to the press prior to the election. (PSR ~ 51). 

Cohen Causes the Magazine to Pay Woman-! 

In approximately June 2016, a model and actress ("Woman-!") began attempting to sell 

11 
71 

her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-!. Woman-! knew that the story would 

be of considerable value because of Individual-!' s candidacy for president. Woman-! retained an 

attorney ("Attorney-!") to represent her in this matter. (PSR, 41). 

Attorney-! then contacted the editor-in-chief ("Editor-!") of a popular tabloid magazine 

("Magazine-!") and offered to sell the story to Magazine-!. The Chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer ("Chairman-!") of the media company that owns Magazine-! ("Corporation-!") had a 

prior relationship with Individual-! and Cohen. In August 2014, Chairman-! had met with Cohen 

and Individual-!, and had offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-! 's 

relationships with women by identifying such stories so that they could be purchased and "killed." 

Consistent with that offer, after Editor-! told Chairman-! about Woman-! 's story, they contacted 

Cohen to tell him about the offer. (PSR ,, 40-41). 

At Cohen's urging and with his promise that Corporation-! would be reimbursed, Editor-

! began negotiating the purchase ofWoman-1 's story. On August 5, 2016, Corporation-! entered 

into an agreement with Woman-! to acquire the "limited life rights" to the story of her relationship 

with "any then-married man," in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two 

magazine covers and publish over one hundred magazine articles authored by her. The 

agreement's principal purpose was to suppress Woman-! 's story so as to prevent the story from 

influencing the election. (PSR ,, 41-42). 

Between August 2016 and September 2016, Cohen agreed with Chairman-! to assign the 

rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporation-! 's agreement with Woman-! to Cohen for 

$125,000. Cohen then incorporated a shell entity called "Resolution Consultants LLC" to be used 

in the transaction. Both Chairman-! and Cohen ultimately signed the agreement, and a consultant 

for Corporation-!, using his own shell entity, provided Cohen with an invoice for the payment of 

12 
72 

$125,000. That assignment was never completed, however. (PSR mf 43-44). 

Cohen Pays Woman-2 

On October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress ("Woman-2") informed Editor-! that 

Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair 

with Individual-!. Chairman-! and Editor-! contacted Cohen and put him in touch with Attorney-

!, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, Cohen negotiated 

a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-! to purchase Woman-2's silence. Cohen received a signed 

confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter from Attorney-!. (PSR 'lf45). 

Cohen did not immediately execute the settlement agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2. 

On the evening of October 25, 2016, with no final deal in place with Woman-2, Attorney-! told 

Editor-! that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with a media outlet, under which she would 

make her story public. Editor-! texted Cohen that "[w]e have to coordinate something on the 

matter [Attorney-! is] calling you about or it could look awfully bad for everyone." Chairman-! 

and Editor-! then called Cohen through an encrypted telephone application. Cohen agreed to make 

the payment and then called Attorney-! to finalize the deal. (PSR 'lf 46). 

On October 26, 2016, Cohen emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate 

formation documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants, LLC, which he had 

incorporated a few days prior. That afternoon, he directed that $131,000 from his HELOC- the 

same HELOC he had obtained by means of false statements, seep. 8-10, supra -be deposited into 

an account he had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants LLC. The next day, Cohen 

wired $130,000 from that account to Attorney-!. On the wire form, Cohen falsely indicated that 

the purpose of the wire was to pay a "retainer." On November 1, 2016, Cohen received copies of 

the final, signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter agreement from Attorney-!. 

13 
73 

(PSR ~~ 47-50). 

After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including 

the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company 

with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested 

reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaignrelated "tech services." Executives of the Company agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding 

$130,000 and $50,000, "grossing up" that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a 

$60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company 

decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. (PSR 

~~52-53). 

At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the 

Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant 

to a "retainer agreement." The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as "legal 

expenses." In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not "legal 

expenses"- Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-! or the Company in 

2017- but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course 

of2017. (PSR n 54-56). 

5. Cohen's False Statements to Congress 

Cohen also deliberately made false statements to the Congress. The offense conduct 

regarding Cohen's false statements in set forth in the sentencing submission being filed by the 

SCO in 18 Cr. 850 (WHP). (See also PSR ~~ 62-73). 

B. Cohen's Meetings with Law Enforcement 

Since his guilty plea, Cohen has provided information to various law enforcement entities, 

14 
74 

including representatives of this Office and the SCO. As set forth in the submission being filed 

by the SCO in 18 Cr. 850 (WHP), this Office understands that the information provided by Cohen 

to the SCO was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation. 

To be clear, neither the SCO nor this Office is making a motion under U.S.S.G. § 5Kl.l. 

No such motion is being made because, as detailed herein, Cohen repeatedly declined to provide 

full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged 

or had knowledge. However, this Office acknowledges and agrees that Cohen's provision of 

information to the SCO in connection with its investigation is a mitigating factor that the Court 

should consider in imposing sentence. Indeed, Cohen's provision of information to the SCO is the 

reason that this Office is not seeking a Guidelines sentence here, but rather is acknowledging that 

a modest variance is appropriate. 

While Cohen's provision of information to the SCO merits credit, his description of his 

actions as arising solely from some "personal resolve" - as opposed to arising from the pendency 

of criminal charges and the desire for leniency- ignores that Cohen first reached out to meet with 

the SCO at a time when he knew he was under imminent threat of indictment in this District. As 

such, any suggestion by Cohen that his meetings with law enforcement reflect a selfless and 

unprompted about-face are overstated. 

With respect to Cohen's provision of information to this Office, in its two meetings with 

him, this Office assessed Cohen to be forthright and credible, and the information he provided was 

largely consistent with other evidence gathered. Had Cohen actually cooperated, it could have 

been fruitful: He did provide what could have been useful information about matters relating to 

ongoing investigations being carried out by this Office. But as Cohen partially acknowledges, it 

was his decision not to pursue full cooperation, and his professed willingness to continue to provide 

15 
75 

information at some later unspecified time is of limited value to this Office, both because he is 

under no obligation to do so, and because the Office's inability to fully vet his criminal history and 

reliability impact his utility as a witness. 

Indeed, his proffer sessions with the SCO aside, Cohen only met with the Office about the 

participation of others in the campaign finance crimes to which Cohen had already pleaded guilty. 

Cohen specifically declined to be debriefed on other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in his 

past. 4 Cohen further declined to meet with the Office about other areas of investigative interest. 

As the Court is undoubtedly aware, in order to successfully cooperate with this Office, witnesses 

must undergo full debriefings that encompass their entire criminal history, as well as any and all 

information they possess about crimes committed by both themselves and others. This process 

permits the Office to fully assess the candor, culpability, and complications attendant to any 

potential cooperator, and results in cooperating witnesses who, having accepted full responsibility 

for any and all misconduct, are credible to law enforcement and, hopefully, to judges and juries. 

Cohen affirmatively chose not to pursue this process. Cohen's efforts thus fell well short of 

cooperation, as that term is properly used in this District. 5 

For this reason, Cohen is not being offered a cooperation agreement or a SKI. I letter. 

4 At the time that Cohen met twice with this Office, through his attorneys, he had expressed that he 

was considering but not committing to - full cooperation. Cohen subsequently determined not to fully 

cooperate. 

5 Cohen's provision of information to the Office of the New York Attorney General {"NY AG") 

warrants little to no consideration as a mitigating factor. This Office's understanding is that the information 

Cohen provided was useful only to the extent that he corroborated information already known to the NY 

AG. More importantly, Cohen provided information to the NY AG not as a cooperating witness who was 

exposing himself to potential criminal or civil liability but instead as a witness who could have been 

compelled to provide that testimony. Fulfilling that basic legal responsibility voluntarily does not warrant 

a reduced sentence - particularly when one waits until he is charged with federal crimes before doing so. 

Similarly, this Office's understanding is that the New York State Department of Taxation and Financial 

Services {"NYSDTF") subpoenaed Cohen for information about the payment of his own state taxes, and 

any claimed "cooperation" with NYSDTF appears to consist solely of providing that entity information 

that they would otherwise have obtained via subpoena. 

16 
76 

Within the confines of the SCO investigation itself, the Office does not dispute that Cohen's 

assistance to the SCO was significant. But because Cohen elected not to pursue more fulsome 

cooperation with this Office, including on other subjects and on his own history, the Office cannot 

assess the overall level of Cohen's cooperation to be significant. Therefore, the Office submits 

that, in fashioning a sentence on its case, the Court afford Cohen credit for his efforts with the 

SCO, but credit that accounts for only a modest variance from the Guidelines range and does not 

approach the credit typically given to actual cooperating witnesses in this District. 

APPLICATION OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES 

A. The Probation Department's Calculation 

The Office agrees with the Probation Department's calculation of the total offense level as 

24, see PSR, 110, and the Criminal History Category as I, see PSR, 114. Based upon these 

calculations, Cohen's advisory Guidelines range is 51 to 63 months' imprisonment. (PSR, 174.) 

B. Cohen's Challenges to the Guidelines Calculation 

Cohen challenges the Probation Department's calculation on two grounds. (Def. Mem. at 

22-26.) Each claim is meritless. 

1. The PSR's Grouping Analysis is Correct 

Cohen claims that the Probation Department's grouping of the tax evasion counts with the 

other counts in Information 18 Cr. 602 was incorrect because the counts are not "closely related." 

This argument is contrary to the text of the applicable Guidelines and controlling Second Circuit 

precedent. 

The PSR groups all eight counts in Information 18 Cr. 602 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Dl.2, 

which provides that "[a ]11 counts involving substantially the same harm shall be grouped together 

17 
77 

into a single Group."6 Subsection (d) of the Guideline specifies that "substantially the same harm" 

includes "[ w ]hen the offense level is determined largely on the basis of the total amount of harm 

or loss." U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d). The subsection also includes a list of specifically enumerated 

Guidelines that are to be grouped. !d. All three of the Guidelines at issue here- U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l, 

which applies to the false statements count, § 2C 1.8, which applies to the illegal campaign 

contribution counts, and§ 2Tl.l, which applies to the tax evasion counts- are included on that 

list. Thus, using the plain text of the Guidelines, all of the offenses here should be grouped.7 The 

commentary to the Guidelines further supports this conclusion. It states that "counts involving 

offenses to which different offense guidelines apply are grouped together under subsection (d) if 

the offenses are of the same general type," and further specifies that "[t]he 'same general type' of 

offense is to be construed broadly." U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 app. n. 6. 

Second Circuit case law supports the plain-text reading of the Guidelines. The Second 

Circuit has held that Section 3Dl.2(d) must be used to group tax crimes with fraud and other 

offenses for which the offense level is principally determined by the amount ofloss. United States 

v. Gordon, 291 F.3d 181, 192 (2d Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Fitzgerald, 232 F.3d 315, 

320 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that tax evasion, fraud and conversion should be grouped under 

Section 3D1.2(d) because they are offenses of the same general type); United States v. Petrillo, 

6 The false statements to Congress count charged in 18 Cr. 850 does not group with the other 

counts, but it does not affect the Guidelines calculation. (PSR, 88). 

7 Cohen argues that the listing of specific Guidelines in this subsection does not make grouping 

mandatory. See Def. Mem. at 23 (citing United States v. Napoli, 179 F.3d I, 9 n.4 (2d Cir. 1999)). But 

saying that grouping is not mandatory does not mean that it is not appropriate- particularly where, as here, 

the Guidelines in question are each ones in which the offense level is detemrined largely on the basis of the 

total amount of loss. See Napoli, 179 F.3d at 9 n.4 (citing as an example where grouping would not be 

appropriate fraud and drug counts, because one measures harm by dollar losses whereas the other measures 

harm by drug weights). Here, each of the listed offenses measures harm by dollar amounts, meaning that 

Napoli, cited by Cohen, actually supports the Office's position. 

18 
78 

237 F.3d 119, 124-25 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that tax evasion and mail fraud should be grouped 

under Section 3D1.2(d)); United States v. Bernstein, 43 Fed. App'x 429, 431 (2d Cir. 2002) 

(affirming grouping of mail fraud and tax fraud offenses under Section 3Dl.2(d)).8 

Cohen attempts to distinguish Petrillo, arguing that the tax and mail fraud offenses in that 

case were factually intertwined and that it was decided at a time when the tax and fraud tables had 

the same thresholds. (Def Mem. at 24). But even if Petrillo were read as limited to the facts of 

that case, Gordon resolves any uncertainty. Analyzing Petrillo and Fitzgerald, the Second Circuit 

held in Gordon that even if those cases do not require grouping under Section 3D1.2(d), the 

structure of the Guidelines does in fact "require" that "crimes falling within the special category 

of quantifiable-harm offenses" be grouped under§ 3Dl.2(d). Gordon, 291 F.3d at 193. That was 

so even though, at the time, the tax and fraud offense tables no longer had identical thresholds. 

Nevertheless, the Circuit held that the district court committed clear and obvious error by not 

applying Section 3D 1.2( d) to group the fraud and tax evasion offenses in that case. !d. 9 

Moreover, Cohen's position-that the campaigo finance and false statements counts should 

group, but the tax evasion counts should not - does not make sense. All three sets of counts are 

offenses for which the offense level is based principally on a quantifiable amount of harm or loss, 

and qualify as offenses of "the same general type" as each other. But even if the foregoing 

precedent were set aside, and the phrase "general type" were construed narrowly so that tax crimes 

were not of the same general type as false statements or campaigo finance offenses, then the false 

8 Cohen argues that the "vast majority of Circuit courts" have held otherwise, citing United States 

v. Doxie, 813 F.3d 1340, 1345 (11th Cir. 2016). But as Doxie recogoizes, the Second Circuit has concluded 

that "fraud counts and tax counts should be grouped together under§ 3Dl.2(d)." !d. at n.3. That holding 

is binding here in the Second Circuit. 

9 The concurrence in Gordon cited by Cohen did not command a majority of the panel and thus is 

not controlling precedent. 

19 
79 

statements and campaign finance crimes would similarly not be of the same "general type." 

Indeed, the false statements and campaign finance crimes are no more similar as a general matter 

or related as a factual matter than the tax crimes are with the other offenses. Thus, there is no 

rational basis to group some but not all of the offenses in this case. 10 

2. The Guidelines Enhancements Are Not "Overlapping" 

In the plea agreement, the parties have stipulated that two-level enhancements are 

warranted for both (i) Cohen's used of"sophisticated means," and (ii) his use of his "special skill" 

as a licensed attorney in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment 

of his crimes .. The PSR also applies these enhancements. (PSR ~~ 92, 94). While not contesting 

their applicability as a legal matter, Cohen argues that they address overlapping conduct, such that 

the resulting Guidelines range overstates the offense. (Def. Mem. at 24-25). This argument is 

meritless. The "sophisticated means" and "special skill" enhancements address different aspects 

of Cohen's conduct, and each serves a unique purpose under the Guidelines. 

The "sophisticated means" enhancement is addressed to Cohen's use of complex means to 

carry out and disguise his crimes. For example, Cohen created shell companies for his commission 

of the campaign finance crimes, including one shell entity (Resolution Consultants) for use in the 

transaction with Woman-! and another shell entity (Essential Consultants) for use in the 

transaction with Woman-2. (PSR ~~ 43, 47.) Cohen also agreed to structure the reimbursement 

for his payment to Woman-2 in monthly installments, and to disguise those payments by creating 

fake invoices that referenced a non-existent "retainer." (PSR ~ 54.) These actions clearly 

constitute the use of"sophisticated means," and Cohen does not and cannot argue to the contrary. 

See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l cmt. n. 9(B) ("[c]onduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, 

10 If that were the case- that none of the counts grouped- then the total offense level would likely 

be 27, yielding a much higher Guidelines range of70 to 87 months' imprisonment. 

20 
80 

through the use of fictitious entities [or] corporate shells . . . ordinarily indicates sophisticated 

means"); United States v. Amico, 416 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir. 2005) (creation of false bank 

documents, appraisals, and blueprints constituted sophisticated means); see also United States v. 

Regensberg, 381 F. App'x 60, 62 (2d Cir. 2010) (creation of fake loan documents and fraudulent 

earnings statements constituted sophisticated means). 

By contrast, the "special skill" enhancement is directed at a different aspect of Cohen's 

conduct - his use of his education, training, and licensure as an attorney to facilitate and conceal 

the campaign finance crimes. For example, in order to facilitate the hush money payment to 

Woman-2, Cohen used his skills and experience as an attorney to negotiate and finalize a 

settlement agreement with Woman-2, which included both a principal agreement and a separate 

side letter that was designed specifically to conceal the identities of the parties. (PSR ~ 45). 

Moreover, Cohen's role as the attorney for one of the individuals involved in both settlement 

agreements allowed him to use his position to attempt to cloak his criminal conduct under the veil 

of attorney-client privilege. Indeed, in conversations he recorded with reporters, he claimed that 

beyond his public statements on the matter, he could not answer questions about his role in the 

payments because of attorney-client privilege. This sort of conduct implicates the "special skill" 

enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Mancuso, 428 Fed. Appx. 73, 2011 WL 2580228, at *7 

(Zd Cir. June 30, 2011) (enhancement warranted where attorney used legal skills to create a power 

of attorney, draft a backdated partnership agreement, and form a company in furtherance of the 

offense); United States v. Kelly, 147 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir. 1998) (defendant used his skill as an 

experienced attorney to prepare an assignment of income in an effort to avoid income tax). 

These two enhancements are thus directed at different actions that carry unique harms. For 

that reason, Cohen's argument that the enhancements are "overlapping" and should thus be 

21 
81 

discounted is meritless. See, e.g., United States v. Minneman, 143 F.3d 274,283 (7th Cir. 1998) 

(rejecting "double-counting" argument where the special skill adjustment focused on the 

defendant's use of his legal training, while the sophisticated means enhancement was based on his 

use of multiple accounts and corporate names); United States v. Rice, 52 F.3d 843, 851 (lOth Cir. 

1995) (noting that "(t]he purpose of the special skill enhancement is to punish those criminals who 

use their special talents to commit crime," whereas the sophisticated means enhancement is 

"designed to target criminals who engage in complicated criminal activity because their actions 

are considered more blameworthy and deserving of greater punishment than a perpetrator of a 

simple version of the crime"). 

C. The Probation Department's Recommendation 

Taking into account the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Cohen's age and 

background, the nature and circumstances of his offenses, and the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentencing disparities, the Probation Department recommends a sentence of 42 months' 

imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. (PSR at 53-54.) The Probation Department's recommendation 

does not, however, consider Cohen's provision of information to the SCO. 

DISCUSSION 

A. A Substantial Term of Imprisonment Is Warranted 

As set forth herein, consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighs 

heavily in favor of a substantial term of imprisonment. In particular, the nature and seriousness of 

the offenses and the need to promote respect for the law and afford adequate deterrence are 

especially weighty considerations. 

1. The Nature and Seriousness of the Offenses 

In his submission, Cohen states that "the facts and circumstances surrounding this case are 

22 
82 

unique and unprecedented." (Def. Mem. at 28-29.) That may be so, but it is not exclusively for 

the reasons given by Cohen. It is also unique because Cohen managed to commit a panoply of 

serious crimes, all while holding himself out as a licensed attorney and upstanding member of the 

bar. His offenses strike at several pillars of our society and system of government: the payment 

of taxes; transparent and fair elections; and truthfulness before government and in business. 

First, Cohen's commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election 

for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign 

finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the 

election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make 

their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by 

orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made 

public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-!. In the process, Cohen deceived the 

voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the 

election. 

It is this type of harm that Congress sought to prevent when it imposed limits on individual 

contributions to candidates. To promote transparency and prevent wealthy individuals like Cohen 

from circumventing these limits, Congress prohibited individuals from making expenditures on 

behalf of and coordinated with candidates. Cohen clouded a process that Congress has 

painstakingly sought to keep transparent. The sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness of 

Cohen's brazen violations of the election laws and attempt to counter the public cynicism that may 

arise when individuals like Cohen act as if the political process belongs to the rich and powerful. 

Cohen's submission suggests that this was but a brief error in judgment. Not so. Cohen 

knew exactly where the line was, and he chose deliberately and repeatedly to cross it. Indeed, he 

23 
83 

was a licensed attorney with significant political experience and a history of campaign donations, 

and who was well-aware of the election laws. 11 In fact, Cohen publicly and privately took credit 

for Individual-! 's political success, claiming in a conversation that he secretly recorded that 

he "started the whole thing ... started the whole campaign" in 2012 when Individual-! expressed 

an interest in running for President. Moreover, not only was Cohen well aware of what he was 

doing, but he used sophisticated tactics to conceal his misconduct. He arranged one of the 

payments through a media company and disguised it as a services contract, and executed the 

second non-disclosure agreement with aliases and routed the six-figure payment through a shell 

corporation. After the election, he arranged for his own reimbursement via fraudulent invoices for 

non-existent legal services ostensibly performed pursuant to a non-existent "retainer" agreement. 

And even when public reports of the payments began to surface, Cohen told shifting and 

misleading stories about the nature of the payment, his coordination with the candidate, and the 

fact that he was reimbursed. 

This was not a blind act of loyalty, as Cohen has also suggested. His actions suggest that 

Cohen relished the status of ultimate fixer- a role that he embraced as recently as May 2018Y 

Cohen was driven by a desire to further ingratiate himself with a potential future President-for 

whose political success Cohen himself claimed credit-'-and arranged for the payments in an 

attempt to increase his power and influence. Indeed, after Cohen caused the media company to 

11 Cohen was previously the subject of an FEC complaint for making unlawful contributions to 

Donald Trump's nascent campaign for the 2012 presidency. The complaint was dismissed for jurisdictional 

reasons, but it certainly put Cohen on notice of the applicable campaign finance regulations. See In the 

Matter of Donald J. Trump, Michael Cohen, eta/., MUR 6462 (Sept. 18, 2013). 

12 Michael Cohen (@michaelcohen212), Twitter (May 8, 2018, 6:19 PM), 

https://twitter.com/michaelcohen212/status/971933570146201600?lang=en (thanking @CNN "for your 

accurate depiction of me and my role for our @POTUS @rea!DonaldTrump! #loyalty #RayDonovan 

#fixer). The phrase "#RayDonovan" is a reference to the fictional "fixer" character on the Showtime 

television crime drama Ray Donovan. 

24 
84 

make an illegal expenditure, in a secretly recorded meeting Cohen took credit for the payment and 

assured Individual-! that he was "all over" the transaction. And after making the payment to the 

second woman, and after Individual-! was elected President, Cohen privately bragged to friends 

and reporters, including in recorded conversations, that he had made the payment to spare 

Individual-! from damaging press and embarrassment. 

Cohen's criminal violations of the federal election laws were also stirred, like his other 

crimes, by his own ambition and greed. During and after the campaign, Cohen privately told 

friends and colleagues, including in seized text messages, that he expected to be given a prominent 

role and title in the new administration. When that did not materialize, Cohen found a way to 

monetize his relationship with and access to the President. Cohen successfully convinced 

numerous major corporations to retain him as a "consultant" who could provide unique insights 

about and access to the new administration. Some of these corporations were then stuck making 

large up-front or periodic payments to Cohen, even though he provided little or no real services 

under these contracts. Bank records reflect that Cohen made more than $4 million dollars before 

the contracts were terminated. 

Second, Cohen undertook similar acts of deception in his private life. He concealed 

significant amounts of income from the IRS, and lied about his financial status in his dealings with 

banks. These offenses warrant significant punishment. For at least half a decade, Cohen willfully 

evaded paying taxes. Cohen, who himself studied tax in law school and displayed an awareness 

of complicated tax laws in real estate transactions, took purposeful steps to avoid paying taxes on 

millions of dollars in income over a five-year period. He made private loans at double-digit interest 

rates and did not report the millions of dollars in income it generated. The fact that these loans 

were cash generators was not lost on Cohen: At one point, he offered to sell the loans to other 

25 
85 

investors. Cohen also failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting income and 

legal work, and underreported payments he received from his ownership of taxi medallions. 

Cohen's sentencing memorandum attempts to downplay the seriousness of this conduct, 

labeling it ''unsophisticated" because this case does not involve unreported cash transactions, 

offshore accounts, phony deductions, or obstructive conduct. (Def. Mem. at 14.) But the nature 

of Cohen's criminal conduct is apparent from the manner in which he dealt with his own 

accountant: Cohen provided incomplete information to his accountant, lied about the existence or 

value of certain assets and income sources, and rebuffed questions that would have revealed 

income he deliberately concealed. Moreover, Cohen's crimes were not ones of necessity. To the 

contrary, he relied on his unreported income to maintain his opulent lifestyle and purchase luxury 

items. Indeed, in some years, the amount of money that Cohen spent on expenses - including 

credit card bills, fine art purchases, and payments for private school - exceeded the gross amount 

of income listed on Cohen's tax returns. 

Third, Cohen similarly flouted his obligation to be truthful in business when seeking 

financing. To secure loans, Cohen falsely understated the amount of debt he was carrying, and 

omitted information from his personal fmancial statements, to induce a bank to lend based on 

incomplete information. To explain why he submitted a false statement to a bank that failed to 

disclose more than $20 million in liabilities as well as tens of thousands in monthly expenses, 

Cohen notes that it was his private banker who provided Cohen with an inaccurate application, 

which Cohen failed to correct. But this was no mere error of omission: As noted above, Cohen 

was specifically asked about the omission, and covered it up by misleadingly telling Bank-3 that 

the liabilities had been expunged, when in fact they had been re-established at another bank. This 

false statement was the latest in a series of false statements Cohen had made to this banker and 

26 
86 

others. Seep. 8-11, supra. And indeed it was one of these prior false statements -in which Cohen 

told the banker that he had closed the $14 miJlion line of credit in question - that led the banker to 

omit that liability from the draft of his application. 

Cohen is loath to acknowledge these false statements to banks. Likewise at his guilty plea 

proceeding, the Court had to press Cohen to acknowledge that he understood he was lying to a 

bank. This signals that Cohen's consciousness of wrongdoing is fleeting, that his remorse is 

minimal, and that his instinct to blame others is strong. While he has legally accepted 

responsibility, the Court should consider at sentencing these transparent efforts at minimizing 

Cohen's false statements and criminal conduct. As the Probation Department recognized in 

rejecting these arguments, Cohen is attempting "to lessen [his] culpability and place the burden on 

Bank-3." (PSR at 48.) 13 

Finally, Cohen has pled guilty to making false statements to Congress in connection with 

a conwessional investigation. This offense is described in detail in the SCO's sentencing 

submission. 

Taken alone, these are each serious crimes worthy of meaningful punishment. Taken 

together, these offenses reveal a man who knowingly sought to undermine core institutions of our 

democracy. His motivation to do so was not borne from naivete, carelessness, misplaced loyalty, 

or political ideology. Rather, these were knowing and calculated acts - acts Cohen executed in 

13 In a further attempt at undermining the seriousness of this offense, Cohen observes that there 

has been no monetary loss to any bank. (Def. Mem. at 18.) Financial loss, however, should not be the only 

measure of the seriousness of the offense. Cohen's argument fails to recognize the important federal interest 

at stake, which is reflected in the purpose and history of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Section 1014 was designed to 

"protect federally insured institutions from losses stemming from false statements or misrepresentations 

that mislead the institutions into making financial commitments, advances, or loans," and thereby to 

"protect the integrity of the system of credit generated and maintained by federally insured banks." United 

States v. Zahavi, No. 12 Cr. 288 (JPO), 2012 WL 5288743, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2012). If borrowers 

obtain loans based on false information, and cannot fulfill their obligations, that can have tremendous 

negative effects on lenders and the banking system as a whole. 

27 
87 

order to profit personally, build his own power, and enhance his level of influence. The nature 

and seriousness of each of Cohen's crimes warrant a substantial sentence in this case. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l), (2)(A). 

2. The Need to Promote Respect for the Law and to Afford Adequate Deterrence 

The need for the sentence to promote respect for the law and to afford adequate deterrence 

further supports imposition of a significant sentence of imprisonment. Congress provided for 

strong criminal sanctions as a general deterrent to tax evasion, false statements to financial 

institutions, and campaign finance violations. Given the magnitude and brazenness of the conduct 

in this case, the interests of deterrence are best served by the imposition of a substantial term of 

imprisonment. 

Cohen's years-long pattern of deception, and his attempts to minimize certain of that 

conduct even now, make it evident that a lengthy custodial sentence is necessary to specifically 

deter him from further fraudulent conduct, whether out of greed or for power, in the future. 

Certainly, Cohen has no prior convictions, and is well-educated and professionally successful. 

Generally, such characteristics suggest that a defendant is unlikely to re-offend in the future. But 

where, as here, the nature, multitude, and temporal span of criminal behavior betray a man whose 

outlook on life was often to cheat - an outlook that succeeded for some time his professional 

history and lack of prior convictions are not a significant mitigating factor. 

For much the same reasons, the time-served sentence that Cohen seeks would send 

precisely the wrong message to the public. General deterrence is a significant factor here. 

Campaign finance crimes, because they are committed in secret and hidden from the victims, are 

difficult to identify and prosecute. Nonetheless, they have tremendous social cost, described 

above, as they erode faith in elections and perpetuate political corruption. Effective deterrence of 

28 
88 

such offenses requires incarceratory sentences that signal to other individuals who may 

contemplate conduct similar to Cohen's that violations of campaign finance laws will not be 

tolerated. Particularly in light of the public interest in this case, the Court's sentence may indeed 

have a cognizable impact on that problem by deterring future candidates, and their "fixers," all of 

whom are sure to be aware of the Court's sentence here, from violating campaign finance laws. 

Additionally, a significant sentence of imprisonment would also generally deter tax 

evasion and other financial crimes by sending the important message that even powerful 

individuals cannot cheat on their taxes and lie to financial institutions with impunity, because they 

will be subject to serious federal penalties. This is particularly important in the context of a tax 

evasion prosecution. Hundreds of billions of dollars are lost annually because people like Cohen 

- who otherwise take full advantage of all that taxes bring, such as schools, paved roads, transit 

systems, and Government buildings - shirk their responsibilities as American taxpayers. 

Meaningful sentences - that is, ones that, through their terms, speak loudly and clearly - must be 

given in cases like this one so that others are forewarned of the consequences for engaging in tax 

crimes. As the United States Sentencing Commission has explained, "[b ]ecause of the limited 

number of criminal tax prosecutions relative to the estimated incidence of such violations, 

deterring others from violating the tax laws is a primary consideration underlying these guidelines. 

Recognition that the sentence for a criminal tax case will be commensurate with the gravity of the 

offense should act as a deterrent to would be violators." U.S.S.G. Ch. 2, Part T, intro. Cmt. Where 

the incidence of prosecution is lower, the level of punishment must be higher to obtain the same 

level of deterrence. See generally Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell, "Fairness Versus Welfare," 

114 Harv. L. Rev. 961, 1225-1303 (2001); see also United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 

922 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming as reasonable a within-Guidelines 32-month sentence for a tax 

29 
89 

evader when the district court explained that "a sentence of probation would not promote respect 

for the law, but encourage people to flaunt it"). Indeed, "[s]tudies have shown that salient 

examples of tax-enforcement actions against specific taxpayers, especially those that involve 

criminal sanctions, have a significant and positive deterrent effect." Joshua D. Blank, In Defense 

of Individual Tax Privacy, 61 Emory L.J. 265, 321 (2011-2012). Our system of voluntary 

compliance would be undermined if wealthy and successful individuals such as Cohen come to 

believe that the most severe sanctions that they will face, in the relatively unlikely case that they 

are caught cheating on their taxes, are the payment of back taxes, interest, and penalties. The 

Guidelines therefore recognize the harm tax crimes inflict on society and recommend prison 

sentences for cases like this one. 

In sum, the nature of Cohen's conduct underscores the need for a substantial period of 

incarceration as a means both to promote respect for the law and to deter future abuses by other 

individuals seeking improperly to influence the electoral process, evade taxes, or lie to financial 

institutions. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) & (a)(2)(B). 

B. Cohen's Request for a Sentence of Time Served is Meritless 

In his submission, Cohen requests a sentence of time served, which would effectively be a 

sentence of a matter of hours - 99.5% lower than what the Sentencing Guidelines and Probation 

Department recommend. When considering "the kinds of sentences available," 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(3), this Court should view with great skepticism a request for a nonincarceratory sentence when the Guidelines recommend a substantial prison term. See United 

States v. Goldberg, 491 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2007) ("When the guidelines, drafted by a respected 

public body with access to the best knowledge and practices of penology, recommend that a 

defendant be sentenced to a number of years in prison, a sentence involving no ... imprisonment 

30 
90 

can be justified only by a careful, impartial weighing of the statutory sentencing factors."). Cohen 

presses four principal arguments in support of his request, but none warrants the extraordinary 

variance that he seeks. 

First, Cohen argues that the emotional toll of his convictions on him and his family, the 

loss of his law license and other business, and civil tax penalties, "amount[] to an alternative form 

of punishment," which warrants a sentence of time served. (Def. Mem. at 26.) They do not. 

Congress, through the Guidelines, has pointedly addressed and rejected this "I've been punished 

enough" argument from privileged citizens who bemoan the collateral consequences of a 

guidelines sentence to persons like themselves. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(d) ("The Commission shall 

assure that the guidelines and policy statements are entirely neutral as to ... socioeconomic status 

of offenders."); U.S.S.G. § SHl.lO (socioeconomic status not relevant); see also U.S.S.G. § SH1.2 

(vocational skills and education not ordinarily relevant); U.S.S.G. § SHl.S (employment record 

not ordinarily relevant); U.S.S.G. § 5Hl.6 (family ties and responsibilities not ordinarily relevant). 

The federal courts have repeatedly agreed. See, e.g., United States v. Prosperi, 686 F.3d 32, 47 

(1st Cir. 2012) ("[I]t is impermissible for a court to impose a lighter sentence on white-collar 

defendants than on blue-collar defendants because it reasons that white-collar offenders suffer 

greater reputational harm or have more to lose by conviction."); United States v. Musgrave, 761 

F.3d 602, 608-09 (6th Cir. 2014) (impermissible for the district court to rely heavily on the fact 

that the defendant had already "been punished extraordinarily" through years of legal process, the 

loss ofhis CPA license, and his felony conviction). 

There is nothing about Cohen's family circumstances warranting the extraordinary 

sentence that he seeks. On the contrary, rather than a factor warranting any decreased 

imprisonment, Cohen's education, resources and opportunities should, in the event that they are 

31 
91 

relevant at all, weigh in favor of holding him to an exacting standard. Cohen did not need to 

commit the crimes that he did, yet he committed them for personal gain. He was motivated in part 

by greed and the desire to live an opulent and lavish lifestyle. And for all of Cohen's outward 

rectitude, he has lived a double life, which weighs heavily against a variance. While Cohen has 

submitted letters describing his good nature, the evidence collected and witnesses interviewed in 

this investigation paint a decidedly different picture - a picture of someone who was threatening 

and abusive when he wanted to get his way. For instance, in 2015, Cohen threatened a journalist 

for investigating a negative story about Individual-!, telling him: 

I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we're in the courthouse. And I 

will take you for every penny you still don't have. And I will come after your 

[employer] and everybody else that you possibly know .... So I'm warning you, 

tread very fucking lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be 

fucking disgusting. You understand me? 14 

On another call- which Cohen secretly recorded- with bankers from Bank:-2 with whom Cohen 

was seeking to renegotiate his medallion debt on terms more favorable to him, Cohen threatened: 

I'm gonna teach [the bank and its government conservator] a lesson they've never 

seen before in their life. Because I'm gonna hit everybody up with a lawsuit that's 

gonna spin everyone's head. And I'm looking forward to that, by the way. And I'm 

not saying it as a threat. It's a fact. 

Cohen himself said in an interview in 2011 that, "If you do something wrong, I'm going to come 

at you, grab you by the neck and I'm not going to let you go until I'm finished." 15 These are just 

a few of the many examples of Cohen's abuse of both his standing as an attorney and his 

relationship to a powerful individual examples of the type of conduct that is repugnant from 

anyone, let alone an attorney of the bar. They stand in marked contrast to the letters of support for 

14 The full recording is available at: www.npr.org/player/embed/615843930/615845621. 

15 See ABC News, Meet Michael Cohen (Apr. 16, 2011), available at: 

https:/labcnews.go.com!Politics/donald-trnmps-political-pit-bull-meet-michael-cohen/story?id=l3386747. 

32 
92 

Cohen. 

On balance, like most others who stand before this Court for sentence, Cohen is neither all 

good nor all bad. His personal interactions in private life should not be this Court's principal 

consideration. Rather, it is Cohen's serious crimes that should be the Court's lodestar. 

Second, in support of his argument for a time-served sentence, Cohen makes mention of 

his financial support and fundraising for his children's former school, as well as his support for 

other charitable causes. (Def. Mem. at 9-11.) But charitable "and similar prior good works are 

not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the applicable 

guideline range." U.S.S.G. § 5Hl.ll. For good reason: Prior charitable works, however 

commendable and extensive, by professionally successful defendants rarely, if ever, are materially 

mitigating factors at sentencing because courts recognize that it is not extraordinary for such 

defendants to be involved in charities and to have strong professional and personal relationships. 

See, e.g., United States v. Barbera, No. 02 Cr. 1268 (RWS), 2005 WL 2709112, at *12-13 

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2005); see also United States v. Fishman, 631 F. Supp. 2d 399,403 (S.D.N.Y. 

2009) (a defendant's "good name and good works" should not serve as "the human shield he raises 

to seek immunity or dramatic mitigation of punishment when he is caught"). Moreover, it is no 

doubt far easier to give generously to charities when the donor is simultaneously evading the 

payment of taxes on millions of dollars in income. Cohen was, in effect, donating other people's 

money. As Chief Judge McMahon has explained, "Using other people's money to do what 

qualifies as good works by your likes and then suggesting to me that I give you credit for the fact 

that you didn't use the money to buy a Lamborghini is something that I find and have always found 

to be contemptible, especially since all too frequently charity is a means to bolster the esteem in 

which one is held by others." United States v. Binday, 12 Cr. 152 (CM), Dkt. 349, at 44-45. 

33 
93 

Third, in support of his request for a time-served sentence, Cohen cites several cases in 

which the defendant received little or no jail time. (Def. Mem. at 15-17, 19-20.) The cases selected 

by Cohen do not bear any particular factual similarity to the instant case. Indeed, in none of the 

cases cited by Cohen did the defendant commit the particular array of crimes that Cohen has. As 

set forth below, the Court can just· as easily identifY numerous examples of cases where more 

substantial sentences were imposed. Thus, the cases cited by Cohen do not provide a template for 

sentencing in this matter, and the Court must decide it based on the particular facts and 

circumstances of this case. 

For instance, Cohen highlights United States v. Lacy Doyle as a case in which Judge Carter 

imposed a non-incarceratory term offour years' probation. Cohen fails, however, to acknowledge 

that the advisory guidelines range in that case was just 6 to I 2 months' imprisonment based on a 

guilty plea to one count of subscribing to a false and fraudulent tax return for a single year. 16 

Cohen also highlights the sentence imposed in the prosecution of Earl Simmons, a tax evasion case 

in which the defendant received a year of imprisonment. In that case, Judge Rakoff focused on 

the need for imprisonment in tax evasion cases, regardless of their complexity, to ensure general 

deterrence: "People who are considering tax evasion ... greatly exaggerate their chances of getting 

away with it .... That is why prison is important." Sent. Tr. at 32, United States v. Earl Simmons, 

I 7 Cr. I 72 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018) (ECF No. 39). While it is true that the methods by 

which Simmons evaded taxes may have been more complex than here, both men made the 

calculated decision that they could get away with not paying taxes. Finally, in contrast to 

Simmons, tax evasion is but one of the crimes for which sentence is to be imposed in this case. 

Cohen also overlooks several tax evasion cases in which courts have recently imposed 

16 In addition, because the advisory guidelines in Doyle were in Zone B, a term of probation was 

considered explicitly authorized. U.S.S.G. § 5Bl.l(a)(2). 

34 
94 

custodial terms. See United States v. Trupin, 475 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that sevenmonth prison sentence for multi-year tax evasion scheme with a tax loss of $1.2 million failed to 

reflect seriousness of offense, observing that a tax evader, in effect, "steal[s] from his fellow 

taxpayers through his deceptions"); Sent. Tr. at 22-23, United States v. Joseph Ciccarella, 16 Cr. 

738 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. March 3, 2017) (imposing an 18-month sentence for a defendant who 

caused a tax loss between $250,000 and $550,000, noting that "the obligation to pay taxes is basic 

to our civilization"). Finally, in United States v. Erwin Mayer, 09 Cr. 581 (WHP), this Court 

imposed a custodial term of imprisonment on a cooperating defendant whose level of cooperation 

was described as "unequaled in [that] case, and essentially in any other white-collar case, in which 

the[] experienced prosecutors had been engaged." Sent. Tr. at 32, United States v. Erwin Mayer, 

09 Cr. 581 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (ECF No. 849). In imposing a custodial sentence on 

such a cooperating defendant, this Court noted the "need in these kinds of cases for general 

deterrence." (I d.) 

Cohen also asserts that "numerous allegations of unpaid taxes are routinely asserted by the 

IRS outside of the criminal context," and cites to news articles about individuals who failed to pay 

their taxes. (Def. Mem. at 16-17.) But Cohen did not just fail to pay assessed taxes. He willfully 

evaded taxes by hiding entire income streams over a period of years. His acts were fraudulent and 

evasive, and not the product of mistake, negligence, or a failure of his accountant. Cohen's 

suggestion that his case should have been handled outside the criminal process ignores the fact 

that his tax crimes were uncovered in the midst of an investigation of his numerous other crimes. 

And his complaints about pre-charge process ignore the fact that Cohen was well aware he was 

under investigation for months before he was charged, and his counsel was given several 

opportunities to present to the Office as to why he should not be charged and in fact made such a 

35 
95 

presentation. Finally, Cohen's complaints about process and his attempts to blame his accountant 

make evident the need for an incarceratory sentence to reflect what Cohen still plainly does not 

perceive: His actions were not just technically criminal, but serious offenses against the 

Government and the public. 

The two unlawful campaign contribution cases cited by Cohen are similarly of little value 

in crafting an appropriate sentence here. (Def. Mem. at 19.) The defendants in those cases made 

excessive contributions through straw donors, but the amounts of money involved were less 

substantial, and the effect of the crimes were less severe. Cohen's crimes are particularly serious 

because they were committed on the eve of a Presidential election, and they were intended to affect 

that election. Thus, the gravity of the offense is considerably greater than the offenses committed 

in United States v. Dinesh D'Souza, No. 14 Cr. 34 (RMB), or United States v. Jia Hou and Xing 

Wu Pan, No. 12 Cr. 153 (RJS). Moreover, neither case related to the making of a coordinated 

expenditure - a different offense under the campaign finance laws. 

Cohen omits the numerous campaign finance cases, including many more analogous to the 

facts here, where substantial custodial sentences were imposed for campaign fmance offenses. 

See, e.g., United States v. Stephen Stockman, No. 17 Cr. 116 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (defendant sentenced 

to 120 months' incarceration for making excessive campaign contributions, wire fraud, money 

laundering, and filing false tax returns); United States v. Tyler Harber, No. 14 Cr. 373 (LO) (E.D. 

Va. 2015) (defendant sentenced to 24 months' incarceration following guilty plea for making 

coordinated expenditures and false statements to the FBI); United States v. John Rowland, No. 14 

Cr. 79 (JBA) (D. Conn. 2015) (defendant sentenced to 30 months' incarceration for making illegal 

campaign contributions, falsifying records, and causing false statements to be made to the FEC); 

United States v. Joseph Bigica, No. 2:12 Cr. 318 (FSH) (D.N.J. 2012) (defendant sentenced to 60 

36 
96 

months' incarceration following guilty plea to tax violation and conduit scheme involving $98,600 

in illegal contributions); United States v. Robert Braddock, Jr., No. 3:12 Cr. 58 (LRH) (D. Conn. 

2013) (defendant sentenced to 38 months' incarceration following jury trial involving nearly 

$28,000 conduit scheme). As these cases amply demonstrate, custodial sentences for serious 

violations of the campaign finance laws are a regular occurrence, and the Court should impose 

such a sentence here for the reasons stated above. 

Lastly, Cohen places heavy reliance on his provision of information to law enforcement. 

(Def. Mem. at 1-5). To be sure, this case is in some respects unique, and Cohen's decision to plead 

guilty and provide information to law enforcement in matters of national interest is deserving of 

credit. Indeed, it is the principal reason the Office is not seeking a Guidelines sentence here. But 

as noted in more detail above, Cohen was well aware of the standard debriefing process in which 

cooperators in this District regularly participate, and declined to participate. While he answered 

questions about the charged conduct, he refused to discuss other uncharged criminal conduct, if 

any, in which he may have participated. This precludes him from being given credit for 

"substantial assistance" and obtaining a 5Kl.l letter. The Court should not sentence Cohen as if 

he has one. That is, the credit given to Cohen should not approximate the credit that a witness 

with a cooperation agreement and a 5Kl.l letter would merit. 

Finally, Cohen's further assertion that he is deserving ofleniency because he "could have 

fought the goverrunent and continued to hold the party line, positioning himself for a pardon or 

clemency" reflects a continuation of his mindset that, at his own option, he is above the Jaws 

reflected in his crimes of conviction. (Def. Mem. at 5). Every defendant in every criminal case 

has the right to fight the charges against him. But where, as here, the evidence of their guilt is 

overwhelming, defendants often make the choice to plead guilty. After cheating the IRS for years, 

37 
97 

lying to banks and to Congress, and seeking to criminally influence the Presidential election, 

Cohen's decision to plead guilty rather than seek a pardon for his manifold crimes- does not 

make him a hero. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the Office respectfully requests that this Court impose a 

substantial term of imprisonment, one that reflects a modest variance from the applicable 

Guidelines range. The Office also requests that the Court impose forfeiture in the amount of 

$500,000, and a fine. 

Dated: December 7, 2018 

New York, New York 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT KHUZAMI 

Acting United States Attorney 

By: tJ iv-o"-' ~~ Andrea M. Griswold 

Rachel Maimin 

Thomas McKay 

Nicolas Roos 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

38 
98 

Mr. CLOUD. All right. I’ll give that to you in a second. 

OK. This memo states that you committed four distinct Federal 

crimes over a period of several years. You were motivated to do so 

by personal greed and repeatedly used your power to influence for 

deceptive ends. It goes on to say that you were—that they each involved — they were distinct in their harms, but bear a common set 

of characteristics, that they involved deception and were each motivated by personal greed and ambition. 

There’s a lot we don’t know in regards to this investigation, but 

here’s what we do know: We know that you were expecting a job 

at the White House and didn’t get it; you made millions lying about 

your close access to the President; you have a history of lying for 

personal gain, including—that’s banks, about your accountant, to 

law enforcement, and your family, the Congress, the American people. 

The Southern District of New York — you said that you did all 

this out of blind loyalty to Mr. Trump, but your sentencing memo 

states this: ‘‘This was not an act out of blind loyalty, as Cohen suggests. Cohen was driven by a desire to further ingratiate himself 

with the potential future President for whom political success 

Cohen himself claimed credit for.’’ 

Now, we’re in a search for truth, and I don’t know, Chairman, 

how we’re supposed to ascertain the truth in this quagmire of a 

hearing when the best witness we can bring before us has already 

been convicted of lying before us. 

And what’s sad is the American people have seen this play out 

before. We have people in prominent positions fail, and then a couple years later, they get a book deal. Now you’re set to go to jail 

for a couple years and come out with a multimillion book deal. 

That’s not bad living. 

And so my question is, is, will you today—will you today to— 

commit to donate any further proceeds to book deals, to film reviews, to charity? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Mr. CLOUD. Thank you. I yield my time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. COHEN. May I — may I finish? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CLOUD. Yield to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, may I finish my—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Cohen—— 

Mr. COHEN. May I finish—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Cohen, he’s yielded to me, and so—— 

Mr. COHEN. I didn’t finish my — my response. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Listen, everything’s been made—— 

Mr. COHEN. I’m asking, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I finish my response, please? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I’ll let you respond, but answer his question, please. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Cohen, everything’s been made of your lies in 

the past. I’m concerned about your lies today. Under your testimony just a few minutes ago, to me, you indicated that you had 

contracts with foreign entities, and yet, we have a truth in testi-
99 

mony disclosure form, which requires you to list those foreign contracts for the last two years, and you put NA on there. And it’s a 

criminal offense to not have that accurately. So when were you 

lying, either in the testimony to me earlier today, or when you 

filled out the form? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Cohen, you may answer his question and then whatever you 

wanted to say on that other one. 

Mr. COHEN. His question, unfortunately, I don’t have an answer 

for his question. But as it—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. No, no, no, no, no. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. as it relates—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman is out of order. He said he 

does not have an answer. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, when we were in the majority, 

with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, hold on. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Regular order. The gentleman has just 

said he doesn’t have an answer. And you have gone over your time. 

Ms. FOXX. Well, he’s under oath. 

Mr. MEADOWS. He’s under oath to tell the truth. One of them is 

not accurate, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. You will—you will have time to ask the 

question. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, just a question. Mr. Chairman, just 

a question. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Raskin? Mr. Raskin. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Cohen, thank you for your composure today. 

Our colleagues are not upset because you lied to Congress for the 

President; they’re upset because you stopped lying to Congress for 

the President. 

Now, you’ve described the Trump campaign as a once-in-a-lifetime, money-making opportunity, the greatest informercial of all 

time, I think you said. And this may be the most trenchant observation of your whole testimony. Do you think the Trump campaign 

or Presidency ever stopped being about making money for the 

President, his family, and his organization? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. When did it stop being that? 

Mr. COHEN. When he won the election. 

Mr. RASKIN. And what did it become about at that point? 

Mr. COHEN. Then it had to be about figuring out what to do here 

in Washington. 

Mr. RASKIN. Can you carefully explain to America how the hushmoney payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels worked? 

Can you carefully explain what catch-and-kill is? 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. I received a phone call regarding both Karen 

McDougal, as well as Stormy Daniels, obviously different times, 

stating that there were issues that were going to be damaging to 

Mr. Trump. With the Stormy Daniels, it started in 2011, when she 

wanted to have something removed from a website, and that was 

the first time I met Keith—I spoke with Keith Davidson, her thenacting attorney, and we were successful in having it taken down 

from the website. 
100 

It wasn’t until years later did — right — by around the time of 

the campaign, did they come back and they ask, what — what are 

you going to do now, because she’s back on the trail, trying to sell 

the story, at which point in time, David Pecker, on behalf of the 

National Enquirer, reached out to her and her attorney, in order 

to go take a look at lie detector tests that would prove that she is 

telling the truth. They then contacted me and told me that she was 

telling the truth. At which point, again, all the time—— 

Mr. RASKIN. She took a lie detector test? 

Mr. COHEN. She allegedly took a lie detector test and was seen 

by an employee of the National Enquirer, at which point in time 

I went straight into Mr. Trump’s office and I explained why this 

time it’s different than another time. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Now, when you say ‘‘different than another 

time,’’ were there other women paid sexual hush-money by Donald 

Trump or his organization? Was this a standard operating practice? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Mr. RASKIN. So you’re not aware of any other cases where it had 

taken place? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of any other case that Mr. Trump 

paid. So which brings us to the Karen McDougal. He was supposed 

to pay. He was supposed to pay $125,000 for the life story of Karen 

McDougal. For whatever the reason may be, he elected not to pay 

it. David Pecker was very angry because there was also other moneys that David had expended on his behalf. Unfortunately, David 

never got paid back for that either. 

Mr. RASKIN. So David Pecker had done this in other cases of 

other mistresses or women? 

Mr. COHEN. Other circumstances, yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Mr. COHEN. Not all of them had to do with women. 

Mr. RASKIN. Are you aware of anything that the President has 

done, at home or abroad, that may have subjected him to, or may 

subject him to extortion or blackmail? 

Mr. COHEN. I am not, no. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Are you aware of any videotapes that may be 

the subject of extortion or blackmail? 

Mr. COHEN. I’ve heard about these tapes for a long time, had 

many people contact me over the years. I have no reason to believe 

that that tape exists. 

Mr. RASKIN. In December 2015, Donald Trump was asked about 

his relationship with Felix Sater, a convicted felon and real estate 

developer, and he replied, Felix Sater, boy, have to even think 

about it, I’m not that familiar with him. Why did Trump endeavor 

to hide his relationship with Felix Sater, and what was his relationship? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, he certainly had a relationship. Felix was a 

partner in a company called Bayrock that was involved in the deal 

of the Trump Soho Hotel, as well as, I believe, the Trump Ft. Lauderdale project. Why did he want to distance himself? That’s what 

Mr. Trump does. He distances himself when things go bad for 

someone. And at that point in time, it was going bad for Mr. Sater. 

Mr. RASKIN. You said you lied to Congress about Trump’s negotiations to build his Moscow tower, because he made it clear to you 
101 

that he wanted you to lie. One of the reasons you knew this is, because, quote, ‘‘Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited 

my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow tower 

negotiations before I gave it.’’ So this is a pretty breathtaking 

claim, and I just want to get to the facts here. Which specific lawyers reviewed and edited your statement to Congress on the Moscow tower negotiations, and did they make any changes to your 

statement? 

Mr. COHEN. There were changes made, additions. Jay Sekulow, 

for one—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Were there changes about the timing? The question—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

You may answer that question. 

Mr. COHEN. There were—there were several changes that were 

made, including how we were going to handle that message. Which 

was—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Groth — were you finished? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. The message, of course, being the length of time 

that the Trump Tower Moscow project stayed and remained alive. 

Mr. RASKIN. That was one of the changes? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Grothman? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes, first of all, I’d like to clear up something, 

just a little something that bothers me. You started off your testimony, and you said, I think in response to some question, that 

President Trump never expected to win. I just want to clarify that 

I dealt with several—President Trump several times as he was trying to get Wisconsin. He was always confident. He was working 

very hard, and this idea that somehow he was just running to raise 

his profile for some future adventure, at least in my experience, is 

preposterous. I always find it offensive when anti-Trump people 

imply that he just did this on a lark and didn’t expect to win. 

But be that as it may, my first question concerns your relationship with the court. Do you expect—I mean, right now, I think 

you’re sentenced to 3 years, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you expect any time, using this testimony, 

other testimony, after you get done doing whatever you’re going to 

do this week, do you ever expect to go back and ask for any sort 

of reduction in sentence? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. There are ongoing investigations currently 

being conducted that have nothing to do with this committee or 

Congress, that I am assisting in, and it is for the benefit of a Rule 

35 motion, yes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So you expect, and perhaps what you testify 

here today will affect going back and reducing this, what we think 

is a relatively light, three-year sentence? You expect to go back and 

ask for a further reduction? 

Mr. COHEN. Based off of my appearance here today? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, based upon whatever you do between now 

and your request for—— 

Mr. COHEN. The Rule 35 motion is in the complete hands of the 

Southern District of New York. And the way the Rule 35 motion 
102 

works is, what you’re supposed to do, is provide them with information that leads to ongoing investigations. I am currently working 

with them right now on several other issues of investigation that 

concerns them, that they’re looking at. If those investigations become fruitful, then there is a possibility for a Rule 35 motion. And 

I don’t know what the benefit in terms of time would be, but this 

congressional hearing today is not going to be the basis of a Rule 

35 motion. I wish it was, but it’s not. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I’d like to yield some time to Congressman Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Cohen, I’m going to come back to the question 

I asked before, with regards to your false statement that you submitted to Congress. On here, it was very clear, that it asked for 

contracts with foreign entities over the last two years. Have you 

had any foreign contract with foreign entities, whether it’s Novartis 

or the Korean airline or Kazakhstan BTA Bank? Your testimony 

earlier said that you had contracts with them. In fact, you went 

into detail—— 

Mr. COHEN. I believe it talks about lobbying. I did no lobbying. 

On top of that they are not government—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. In your testimony — I’m not asking about lobbying, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. They are not government agencies. They are privately and—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you have—do you have foreign contracts—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. publicly traded companies. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you have foreign contracts? 

Mr. COHEN. I currently have no foreign contracts. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Did you have foreign contracts over the last two 

years? 

Mr. COHEN. Foreign contracts? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Contracts with foreign entities, did you have contracts? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Why didn’t you put them on the form? It says it’s 

a criminal offense to not put them on this form for the last two 

years. Why did you not do that? 

Mr. COHEN. Because those foreign companies that you’re referring to are not government companies. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It says nongovernmental, Mr. Cohen. You signed 

it. 

Mr. COHEN. They’re talking about me as being nongovernmental. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And right. It says foreign agency—It says foreign 

contracts. Do you want us to read it to you? 

Mr. COHEN. I read it and it was reviewed by my counsel, and I 

am a nongovernment employee. It was not lobbying, and they are 

not foreign contracts. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It has nothing to do with lobbying. It says it’s a 

criminal offense to not list all your foreign contracts. That’s what 

it says. 
103 

Mr. COHEN. Well, then, I’m going to take a look at it before I 

leave—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. No, you’ve—— 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. and I will — and hopefully I will amend 

it prior to leaving, because that’s not the way I read your document. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You know, it’s just one more example, Mr. Cohen, 

of you skirting the truth. 

OK, I want to ask one other question. 

One other question, Mr. Cohen. It’s my time, not yours. 

Were you advised, or was your counsel advised to withhold your 

written testimony to the latest possible date as John Dean said last 

night on CNN? 

Mr. COHEN. Was it my what? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Were you advised, or was your counsel advised, 

to withhold your written testimony to this committee, at the latest 

possible date to give it to this committee, at the latest possible date 

as John Dean said that he advised you? Yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. No. We were—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. He never advised you? 

Mr. COHEN. We — John Dean? I’ve never spoken with John 

Dean. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Has he spoken to your attorney? 

Mr. COHEN. I—I don’t know. I’ve never spoken to John Dean. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, ask your attorney. He’s right there behind 

you. 

Mr. COHEN. We were working last night till — till 11, 12 at 

night, and it—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You’ve known that you’ve been coming for some 

time. I—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. You may answer the question. Answer the 

question, if you recall. 

Mr. COHEN. We were working till 11, 12 last night to finish everything. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you were writing it last night, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. We were making edits—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Don’t give me that bull. 

Mr. COHEN. We were making edits all the way through the night. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I recognize Mr. Rouda. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry. 

Mr. ROUDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, in November 2013, President Donald Trump testified 

under oath in a lawsuit related to the failed real estate project 

Trump International Hotel and Tower in Ft. Lauderdale. During 

the deposition, President Trump was asked about his knowledge of 

Felix Sater, a Russian-born real estate developer and convicted 

member of the Russian Mafia, who, according to press reports, pled 

guilty for his role in a 40 million stock manipulation scheme. 

And it’s worth noting and it’s well-publicized the direct relationship between the Russian Mafia and the Kremlin. Over the years, 

President Trump was asked how many times he interacted with 

convicted Russian mobster Felix Sater. In 2013, President Trump 

testified that, quote, ‘‘not many. If he were sitting in the room right 

now, I really wouldn’t know what he looked like,’’ unquote. 
104 

Mr. Cohen, as you previously testified, isn’t it true that President 

Trump knew convicted Russian mobster Felix Sater in 2013 when 

he made that statement? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROUDA. Isn’t it true that, because of Mr. Sater’s relationship 

to the Trump Organization, that he had an office in the Trump 

Tower? 

Mr. COHEN. And on the 26th floor, Mr. Trump’s—— 

Mr. ROUDA. And the 26th floor is important why? 

Mr. COHEN. Because it’s Mr. Trump’s floor. 

Mr. ROUDA. So he had an office on the same floor as President 

Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. In fact, his office, when he left, became my office. 

Mr. ROUDA. And isn’t it also true that convicted Russian mobster 

Sater even had business cards indicating that he was a senior advisor to Donald Trump as reported by The Washington Post? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROUDA. Did convicted Russian mobster Sater pay rent for his 

office? 

Mr. COHEN. No, he did not. 

Mr. ROUDA. So, based on these facts, isn’t it true that President 

Trump misled, at best, or worst, lied under oath? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROUDA. In December 2015, President Trump was asked 

again about his relationship to convicted Russian mobster, Mr. 

Sater by a reporter for the Associated Press. He stated, quote, 

‘‘Felix Sater, boy, I have to even think about it,’’ unquote. He 

added, quote, ‘‘I’m not that familiar with him,’’ unquote. Mr. Cohen, 

where would we find business records that explained the President’s relationship to the convicted Russian mobster Felix Sater? 

Would those be in the Trump Organization’s files? 

Mr. COHEN. They’d be in the Trump Organization’s files. There 

would be CCs to Bayrock, which was the name of Mr. Sater’s company. I suspect on Mr. Sater’s email address, possibly hard files in 

possession of Mr. Sater. 

Mr. ROUDA. And when you say ‘‘in possession of the Trump Organization,’’ where? 

Mr. COHEN. It depends upon who the attorney was that was 

working on it. Now it would probably be in a box offsite. They have 

a storage facility that they—— 

Mr. ROUDA. OK. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. put old files. 

Mr. ROUDA. In addition to convicted Russian mobster Sater, do 

you know of any other ties to convicted or alleged mobsters President Trump may have? 

Mr. COHEN. I am not aware. 

Mr. ROUDA. Isn’t it true that many people with ties to Russia ultimately bought condos in Trump properties usually for cash, and 

if so, how many are we talking? 10, 20, 50, hundreds? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not—honestly, sir, I’m not aware of any. You 

know, the statement that was—you’re referring to, I believe, is 

made by either Eric or Don. And I don’t agree with it. 

Mr. ROUDA. So are you aware of any cash purchases by Russian 

oligarchs and family members of Trump properties? 
105 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of that. I can tell you, when you say 

cash, if you mean walking in with a satchel of rubles, the answer 

is, I’ve never seen that happen. I’ve never heard of it. 

I will tell you, when we sold Mr. Trump’s property in Palm Beach, the home for $95 million, it came in by wire, and that came 

from Mr. Rybolovlev’s bank account. 

Mr. ROUDA. One other question. You also talked about President 

Trump doing negotiations throughout the campaign, regarding the 

Trump Tower in Moscow. Was he directly involved in those negotiations, and if so, how do you know? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, the answer is yes. And as it relates to negotiations, it was merely followups as to what’s currently happening, 

what’s happening with Russia, meaning he wanted me to give him 

a status report. The problem with this is that the project never advanced because they were unable—Mr. Sater was unable to provide 

me with proof that somebody owned or controlled a piece of property that we can actually build on. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ROUDA. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Amash? 

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Cohen, why did Mr. Trump choose to hire you, 

and why did he trust you with the various tasks that you performed for him? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know, sir. You would have to ask him that 

question. 

Mr. AMASH. Well, we’ve heard here that you have bad character. 

You’ve admitted to that over the years. You have no idea why he 

chose to hire you? 

Mr. COHEN. In 2006, I was asked by Don Jr. to come meet with 

his father; I did. He then followed up by asking if I would take a 

look at an issue that was occurring at Trump World Tower with 

the board. I went ahead and I looked into it, and I found that the 

statements that the board were making about Mr. Trump were inaccurate. 

And the reason Don came to me is because I had an apartment 

there for investment. My parents had an apartment there, my inlaws lived there, friends of mine, we all bought as a big block from 

a brokerage company, and we got a good price on each unit. And 

we ultimately turned over the board, and I became, actually, the 

treasurer of the board because the out-of-control spending was 

going to put the building into bankruptcy, and I was proud to say 

that within a year, we had plus a million dollars, versus minus 1.3. 

At the end of the day, Mr. Trump appreciated that, and he 

tasked me with something else. It was to handle a problem that 

Don Jr. had created in terms of a business, a license deal. And we 

resolved that. 

And then on top of that, the third time, Mr. Trump had asked 

me to take a look at the third Trump Entertainment Resort Chapter 11 reorganization, because he had a series of questions that he 

wanted answered. And I read these two stack books, gave him the 

answers that he needed, and with that, he—and the next time I 

was sitting in his office, and he asked me if I was happy at the 

sleepy old firm that I was with. I said yes. He said, Would you 

rather work for me? And I asked, Are you offering me a job? And 
106 

he said, Yes. And we negotiated, and I actually never went back 

to my office. 

Mr. AMASH. All right. You suggested that the President sometimes communicates his wishes indirectly. For example, you said, 

quote, ‘‘Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress, that’s 

not how he operates,’’ end quote. Can you explain how he does this? 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. It would be no different if I said, That’s the 

nicest looking tie I’ve ever seen, isn’t it? What are you going to do, 

are you going to fight with him? The answer is no. So you say, yes, 

it’s the nicest looking tie I’ve ever seen. That’s how he speaks. He 

doesn’t give you questions. He doesn’t give you orders. He speaks 

in a code, and I understand the code because I’ve been around him 

for a decade. 

Mr. AMASH. And it’s your impression that others who work for 

him understand the code as well? 

Mr. COHEN. Most people, yes. 

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Cohen, I don’t know whether we should believe 

you today, but I’m going to ask you this one last question. What 

is the truth that you know President Trump fears most? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s a tough question, sir. I don’t—I don’t—I don’t 

have an answer for that one. What does he fear most? 

Mr. AMASH. What’s the truth that he fears most? From your perspective. And again, I don’t know whether we should believe you 

here today, but—— 

Mr. COHEN. It’s a tough question, sir. I don’t know how to answer that question. 

Mr. AMASH. All right. Let me ask you this: What principles have 

you chosen to follow in your life, and do you wish to follow different 

principles now? 

Mr. COHEN. I’ve always tried to be a good person. I’ve tried to 

be a great friend. There were many, I think over 40 statements 

written in my support to the sentencing judge. I have friends who 

I treat incredibly well that I know for over 40 years. And I treat 

people, after 40 minutes, the same exact way. 

Am I perfect? No. Do I make mistakes? Yes. Have I made mistakes? Absolutely. I’m going to pay the consequences for it. 

But all I would like to do is be able to get my life back, to protect 

my wife and my children, support, and grow old. That’s pretty 

much where I’d like to be. 

Mr. AMASH. And you feel you’re following a different set of principles now than you followed throughout your life? 

Mr. COHEN. I do. And I’m trying. I’m trying very hard. I thank 

you for your questions. Some of the other ones really make it difficult to try to, you know, show some redemption. But, you know, 

I am trying. I am trying. 

Mr. AMASH. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Hill. 

Ms. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to mention really quick a clarification on the truth and 

testimony form. The mention was around whether it talks about 

foreign entities at all. And the question is, in fact, whether witnesses have any contracts or payments originating with a foreign 
107 

government. It does not cover all foreign entities, just foreign government entities. 

So, Mr. Cohen, what I’d like to ask you to do is review this issue 

over lunch with your attorneys. And if you need to amend your 

form, we ask that you do that before the conclusion of today’s hearing. 

Also, I represent a purple district. I did not come here for partisan bickering. In fact, I actively wanted to avoid it. So when I ask 

these questions today, it is not as someone who has a vendetta 

against the President. It’s as someone who comes from generations 

of servicemembers who swore an oath to obey the orders of the 

President of the United States and who, along with myself and 

every single other person up here, swore to uphold and defend the 

Constitution of the United States. 

My forefathers served their country, they served their Commander in Chief, and they served the idea that America is free and 

just and that the law of the land rules us all, especially those in 

the highest levels of our government. 

So I ask these questions to help determine whether our very own 

President committed felony crimes while serving in the Oval Office, 

including efforts to conceal payments that were intended to mislead 

the public and influence the outcome of an election. I hope to God 

that is not the case. 

So, Mr. Cohen, on January 22, 2018, just days after the Wall 

Street Journal broke the story that Mr. Cohen paid $130,000 to 

Stephanie Clifford to silence her during the 2016 Presidential campaign, a nonprofit watchdog called Common Cause filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and FEC alleging the payment to Ms. Clifford may have represented an illegal in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. I ask that their complaint be entered into the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. So ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
108 

*common cause 

Holding Power Accountable 

January 22, 2018 

Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein 

Deputy Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington DC 20530-0001 

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein: 

805 Fifteenth Street Nw; Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.833.1200 

www commoncaus.e O!'g 

Common Cause requests that the Department of Justice exercise its authority to investigate whether 

Donald J. Trump's campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the Trump Organization, 

and/or unknown persons ("John Doe'') violated reporting requirements and contribution limits and 

restrictions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. § 30101, et seq. 

Given Attorney General Sessions' recusal from any investigations of any matters related in any way to 

the 2016 campaigns for President of the United States, we have not addressed this letter to the 

Attorney General. 

The attached complaint, filed on this date with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), details the 

relevant facts establishing a reason to believe that a payment of $130,000 from Essential Consultants 

LLC to Ms. Stephanie Clifford in October 2016 was an unreported in-kind contribution to Donald J. 

Trump for President, Inc., and an unreported expenditure by the committee-because the funds were 

paid for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential general election-In violation of the 

campaign finance reporting requirements established by 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b). 

If the Trump organization was the source of the $130,000 payment, then the Trump Organization 

made, and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. received, a corporate contribution in violation of 52 

U.S.C. § 30118(a). If John Doe was the source of the $130,000 payment, then John Doe made, and 

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. received, an excessive in-kind contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30116(a)(1)(A) or a corporate contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

Although the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of 

the campaign finance laws, 52 u.s.c. § 30109(a), the Department of Justice has its own separate 

responsibility to enforce the campaign finance laws against "knowing and willful" violations. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(d); see generally FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES (7'" ed. May 2007) (DOJ 

HANDBOOK). 

* 
109 

The DOJ HANDBOOK takes particular note of the fact that Congress increased criminal penalties for 

campaign finance violations as part of the Bipartisan campaign Reform Act of 2D02 (BCRA). As the 

Handbook states, at pp. 198-99: 

BCRA significantly enhanced the criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act. BCRA did so In response to identified anti-social 

consequences, namely, corruption and the appearance of corruption arising from FECA 

violations, and their adverse effect on the proper functioning of American democracy .... 

In view of the enhanced criminal penalties for FECA crimes and the legislative history 

supporting their enactment, it is the Justice Department's position that all knowing and 

willful FECA violations that exceed the applicable jurisdictional floor specified in the 

Act's criminal provision should be considered for federal prosecution .... 

The violations of federal campaign finance law alleged in the attached complaint undermine the 

integrity of democracy in the United States. 

In addition to the violations of the Federal Election campaign Act alleged in the attached complaint, 

the Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits anyone in any 

matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government from knowingly and willfully 

falsifying, concealing or covering up any material fact-i.e., prohibits a candidate for federal office 

from causing an incomplete or incorrect disclosure report to be filed with the FEC in order to cover up 

a material fact. 

We urge the Department of Justice to investigate all possible violations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act and other federal laws in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~~~~-----

Common Cause, by 

PaulS. Ryan 

Vice President, Policy and litigation 

805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 833-1200 

Copy to: 

John P. Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division 

Annalou Tirol, Acting Chief, Public Integrity Section 

*2 
110 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

COMMON CAUSE 

805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 833-1200 

PAULS. RYAN 

805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 833-1200 

v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. 

725 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION 

725 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

MURNo. __ _ 

JOHN DOE, unknown source of funds paid by Essential Consultants LLC 

COMPLAINT 

1. This complaint is filed pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(I) and is based on information 

providing reason to believe that Donald J. Trump's campaign committee, Donald J. 

Trump for President, Inc. (FEC I.D.#C00580100), the Trump Organization, and/or 

unknown persons ("John Doe") violated reporting requirements and contribution limits 

and restrictions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S. C. § 30101, et 

seq. and Commission regulations. 

2. Specifically, based on publicly available data and published reports, complainants have 

reason to believe that the payment of $130,000 from Essential Consultants LLC to Ms. 

Stephanie Clifford was an unreported in-kind contribution to President Trump's 2016 

presidential campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and an unreported 
111 

expenditure by the committee--because the funds were paid for the purpose of 

influencing the 2016 presidential general election. See 52 U.S. C. §§ 30101(8)(A) 

(defining "contribution") and 30101(9){A) (defining "expenditure"); see also 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30104{b) (requiring reporting of"contributions" and "expenditures" by political 

committees). 

3. Regardless of the source of the funds paid to Ms. Stephanie Clifford (including, e.g., if 

Donald J. Trump provided the funds), complainants have reason to believe that Donald J. 

Trump for President, Inc. failed to report its receipt of the $130,000 in-kind contribution 

and failed to report its $130,000 expenditure to Ms. Stephanie Clifford in violation of 52 

u.s.c. § 30104{b). 

4. Complainants have reason to believe that the Trump Organization made, and Donald J. 

Trump for President, Inc. received, a corporate contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30118{a). 

5. Complainants have reason to believe that John Doe made, and Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. received, an excessive in-kind contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30116(a)(l)(A) or a corporate contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

6. "If the Commission, upon receiving a complaint ... has reason to believe that a person 

has committed, or is about to commit, a violation of [the FECA] ... [t]he Commission 

shall make an investigation of such alleged violation .... " 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2) 

(emphasis added); see also 11 C.F.R. § 111.4(a). 

7. "A 'reason to believe' finding followed by an investigation would be appropriate when a 

complaint credibly alleges that a significant violation may have occurred, but further 

investigation is required to determine whether a violation in fact occurred and, if so, its 

2 
112 

exact scope." FEC, Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the 

Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12545 (March 16, 2007). 

8. On January 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen arranged for 

the payment of $130,000 to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known professionally 

as "Stormy Daniels."1 

9. Mr. Cohen worked as "top attorney" at the Trump Organization "from 2007 until after 

the election,'' serves as Donald J. Trump's personal attorney, and referred to himself in a 

January 2017 interview as the "fix-it guy."2 Mr. Cohen was an agent of Mr. Trump and 

the Trump Organization in October 2016. 

10. According to the Wall Street Journal, Ms. Clifford has alleged that she had a sexual. 

encounter with Mr. Trump in 2006 and "had been in talks with ABC's 'Good Morning 

America' in the fall of2016 about an appearance to discuss Mr. Trump."3 

11. Mr. Cohen created Essential Consultants LLC on October 17, 2016 and used a bank 

account linked to the entity to pay Ms. Clifford. 

12. This payment of $130,000 was part of an agreement by which Ms. Clifford would be 

precluded from publicly discussing alleged sexual encounters between her and Mr. 

Trump. 

1 Michael Rothfeld and Joe Palazzolo, "Trump Lawyer Arranged $130,000 Payment for AdultFilm Star's Silence," THEWALLSTREETJOURNAL, January 12,2018, available at 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump=lawyer-arranged-130-000-payment-for-adult-fllm-starssilence-1515787678. 

2 /d. 

3 !d. 

3 
113 

13. Although the alleged sexual affair between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clifford occurred in 

2006, the nondisclosure agreement was reached less than one month before the 2016 

Presidential election. 

14. The source of the $130,000 paid from Essential Consultants LLC to Ms. Clifford is 

currently unknown. 

SUMMARY OF THE LAW 

15. The term "contribution" is defined in FECA to mean "any gift, subscription, loan, 

advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of 

influencing any election for Federal office." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (emphasis 

added); see also 11 C.P.R. §§ 100.51-100.56. 

16. As used in the definition of "contribution," the phrase "anything of value" includes "all 

in-kind contributions." The "provision of any goods or services without charge or at a 

charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a 

contribution." 11 C.P.R. § 100.52(d)(l). 

17. The term "expenditure" is defmed in FECA to mean "any purchase, payment, 

distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift or money or anything of value, made by any 

person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30101(9)(A)(i) (emphasis added); see also 11 C.P.R.§§ 100.110-100.114. 

18. As used in the definition of "expenditure," the phrase "anything of value" includes "all 

in-kind contributions." The "provision of any goods or services without charge or at a 

charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is an 

expenditure."ll C.P.R.§ lOO.lll(e)(l). 

19. Any expenditure that is "cooidinated" with a candidate is an in-kind contribution to the 

candidate and must be reported as a contribution to and expenditure by that candidate's 

4 
114 

authorized committee. "Coordinated" means made in cooperation, consultation or concert 

with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee 

or an agent thereof. 11 C.F.R. § 109.20. 

20. Commission regulations provide that "agent" means "any person who has actual 

authority, either express or implied," to engage in campaign spending aud other specified 

campaign-related activities. See 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.3 and 300.2(b). 

21. The authorized committee of a candidate for federal office must report to the 

Commission the identification of each person who makes a contribution to the committee 

with an aggregate value in excess of $200 within an election cycle. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30104(b)(3)(A). 

22. The authorized committee of a candidate for federal office must report as a designated 

category of receipt "contributions from the candidate." 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a)(3)(ii). 

23. The authorized committee of a candidate for federal office must report to the 

Commission the name and address of each person to whom an expenditure in an 

aggregate amount in excess of $200 within the calendar year is made by the committee. 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A). 

24. Generally, federal candidates may make "unlimited expenditures from personal funds." 

11 C.F.R. §100.10. 

25. Expenditures of a candidate's personal funds must be reported to the Commission as inkind contributions to the candidate's campaign. See, e.g., FEC Advisory Opinion 1990-

09. 

5 
115 

26. Corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions to federal candidates, 

and federal candidates may not accept contributions from corporations or labor 

organizations. 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

27. No individual may make contributions to federal candidates that, in the aggregate, exceed 

$2,700 per election. 52 U.S. C. § 30116(a)(l)(A).4 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I: 

DoNALD J, TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. F AD..ED TO REPoRT RECEIPT OF A $130,000 IN-KIND 

CONTRIBUTION As WELL As A $130,000 EXPENDITURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL 

ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT 

28. In October 2016, Michael Cohen was an agent of Donald J. Trump. Based on published 

reports, there is reason to believe that Mr. Cohen's payment of $130,000 to Ms. 

Stephanie Clifford was for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election and, 

therefore, constituted an "expenditure" by Mr. Trump or an "expenditure" coordinated 

with Mr. Trump--and, therefore, constituted an in-kind "contribution" to and an 

"expenditure" by Mr. Trump's authorized campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. 

29. Under FECA, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. was required to report to the 

Commission the identification of each person who makes a contribution to the committee 

with an aggregate value in excess of $200 within an election cycle. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30104(b)(3)(A). 

4As prescribed by statute under 52 U.S. C.§ 30116(c), the $2,000 limit has been adjusted for 

changes in the cost of living at the beginning of every odd-numbered year since 2002, most 

recently in February 2017. See FEC, Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure 

Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 82 Fed. Reg. 10904, 10906 (Feb. 16, 

2017). 

6 
116 

30. Under FECA, Donald I. Trump for President, Inc. was required to report to the 

Commission the name and address of each person to whom an expenditure in an 

aggregate amount in excess of $200 within the calendar year is made by the committee. 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A). 

31. Based on published reports and review of FEC records, there is reason to believe that 

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. failed to report its receipt of this $130,000 

contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(3)(A). 

32. Based on published reports and review of FEC records, there is reason to believe that 

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. failed to report this $130,000 expenditure in violation 

of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A). 

COUNT II: 

THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION MADE, AND DONALDJ. TRUMP FOR PREsiDENT,INC. RECEIVED, 

A CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT 

33. In October 2016, Michael Cohen was an agent of Donald J. Trump. Based on published 

reports, there is reason to believe that Mr. Cohen's payment of $130,000 to Ms. 

Stephanie Clifford was for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election and, 

therefore, constituted an "expenditure" by Mr. Trump or an "expenditure" coordinated 

with Mr. TrumJr-and, therefore, constituted an in-kind "contribution" to and an 

"expenditure" by Mr. Trump's authorized campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. 

34. In October 2016, Michael Cohen was an agent of the Trump Organization. Based on 

published reports, there is reason to believe that the Trump Organization was the source 

of the $130,000 paid to Ms. Clifford. 

35. Federal law prohibits corporations from making contributions to federal candidates. 52 

U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

7 
117 

36. If the Trump Organization was the source of the $130,000 paid to Ms. Clifford, the 

Trump Organization made, and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. received, a corporate 

contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

COUNT ill: 

JOHN DoE MADE, AND DoNALD J, TRUMP FOR PREsiDENT, INC. RECEIVED, AN EXCESSIVE OR 

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT 

37. In October 2016, Michael Cohen was an agent of Donald J. Trump. Based on published 

reports, there is reason to believe that Mr. Cohen's payment of $130,000 to Ms. 

Stephanie Clifford was for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election and, 

therefore, constituted an "expenditure" by Mr. Trump or an "expenditure" coordinated 

with Mr. Trump-and, therefore, constituted an in-kind "contribution" to and an 

"expenditure" by Mr. Trump's authorized campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. 

38. Federal law prohibits individuals from making contributions to federal candidates in 

excess of $2,700 per election. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(l)(A). 

39. Federal law prohibits corporations from making contributions to federal candidates. 52 

U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

40. Based on published reports, there is reason to believe that John Doe was the source of the 

$130,000 paid to Ms. Clifford. 

41. If John Doe was the source of the $130,000 paid to Ms. Clifford and John Doe is an 

individual, then John Doe made, and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. received, a 

contribution in violation of the $2,700 limit established by 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(l)(A). 

42. If John Doe was the source of the $130,000 paid to Ms. Clifford and John Doe is a 

corporation, then John Doe made, and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. received, a 

corporate contribution in violation of 52 U.S. C. § 30118(a). 

8 
118 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

43. Wherefore, the Commission should find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc., the Trump Organization, and/or John Doe violated 52 U.S. C. § 30101, et 

seq., and conduct an immediate investigation under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). Further, the 

Commission should determine and impose appropriate sanctions for any and all 

violations, should enjoin respondent(s) from any and all violations in the future, and 

should impose such additional remedies as are necessary and appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the FECA. 

January 22,2018 

Respectfully submitted, 

Common 

~-- Cause, by 

PaulS. Ryan 

805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 833-1200 

7:45;> ~--- PaulS. Ryan 

805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 833-1200 

9 
119 

VERIFICATION 

The complainants listed below hereby verify that the statements made in the attached 

Complaint are, upon their information and belief, true. Sworn pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 

For Complainants Common Cause and Paul S. 

Ryan 

PaulS. 

~-Ryan 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2.t"day of January 2018. 

KdM{J ~. uJtii;;on 

Notary Public 

10 
120 

Ms. HILL. On February 13, 2018, Mr. Cohen, you sent a statement to the reporters that said, quote, ‘‘I used my own personal 

funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford, 

and neither The Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was 

party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford and neither reimbursed 

me for the payment either directly or indirectly.’’ Was the statement false? 

Mr. COHEN. The statement is not false. I purposefully left out 

Mr. Trump individually from that statement. 

Ms. HILL. OK. Why did you say it that way? 

Mr. COHEN. Because that’s what was discussed to do between 

myself, Mr. Trump, and Allen Weisselberg. 

Ms. HILL. So it was carefully worded? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HILL. Great. 

Mr. Cohen, a reporter for the magazine Vanity Fair has reported 

that she interviewed you the very next day, on February 14, 2018, 

about the payment and reimbursement. And she wrote, quote, 

‘‘Last February 14, I interviewed Cohen in his office about the 

statement he gave the FEC in which he said Trump didn’t know 

about the Stormy payment or reimbursed him for it.’’ 

Do you recall this meeting with the reporter? 

Mr. COHEN. I do. 

Ms. HILL. The reporter also wrote, ‘‘Trump called while I was 

there. I couldn’t hear much, but he wanted to go over what the 

public messaging would be.’’ 

Is that accurate? 

Mr. COHEN. It is. 

Ms. HILL. Did the President call you while you were having a 

meeting with the reporter? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. HILL. Did the President call you to coordinate on public messaging about the payments to Ms. Clifford in or around February 

2018? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. HILL. What did the President ask or suggest that you say 

about the payments or reimbursements? 

Mr. COHEN. He was not knowledgeable of these reimbursements, 

and he wasn’t knowledgeable of my actions. 

Ms. HILL. He asked you to say that? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HILL. Great. 

In addition to the personal check for $35,000 in July 2017, is 

there additional corroborating evidence that Mr. Trump, while a 

sitting President of the United States, directly reimbursed you 

hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws? 

Mr. COHEN. There are 11 checks that I received for the year. The 

reason why 11, because, as I stated before, one had two checks. 

Ms. HILL. And you have copies of all of those? 

Mr. COHEN. I can get copies. I’d have to go to the bank. 

Ms. HILL. So we will be able to get copies of all 11 checks that 

Mr. Trump provided to you as part of this criminal scheme? 
121 

Mr. COHEN. It’s either from his personal account, as what was 

demonstrated in the exhibit, or it would come from the Donald J. 

Trump account, the trust account. 

Ms. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

I yield back the remainder of my times. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I’ve just been sitting here. I’m new to the committee. 

I’m not an attorney. Sometimes, Mr. Cohen, it sounds like, from 

your answers, you are either incompetent or are a liar. I think 

maybe I can be a better attorney. I don’t know. 

I’m looking through this. You come in here, and you rail on the 

President of the United States, Commander in Chief, while he’s 

over across the Pacific Ocean trying to negotiate a deal to make 

this world safer. 

And, Mr. Chairman, just having this committee at this time 

when the Commander in Chief is out of the country is just — it’s 

just — I think is a new precedent. 

But you call him a racist, a cheat, and, you know, you attacked 

his character. And I’ve been with the President a little bit and I 

didn’t see that in the President. I see a President who’s very sincere, who’s trying to make this country better for every American. 

And for you to come in here and do that, repentance on your part 

is really unbelievable. Real repentance would be go serve your time 

and don’t come back here and make allegations toward a man you 

can’t substantiate. 

Now, I’m looking here from the remarks from the prosecutor of 

the Southern District of New York. False statements to bank three, 

which Cohen pleaded guilty, was far from an isolated event. It was 

one of a long series of self-serving lies Cohen told numerous financial institutions. 

Earlier in your testimony, I think I heard you say it only is a 

home equity loan. But apparently the prosecutors in New York 

think that there’s other financial things that you did. 

You also, they said, managed to commit a series of crimes all 

with holding himself out as a licensed attorney and upstanding 

member of the bar. 

Also, the Southern District prosecutor said that — wrote that 

your consciousness of wrongdoing is fleeting, that your remorse is 

minimal, and that your instinct to blame others is strong. 

So I’m kind of left here why—you worked for the President for 

10 years before he was President. If you have any sense of integrity 

like you’re trying to tell us you have now, if it was that bad, why 

didn’t you leave? You weren’t stuck there because of financial reasons. You had ways to leave. You’re an attorney. 

And so that’s just kind of, you know — the President’s working 

tirelessly, and you come and make these allegations, and you could 

have left any time you want. It looks like to me you’re trying to 

save face. 

And with the other questions that came out here was it looks like 

to me you’re going to have a very lucrative deal at some point in 

your life, because you don’t look like you’re close to retirement. 

You’re going to have some type of lucrative deal. 
122 

And so one of my questions is, and it’s come up a little bit, talks 

with you and your attorney. And there’s been talks about Members 

of Congress and staff. And you said there was some discussions. 

Was any of those discussions that you or your attorneys had with 

Members of Congress or staff or prosecutors to give considerations 

to favor or other considerations to you or your family in the future? 

Mr. COHEN. No. The conversations were about the topics, because 

there were things that originally we could not speak about at the 

request of — whether it was the special counsel’s office or the 

Southern District or any of the other agencies, including the House 

Select Intel or the Senate Select Intel. 

Sir, just for your personal edification here, I was asked to come 

here. Your chairman sent a letter to Mr. Davis, and I accepted. So 

I’m here voluntarily. 

Mr. GIBBS. I understand that. 

Mr. COHEN. And if you believe that I’m—— 

Mr. GIBBS. It’s my time. I understand. I think it’s a political theater. 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, if you believe — it’s not political theater for me. 

And I take no pleasure in saying anything negative about Mr. 

Trump. 

You’ve met him for a short period of time. I’ve been with him for 

over a decade. I’ve traveled with him internationally. I’ve spent 

dinners with him. It doesn’t make me feel good about what’s going 

on here. 

And as far as saving face, I’m not sure how being in front of the 

world, being called a tax cheat—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, this world today, with these lucrative book 

deals, movies that come about, I think you’ll be pretty good in 

about five years. 

I yield the rest of my time to the ranking member. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Earlier you said you started the campaign? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct, in 2011. 

Mr. JORDAN. You started the campaign for President of the 

United States for Donald Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. I certainly did, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Now, that’s news. 

Mr. COHEN. ShouldTrumpRun.com. 

Mr. JORDAN. Wow. 

Mr. COHEN. 2011. It was my idea. I saw a document in the newspaper that said, Who would you vote for in 2012? Six percent of the 

people said—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Michael Cohen. 

Six percent of the people turned around and said they’d vote for 

Donald Trump. 

Mr. JORDAN. The reason Donald Trump is President is because 

of Michael Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. So I went into his office, and I said to him, ‘‘Mr. 

Trump, take a look at this.’’ 

And he goes, ‘‘Wow, wouldn’t that be great.’’ And with that is 

where it all started. 
123 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes. OK. Like, I’m sure — I’m sure he had never 

thought of anything like that until you came along. 

Mr. COHEN. No, I didn’t say that either. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask you one question. I got eight seconds. 

I got eight seconds. 

What did you talk to Mr. Schiff about? 

Mr. COHEN. I spoke to Mr. Schiff about topics that were going 

to be raised at the upcoming hearing. 

Mr. JORDAN. Whoa. Not just what time to show up. Actually 

what you’re going to talk about? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. JORDAN. Wow. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

I know the other side is suggesting that you are an incorrigible 

liar and that you’re lying here today. I can’t think of anything you 

have to gain at this point from lying. I mean, they talk about book 

deals and other things that you want to do. But I see a lot more 

that you could lose by telling the truth today given the threats and 

other things that have been made against you and your family. So 

that’s how I’m interpreting it. And, of course, you brought documents with you as well to bolster the credibility of your testimony. 

I did want to go back to an earlier line of questioning regarding 

the preparation of your testimony before you came before the Intelligence Committee. You talked about a meeting at the White House 

where the testimony was being reviewed. And I think you said 

there it was at least one White House attorney, Jay Sekulow, who 

was there, and you acknowledged that there was some edits that 

were made to your testimony. 

So on that topic, who at the White House reviewed your testimony? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know the answer to that. The document was 

originally created by myself along with my attorney at the time 

from McDermott Will & Emery. And there was a joint defense 

agreement, so the document circulated around. I believe it was also 

reviewed by Abbe Lowell, who represents Ivanka and Jared 

Kushner. 

Mr. SARBANES. Why did you provide the testimony to the White 

House? 

Mr. COHEN. It was pursuant to the joint defense agreement that 

we were all operating under. 

Mr. SARBANES. What were the edits that came back substantively on the testimony? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry. I don’t know, sir. I’d have to take a look 

at the document. 

Mr. SARBANES. Did you have a—do you have a reaction to why 

there might not have been, in a sense, a protest to what was going 

to be false testimony that was going to be provided? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir, because the goal was to stay on message. It’s 

just limit the relationship whatsoever with Russia. It was short. 

There’s no Russian contacts. There’s no Russian collusion. There’s 

no Russian deals. That’s the message. That’s the same message 

that existed well before my need to come and testify. 
124 

Mr. SARBANES. So it’s an example of where this idea, this mentality of you toe the line, whatever the story line or the narrative 

of the day or the month or the year is going to be, you toe that 

line whether it results in false testimony or not. 

Mr. COHEN. I toed the party line, and I’m now suffering. And I’m 

going to continue to suffer for a while, along with my family, as a 

result of it. So yes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Let me switch gears quickly before my time expires. And you may not have direct knowledge of some of these 

things, but you’re offering us some very helpful perspective on how 

the Trump world operates. 

And, frankly, another reason I find your testimony fairly compelling and credible is because a lot of the things you’re describing, 

a lot of the behavior you’re describing, is very consistent with what 

we all see every single day. So it’s not a leap for us to arrive in 

the same place and perspective that you have presented. 

I’m interested in some of the activities around the inaugural 

committee, the inauguration of the President. There was an article 

that appeared in ProPublica, it’s a watchdog group, about some negotiation on pricing of things at the Trump Hotel, where it looks 

like the rental that was being quoted was substantially even double 

what you would expect to pay according to what the market should 

bear. And so, in a sense, the Trump Hotel was up-charging to the 

inaugural committee. 

Mr. COHEN. Even I couldn’t afford to stay there. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yeah. 

And so I’m just curious. Do you have a sense of whether that 

kind of a practice is something that is consistent or inconsistent? 

Is it possible that that kind of up-charging could be done inside a 

Trump operation? 

Mr. COHEN. It did happen. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. COHEN. And what I can say to you is I wasn’t part of the 

inaugural committee. I raised a lot of money for the inauguration, 

but I was not part of it. And there was a lot of things in that actually, that issue is something that’s also, obviously, we’ve read about 

in the paper being investigated at the current moment. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen, it’s on my heart to tell you, sir, that — and I’m sorry 

for what your family is going through. I feel for your family. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The word tells us clearly that a man’s mouth is his 

destruction and his lips are the snare of his soul. And I see you, 

a man trapped in that. 

However, I must tell you that I’ve arrested several thousand men 

and you remind me of many of them. The ones that immediately 

become humble and remorseful at the time they’re actually booked, 

and while they’re incarcerated they’re quite penitent, and then return to their former selves when they’re back on the street. 

So respectful to your family and what they’re going through, I 

owe you the honesty to tell you that that’s my sense of you, good 

sir. 
125 

I’m going to give you another opportunity to respond to what you 

brushed off earlier regarding your own statement during this testimony from C-SPAN notation at 2 hours and 50 seconds in. 

You stated regarding your credibility that you’re being accused 

of having no credibility, that it is exactly for that reason I spent 

the last week searching boxes to find the information that I did so 

that you don’t have to take my word for it. I want you to look at 

the documents and make your own decisions. 

Now, the documents you’re referring to, Mr. Cohen, are the documents that you submitted in your — with your testimony today. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. 

Mr. HIGGINS. You believe those documents to be worthy of evidence for this oversight hearing today? 

Mr. COHEN. I leave that to you to decide. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And I ask you again sir, and please don’t be incredulous, this is a serious question, where are those boxes that contain 

documents worthy of evidence to be presented to Congress? And 

why have they not been turned over to investigating authorities 

looking into some of the many criminal activities that you’re allegedly cooperating in? Where are these boxes? Who knows—where is 

this treasure of evidence? 

Mr. COHEN. The boxes that I’m referring to were boxes that were 

in my law office when the FBI entered and seized documents when 

I was moving—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the investigating authorities have noted what the gentleman had just stated and that 

actions be taken for those boxes to be seized and reviewed based 

upon a proper warrant signed by a sitting judge. 

You noted earlier today, Mr. Cohen, quite incredulously, one of 

my colleagues asked you regarding the television deal, you expressed wonderment that your predicament could possibly get you 

on television. It certainly got you on television today, has it not, 

sir? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, I was on television representing Mr. Trump 

going back into 2011. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, I didn’t know who you were until today, really. Until the FBI raided your home, most of America didn’t know 

who you were. 

How many attorneys do you think Mr. Trump has had through 

the course of his career? Quite a few, I would imagine. You’re just 

one that’s in a trap right now. And I understand you’re trying to 

get out of it. You’re in a bind. 

But I ask you, good sir, have you discussed film and book deals 

with your stated current attorney, Mr. Davis, Lanny Davis? 

Mr. COHEN. With Mr. Davis? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. No. But I have been approached by many people who 

are looking to do book deals, movie deals, and so on. So the answer 

to that is yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. This is your right as an American. But it leads me 

back to my instinct that compares you to many of the men that I 

have arrested during the course of my career. 

Mr. COHEN. With all due respect, sir—— 
126 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that our primary hearing to 

introduce the Oversight Committee, the 116th Congress, to the 

American people, has manifested in the way that it obviously is. 

This is an attempt to injure our President, lay some sort of soft cornerstone for future impeachment proceedings. This is the full intent of the majority. 

I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the ranking member. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cohen, earlier you said the United States 

Southern District of New York is not accurate in that statement. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry. Say that again. 

Mr. JORDAN. Earlier you said that the United States Southern 

District of New York Attorney’s Office, that statement is not accurate. You said it’s not a lie. You said it’s not accurate. Do you stand 

by that? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I did not want a role in the new administration. 

Mr. JORDAN. So the court’s wrong? 

Mr. COHEN. Sir, can I finish, please? 

Mr. JORDAN. Sure. 

Mr. COHEN. I got exactly the role that I wanted. There is no 

shame in being personal attorney to the President. I got exactly 

what I wanted. I asked Mr. Trump for that job, and he gave it to 

me. 

Mr. JORDAN. All I’m asking, if I could—and I appreciate it, Mr. 

Chairman — you’re saying that statement from the Southern District of New York attorneys is wrong. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m saying I didn’t write it, and it’s not accurate. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

One of the most significant events in the last Presidential campaign, of course, was the dump of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee, dumped by WikiLeaks. 

Mr. Cohen, during your opening statement, which was at the 

height of the election, you testified you were actually meeting with 

Donald Trump in July 2016 when Roger Stone happened to call 

and tell Mr. Trump that he had just spoken to Julian Assange. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. And you said that Mr. Assange told Mr. 

Trump about an upcoming—quoting your opening statement— 

quote, ‘‘massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.’’ 

So I want to ask you about Roger Stone’s phone call to the President. 

First of all, was that on Speakerphone? Is that what you indicated? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. So Mr. Trump has a black Speakerphone that 

sits on his desk. He uses it quite often because with all the number 

of phone calls he gets. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Now, in January of this year, 2019, the 

New York Times asked President Trump if he ever spoke to Roger 

Stone about these stolen emails, and President Trump answered, 

and I quote, ‘‘No, I didn’t. I never did.’’ 

Was that statement by President Trump true? 
127 

Mr. COHEN. No, it’s not accurate. 

Mr. WELCH. And can you please describe for us, to the best of 

your recollection, you were present, exactly what Mr. Stone said to 

Mr. Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. It was a short conversation, and he said, Mr. Trump, 

I just want to let you know that I just got off the phone with Julian 

Assange, and in a couple of days there’s going to be a massive 

dump of emails that’s going to severely hurt the Clinton campaign. 

Mr. WELCH. And was Mr. Trump and Mr. Stone aware of where 

those emails came from? 

Mr. COHEN. That, I’m not aware of. 

Mr. WELCH. Did Mr. Trump ever suggest then or later to call the 

FBI to report this breach? 

Mr. COHEN. He never expressed that to me. 

Mr. WELCH. Did the President at that time or ever since, in your 

knowledge, indicate an awareness that this conduct was wrong? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Mr. WELCH. The reason I ask is because on July 22, on the eve 

of the Democratic convention, WikiLeaks published, as you know, 

the 20,000 leaked internal DNC emails. 

Could your meeting with Mr. Trump have been before that date? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH. So Mr. Trump was aware of the upcoming dump before it actually happened? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH. And is there any recollection—— 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir, I don’t know whether he knew or not, and 

I don’t believe he did, what the sum and substance of the dump 

was going to be, only that there was going to be a dump of emails. 

Mr. WELCH. And he was aware of that before the dump occurred, 

correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. And are there any records that would corroborate the day of this meeting? Calendars, perhaps. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not in possession. But I believe, again, this is 

part of the special counsel. And they are probably best suited to 

corroborate that information. 

Mr. WELCH. Was anyone else present in the room during the 

call? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t recall for this one, no, sir. 

Mr. WELCH. Is there anyone else the committee should talk to 

about the President’s knowledge of the WikiLeaks email dump? 

Mr. COHEN. Oh, again, when he called, Rhona Graff yelled out 

to Mr. Trump, Roger’s on line 1, which was regular practice. 

Mr. WELCH. And that’s his assistant? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s his — yes. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. And during a news conference on July 27, 

2016, then candidate Trump publicly appealed to Russia to hack 

Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public. He stated, and I 

quote, ‘‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 

30,000 emails that are missing.’’ 

Now, going back to Mr. Stone’s phone call to the President, do 

you recall if Mr. Trump had knowledge of the WikiLeaks dump at 

the time of his direct appeal to Russia? 
128 

Mr. COHEN. I am not. 

Mr. WELCH. But the call with Mr. Stone, you believe, was before—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH [continuing]. this 27th—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. I’m sorry. I thought you were talking about a 

different set of documents that got dumped. 

So I was in Mr. Trump’s office. It was either July 18th or 19th. 

And, yes, he went ahead. I don’t know if the 35,000—or 30,000 

emails was what he was referring to, but he certainly had knowledge. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Thank you. 

Just one last question. 

Mr. Raskin had been asking you some questions. And one of the 

things in your answer was that Mr. Pecker expended other moneys 

to protect Mr. Trump. 

Can you elaborate on what some of those other activities were? 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. There was the story about Mr. Trump having 

a love child with an employee—with an employee. And, actually, 

the husband of that employee works for the company as well. And 

there was an elevator operator who claims that he overheard the 

conversation taking place between one of Mr. Trump’s other executives and somebody. And he ended up paying like $15,000 in order 

to buy that story to find out whether it was true or not. 

And that’s just one example of things that David had done over 

the years. It was the reason why, in the recording, when David was 

looking to become the CEO of Time magazine, we were concerned 

about—we’ll call it the treasure trove of documents that had been 

created over the years that, if he left, somebody could open up the 

key to a drawer and find all this information. So we were going to 

look to buy all of those life rights and so on. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Norman. 

Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Cohen, thank you for testifying. I join Congressman Higgins in feeling for your family. They have no part in 

this. 

You know, I’ve heard all the testimony, and I’m trying to decide 

what Clay is trying to decide. Are you really sorry for what you did 

or you just got caught? 

And the thing that amazed me is that in your opening statement—which, let me quote, ‘‘Last fall I pled guilty in Federal court 

to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination 

with Individual 1.’’ Was that the President? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NORMAN. OK. Your crimes were of your own to benefit yourself. Go through—— 

Mr. COHEN. Some of them, yes. 

Mr. NORMAN. No. Go through all the ones with the real estate, 

with the banks. On your HELOC loan, you failed to disclose more 

than $20 million in debt. You failed to disclose $70,000 in monthly 

payments. On your $14 million line of credit, you failed to disclose 

that you had drawn on that. 
129 

So this was all for yourself. This wasn’t for the benefit of President Trump. This was to benefit Michael Cohen. So that’s my question. Did you just get caught? 

And you worked for this man for 10 years, Mr. Cohen. You came 

in here with these — with these — he’s a conman. He’s a cheat. 

This is the very man that — didn’t you wiretap him illegally? 

Did you not wiretap President Trump without his knowledge? 

Mr. COHEN. I did record Mr. Trump in a conversation, yes. 

Mr. NORMAN. Is that lawyer-client privilege? Is that something 

that an honest guy would do, an honest lawyer? 

Mr. COHEN. I actually never thought that this was going to be 

happening and that that recording even existed. I had forgotten. 

Mr. NORMAN. But you did it. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I did. 

Mr. NORMAN. Have you ever—— 

Mr. COHEN. I had a reason for doing it. 

Mr. NORMAN. What was your reason? 

Mr. COHEN. Because I knew he wasn’t going to pay that money. 

And David Pecker had already chewed me out on multiple occasions regarding other moneys that he expended. 

Mr. NORMAN. But this is a man that you trusted, you’d take a 

bullet for, you secretly recorded. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Cohen. Have you done—have you legally or illegally recorded other clients? 

Mr. COHEN. I have recordings of people, yes. 

Mr. NORMAN. Legally or illegally? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe that they’re legal. 

Mr. NORMAN. Did you tell him? 

Mr. COHEN. In New York State you don’t have to do that. 

Mr. NORMAN. So you did didn’t tell him? 

Mr. COHEN. No, I did not. 

Mr. NORMAN. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. Sometimes I also used the recordings for contemporaneous notetaking instead of writing it down. I find it easier. 

Mr. NORMAN. If the shoe were reversed, would you like your 

trusted lawyer recording you? 

Mr. COHEN. I probably would not, no. 

Mr. NORMAN. No, sir. It’s untrustworthy. It’s something people 

just would not do. 

Now, your bank loans that I just ran down, did you ever default 

on any of those loans? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. NORMAN. So the bank didn’t take any loss? 

Mr. COHEN. No bank has — I am not in default. I have never 

filed a bankruptcy. The HELOC you’re referring to, I replaced that 

from a different HELOC, paid it off. There is—I owe no banks any 

money. 

Mr. NORMAN. How about your medallion taxicab. Did they—did 

you have to sell that? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m still — well, the ones in Chicago, yes, I do have 

to sell. However, New York, the answer is no, I don’t. And they 

are—the industry is going through a major, major correction because of ride sharing. It’s changed a lot of things. 

Mr. NORMAN. The value of it has. 
130 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NORMAN. Right. 

Has the — so no bank — would the banks make you a loan again 

based on your record? 

Mr. COHEN. Actually, they did. They did post the — yes, the 

bank actually redid, and they refinanced the entire package—— 

Mr. NORMAN. Currently? 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. post this, yes. 

Mr. NORMAN. OK. Have they never had to do loan loss reserve 

for the projected losses? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know what they did. But it’s still the same 

amount. I didn’t get the benefit of it, no, sir. 

Mr. NORMAN. Most likely they did. I was on an audit committee. 

Mr. COHEN. They may have — they may have done that, sir. But 

that’s for their own banking, not for me. 

Mr. NORMAN. No, it’s by law. They have to — if they suspect you 

of lying, which you admitted to, if they suspect you of maybe not 

being able to make a loan payment, they have to have a loan loss 

reserve that’s 125 percent of what you — if it’s $20 million, they 

have to post in their account $20 million plus. So they get no interest on it. 

You know who pays for that? The American public who deals 

with that bank. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, but, sir, I’m not in default. And I’m current on 

each and every one of those medallion loans. And I’ve never owed 

any money to First Republic Bank. In fact, at the time that I had 

the HELOC, I had more cash sitting in that same bank than—— 

Mr. NORMAN. OK. Last question. I’m out of time. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. than the HELOC and my mortgage 

combined. 

Mr. NORMAN. Have you ever been to Prague? 

Mr. COHEN. I’ve never been to Prague. 

Mr. NORMAN. Never have? 

Mr. COHEN. I’ve never been to the Czech Republic. 

Mr. NORMAN. Yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

On page five of your statement, you say, and I quote, ‘‘You need 

to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited 

my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower 

negotiations.’’ 

Who were those attorneys? 

Mr. COHEN. Jay Sekulow — from the White House? 

Ms. SPEIER. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Jay Sekulow. I believe Abbe Lowell as well. 

Ms. SPEIER. And do you have a copy of your original statement 

that you can provide to the committee? 

Mr. COHEN. I can try to get that for you. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. If you would do that. 

The letter of intent for the Moscow tower was in the fall of 2015, 

correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. 
131 

Ms. SPEIER. Was there an expiration date on that letter of intent? 

Mr. COHEN. There was no expiration date. 

Ms. SPEIER. So it could technically still be in effect today? 

Mr. COHEN. No, it’s been terminated. 

Ms. SPEIER. It has been terminated? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. OK. Did Mr. Trump tell you to offer Vladimir Putin 

a free penthouse? 

Mr. COHEN. No, ma’am. That was—— 

Ms. SPEIER. So where did that come from? 

Mr. COHEN. That was Felix Sater. It was a marketing stunt that 

he spoke about. 

Ms. SPEIER. So Felix Sater had suggested to you that Mr. Trump 

offer a penthouse to Mr. Putin. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, because it would certainly drive up the price 

per square foot. No different than in any condo where they start 

listing celebrities that live in the property. 

Ms. SPEIER. In 2016, did you travel to Europe? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Did you meet with persons associated with the Moscow tower project? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. SPEIER. It was for personal or—— 

Mr. COHEN. Personal. My daughter was studying at Queen Mary 

in London. 

Ms. SPEIER. So you did not meet with any Russians? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. SPEIER. There is an elevator tape that has been referenced 

as a catch and kill product. It was evidently of Mr. Trump and a 

woman, presumably Mrs. Trump. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Are we talking about in Moscow or the Trump Tower 

elevator tape? 

Ms. SPEIER. There’s an elevator tape that went up for auction—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. SPEIER [continuing]. ostensibly in 2016. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I’ve heard about this. 

Ms. SPEIER. And who is on that tape? 

Mr. COHEN. It’s Mr. Trump with Melania. 

Ms. SPEIER. And what happened in that tape? 

Mr. COHEN. The story goes that he struck Melania while in that 

elevator, because there’s a camera inside, which I’m not so sure — 

actually, I’m certain it’s not true. I’ve heard about that tape for 

years. I’ve known four or five different people, including folks from 

AMI, who have—— 

Ms. SPEIER. So — but there was some tape that went up for auction, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t believe that auction was real, and I don’t believe anybody — I don’t believe Mr. Trump ever struck Mrs. Trump 

ever. I don’t believe it. 

Ms. SPEIER. And are you aware of anyone purchasing that tape, 

then? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t believe it was ever purchased. 
132 

Ms. SPEIER. So you never saw this tape? 

Mr. COHEN. No, ma’am. And I know several people who went to 

go try to purchase it for catch and kill purpose. It doesn’t exist. Mr. 

Trump would never—in my opinion, it’s — that’s not something 

that he—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Good to know. Good to know. 

Is there a love child? 

Mr. COHEN. There is not, to my — to the best of my knowledge. 

Ms. SPEIER. So you would pay off someone to not report—— 

Mr. COHEN. It wasn’t me, ma’am. It was AMI. It was David 

Pecker. 

Ms. SPEIER. So he paid off someone about a love child that 

doesn’t exist? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. It was about $15,000. 

Ms. SPEIER. OK. 

How many times did Mr. Trump ask you to threaten an individual or entity on his behalf? 

Mr. COHEN. Quite a few times. 

Ms. SPEIER. Fifty times? 

Mr. COHEN. More? 

Ms. SPEIER. A hundred times? 

Mr. COHEN. More. 

Ms. SPEIER. Two hundred times? 

Mr. COHEN. More. 

Ms. SPEIER. Five hundred times? 

Mr. COHEN. Probably, over the — over the 10 years. 

Ms. SPEIER. Over the 10 years, he asked you—— 

Mr. COHEN. And when you say threaten, I’m talking with litigation or an argument with—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Intimidation? 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. a nasty reporter that has—is writing an 

article. 

Ms. SPEIER. What do you know about—let’s go to your tapes. You 

said there’s probably 100 tapes? 

Mr. COHEN. Voice recordings. 

Ms. SPEIER. Voice recordings. And will you make them available 

to the committee? 

Mr. COHEN. If you would really like them. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. We would. 

Ms. SPEIER. Did Mr. Trump—— 

Mr. COHEN. Don’t you have to gavel that, sir? 

Sorry. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. We would. 

Ms. SPEIER. Did Mr. Trump tape any conversations? 

Mr. COHEN. Not that I’m aware of, no. 

Ms. SPEIER. Were you involved in the $25 million settlement to 

Trump University? 

Mr. COHEN. I had a role in that, yes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Who paid the settlement? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe it was Mr. Trump. I don’t know the answer 

to that. 

Ms. SPEIER. You don’t know the answer, but you were involved 

in the—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, in a different aspect. 
133 

Ms. SPEIER. There’s some reference to a businessman in Kansas 

being involved in that. Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not familiar with that, no. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. Finally, in my 13 seconds left, what do you 

want your children to know? 

Mr. COHEN. That I am sorry for everything, and I am sorry for 

the pain that I’ve caused them, and I wish I can go back in time. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

To the members of the committee, before we go to Ms. Miller, for 

your—so that you can plan—properly plan, there’s a vote apparently coming up in about 10 to 20 minutes. And what we will do 

is we will recess, and we will come back — listen up — 30 minutes 

after the last vote begins. Got that? Not it ends, 30 minutes after 

it begins. And we’ll do that promptly. All right? 

All right. Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. I am very disappointed to have you in front of this 

committee today. Quite frankly, this isn’t the reason the people of 

West Virginia sent me to Congress. I find this hearing not in the 

best interest of the American people. This is another political game 

with the sole purpose of discrediting the President. 

If it was not already obvious, there are members here with the 

singular goal in Congress to impeach President Trump. To achieve 

this goal, they will waste not only precious taxpayer dollars, but 

also time in this committee and Congress as a whole. In fact, they 

will go so far as to bring a convicted felon in front of our committee. 

We are supposed to take what you say, Mr. Cohen, at this time 

about President Trump as the truth. But you’re about to go to prison for lying. How can we believe anything you say? The answer is 

we can’t. 

This begs the question, why are those in the majority holding 

this hearing? 

I am appalled. We could be focused on actual issues that are facing America, like border security, neonatal abstinence syndrome, or 

improving our Nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Instead, the 

Democrats are trying to grasp at straws. 

Let’s talk about this witness. From his sentencing hearing in the 

Southern District of New York, Judge Pauley stated, ‘‘Mr. Cohen 

pled guilty to a veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct: Willful tax evasion, making false statements to a financial institution, 

illegal campaign contributions, and making false statements to 

Congress. Each of the crimes involved deception, and each appears 

to have been motivated by personal greed and ambition.’’ 

This is who we have in front of us today in our committee, someone who is about to be sent to prison for three years for evading 

his taxes, deceiving a financial institution, lying to Congress, 

among other counts. 

One of the most appalling facts about this hearing is that Mr. 

Cohen has used his experiences with President Trump, both before 

and after he was elected, for his own greed and profit. 

I’d like some yes-or-no answers. 
134 

Isn’t it true you tried to sell a book about your time with President Trump entitled ‘‘Trump Revolution: From the Tower to the 

White House, Understanding Donald J. Trump’’? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. That happened early on when I was still even 

part, I believe, of the RNC. 

Mrs. MILLER. And this book deal, which you had with Hatchet Books, was worth around $500,000. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. No, more, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER. How much more? 

Mr. COHEN. I think it was about 750. 

Mrs. MILLER. Wow. 

Mr. COHEN. I did turn it down. 

Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Cohen, given that you continue to profit publicly discussing your time with Mr. Trump, I worry that this committee hearing the majority has given you will only serve as a platform for you to continue to lie and sensationalize and exaggerate 

wherever it suits you. 

Do you plan to pursue another book deal about your experiences? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mrs. MILLER. I would presume this book would be a little different than your latest pitch. But your new angle might please 

some new fans. Anything to sell books. 

Mr. Chairman, we’ve canceled hearings on child separation and 

on other issues that are close to my heart for this media circus. 

What a waste of time and money for a man who has gladly exploited the name of the President to promote his own name and fill 

his own pockets. It pains me that we are sitting here adding another chapter to his book. 

Thank you. And I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Earlier, Mr. Cohen, the gentlelady from California talked about 

this tape. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, sir. I can’t hear you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Earlier the gentlelady from California talked about 

this tape, this elevator tape, that you said does not exist. 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. I do not believe it exists. 

Mr. JORDAN. But is it also your testimony that the Trump team 

was willing to pay to make sure a story about a nonexistent tape 

never became public? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir, that’s not what — that’s not what I said. 

Mr. JORDAN. They were willing to stop a false tape? 

Mr. COHEN. We looked—we learned that this tape was potentially on the market and that it existed. And so what we did is exactly what we did with all the other catch and kill. We looked for 

it. And if, in fact, that it did exist, we would have tried to stop it. 

That’s what I would have done. 

Mr. JORDAN. It’s a false tape. Is it not? 

Mr. COHEN. But it’s a false tape. I’ve never—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Got it. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. heard it. And I can assure you one thing 

about Mr. Trump. Many things, he would never ever do something 

like that. I don’t see it. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 
135 

Mr. Cohen, I’d like to ask you more about the details of the $130,000 payment you made to Stephanie Clifford, the adult film 

actress known as Stormy Daniels, in order to purchase her silence 

shortly before the 2016 election. 

First, according to documents filed by Federal prosecutors in 

New York, you created a shell company called Essential Consultants, LLC. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. It’s correct. 

Ms. KELLY. And you created this company for the purpose of 

making the payment to Ms. Clifford. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Amongst other things, yes. 

Ms. KELLY. You then used a home equity line of credit to fund 

the account in the name of Essential Consultants, LLC. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. KELLY. You then wired $130,000 to the attorney representing Ms. Clifford at that time and wrote in the memo field for 

the wire the word, quote, ‘‘retainer.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. 

Ms. KELLY. Can you tell us why you decided to use this complicated process to make this payment? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, starting an LLC is not a sophisticated means. 

LLC, you call up a company, you pay for it, and they open it for 

you. 

And the reason that I used the home equity line of credit as opposed to cash that I had in the same exact bank was I didn’t want 

my wife to know about it, because she handles all of the banking. 

And I didn’t want her coming to me and asking me what was the 

$130,000 for. 

And then I was going to be able to move money from one account 

to the other and to pay it off, because I didn’t want to have to explain to her what that payment was about. 

I sent it to the IOLA account, the interest on a lawyer’s account, 

to Keith Davidson in California, Ms. Daniel’s attorney. He would 

hold it in escrow until such time as I received the executed NDA, 

nondisclosure agreement. 

Ms. KELLY. Did Mr. Trump know you were going through this 

process to hide the payment? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. KELLY. Why not just use Mr. Trump’s personal or company 

bank account to make the payment? Why was the distraction so 

important beside you not wanting your wife to know? 

Mr. COHEN. What his concern was was that there would be a 

check that has his very distinct signature onto it. And even after 

she cashed the check, all you need to do is make a photocopy of 

it and it’s kind of proof positive on exactly what took place. 

So here the goal was to keep him far away from it as possible. 

Ms. KELLY. Can anyone corroborate what you have shared with 

us? 

Mr. COHEN. Absolutely. 

Ms. KELLY. And that is? 

Mr. COHEN. Keith Davidson, Allen Weisselberg, President 

Trump. 

Ms. KELLY. OK. Now, let’s talk about the reimbursement. 
136 

According to Federal prosecutors, and I quote, ‘‘After the election, 

Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment.’’ Prosecutors stated that you, and I 

quote, ‘‘presented an executive of the company with a copy of a 

bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer.’’ Is that accurate? 

Mr. COHEN. That is accurate. 

Ms. KELLY. Do you still have a copy of that bank statement? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. It’s actually made part of the exhibit. 

Ms. KELLY. So you will provide it to the committee? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. KELLY. According to Federal prosecutors, executives at the 

company then, and I quote, ‘‘agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding 

$130,000 and $50,000, grossing up that amount to $360,000 for tax 

purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus such that Cohen would be 

paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the company decided to pay 

the $420,000 in monthly installments at $35,000 over the course of 

a year.’’ Is that accurate? 

Mr. COHEN. That is accurate. 

Ms. KELLY. What was the purpose of grossing up the amount, essentially doubling what you had paid to Ms. Clifford and others? 

Mr. COHEN. Because if you pay $130,000 and you live in New 

York where you have a 50 percent tax bracket, in order to get you 

130 back, you have to have 260. Otherwise, if he gave me back 130, 

I would only — then I’d be out 65,000. 

Ms. KELLY. What was the purpose of spreading the reimbursements to you over the 12 monthly installments? 

Mr. COHEN. That was in order to hide what the payment was. 

I obviously wanted the money in one shot. I would have preferred 

it that way. But in order to be able to put it onto the books, Allen 

Weisselberg made the decision that it should be paid over the 12 

months so that it would look like a retainer. 

Ms. KELLY. And did Mr. Trump know about this reimbursement 

method? 

Mr. COHEN. Oh, he knew about everything, yes. 

Ms. KELLY. Well, thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

So the President not only knew about the payments, he knew 

and helped to hide the payments and the reimbursements to you. 

Mr. COHEN. We discussed it. Everything had to go through Mr. 

Trump, and it had to be approved by Mr. Trump. 

Ms. KELLY. And now you’re going to prison and he’s—— 

Mr. COHEN. And I’m going to prison, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. KELLY. I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Armstrong. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. KELLY. Yes, I yield my time. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Earlier you had said — I’m assuming New York 

a one-party consent state. One person can record the other one 

without it being illegal? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. But you also were a member of the New York 

Bar? 

Mr. COHEN. I was, yes. 
137 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. How would you rate recording clients in the 

ethical realm of being a lawyer? 

Mr. COHEN. It’s not illegal, and I do—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I’m not asking if it’s illegal. I’m asking if it’s 

ethical. 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. That we’d have to leave to the judgment of the Bar 

Association. 

Mr. Armstrong. Well, I think every other lawyer in here knows 

exactly where it is on the ethical standard. 

When you said you had 100 tapes, were any of those tapes of 

other clients? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And I think this is pretty amazing. I really do. 

Did any of them waive privilege? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. So five minutes ago, in the middle of our hearing on oversight, you just immediately responded that you would 

hand over tapes to this committee without any of your previous clients’ waiving privilege. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not the only one in possession of those documents. Those documents are in the hands of all—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Whoever else is in charge of those documents 

is not my concern. My concern is, I know lawyers that would go to 

jail before they would violate attorney-client privilege. And in a 

matter of a second, you just said, absolutely, I will turn those over. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m just trying to cooperate, sir. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. At the expense of clients who have never 

waived privilege. 

Mr. COHEN. They’re already in the hands, sir, of all of the agencies. I didn’t ask people—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. What law enforcement determines to do with 

something and what you determine to do with something, the client 

privilege and attorney trust accounts are about the two most sacred things that you can ever do in your entire career as a lawyer. 

Mr. COHEN. And, by the way, sir—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And in a matter of a second you completely—— 

Mr. COHEN. And by the way, sir, and the tape with Mr. Trump, 

the reason that it is out there is because Rudy Giuliani waived the 

privilege. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I’m not talking about Rudy Giuliani. I’m talking 

about you. I don’t know who’s on those tapes. Only you know who’s 

on those tapes. There’s 100 of them. 

Mr. COHEN. The other one is also subject to an ongoing—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. My point is, within a matter of a second, one 

second, you took no, absolutely no calculation of your role as those 

clients’ counselor, the role that plays in privacy, and in the role 

that plays in the solemn vow you took when you passed the bar, 

when you signed onto the bar, until recently were a member of the 

bar, and you just immediately said, if it helps me out today in front 

of TV, yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman, you can have that. And that 

just goes into what we’re going to talk about next briefly. 
138 

We talk about these indictments on tax fraud and bank fraud as 

if they are isolated incidents. But they’re not isolated incidents of 

bad judgment. These were intricate, elaborate lies that created— 

that needed to be held with constant—I mean, just constant deceptions of banks, businesses, associates, accountants, potentially your 

family. 

You received over 2.4 million in personal loans from taxi company—taxi medallion company one. And those were loan payments 

for a business loan, correct. 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. You weren’t receiving—— 

Mr. COHEN. Those—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. OK. Go ahead. 

Mr. COHEN. Those were payments that were made by the management company that was operating the medallions. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. To you. 

Mr. COHEN. To me. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. So and you — those were deposited into your 

personal account or, in some instances, your wife’s account. 

Mr. COHEN. It was deposited into the joint checking account of 

my wife and I that’s located at the base of the building that we reside in. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And were those disclosed on your tax returns? 

Mr. COHEN. They are not—they were not disclosed on my tax returns. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And, in fact, when your accountant talked to 

you about those deposits, you told him you wouldn’t pay for a 

memo that you didn’t ask to be done? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s inaccurate. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. So the sentencing court in New York has it 

wrong? 

Mr. COHEN. OK. I don’t know what Mr. Getzel wrote, my accountant. There are a series of issues regarding his memo, anyway, 

including the fact that he’s almost directed me in an earlier memo 

to commit fraud. 

But putting all that aside with Jeff Getzel, the answer to that 

is I pled guilty. All right? And I made my mistake, and I’m going, 

as I’ve said 100 times now. 

I’m not so sure why this singular attack on my taxes. If you want 

to look at them, I’m more than happy to show them to you. But 

every single word that’s been written about me—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. If the chairman will give me 20 minutes, I’ve 

got plenty of other things to talk about. 

Mr. COHEN. Every single word that’s written about me is not 100 

percent accurate. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. All right. I’m going to reclaim my time. 

Mr. COHEN. And that’s exactly why, when it comes to the credibility, why I asked Mr. Davis and Mr. Monaco to please let’s figure 

out how to—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. But that’s my point with the credibility. These 

aren’t isolated—there are not isolated incidents of attack. These 

were constant deceptions, whether it’s rolling over a $20 million 

line of credit to a $14 million credit, you went through great 
139 

lengths to conceal that from one bank while at the same time you 

are reducing your net income to another bank. 

These aren’t things that happened on January 1 of 1918, January 1 of 1917, January 1 of 1915. These are things that were constantly involved on a—my question is, was it exhausting keeping 

track of all the lies that you were telling all these people? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

You may—— 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t have an answer for him. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you for continuing the narrative. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen. Good luck on your road to redemption. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. It’s going to be a long way. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Well, the opposite of that is perdition, as I remember, and that’s particularly hard on your children. So I wish 

you well and I wish your family well. 

Mr. Cohen, as you’ve sort of described your road to here, Mr. 

Cooper asked you when the moment was, or moments, when you 

decided you needed to change. It strikes me there is a transition 

that you have illuminated here. Your period of time, the 10 years 

working for somebody who you admired as a developer. And then 

when Charlottesville happened and, quite frankly, when the special 

counsel called you in, obviously, was a key part of it, or you 

wouldn’t be here. 

But the in-between part I find really interesting and troubling, 

at least in terms of appearances and confidence that the American 

people would have in this institution and democracy, quite frankly. 

So during that period of time, I want to ask you about two specific, if we have enough time. 

First, the Trump Tower. So you were negotiating for this. As you 

said, it was to be the tallest building in Europe. In your guilty plea 

with the special counsel, you quote, say, it quotes, ‘‘Cohen asked 

Individual 1′′ — is that President Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. OK. ‘‘—about the possibility of President 

Trump traveling to Russia in connection with the Moscow project 

and asked a senior campaign official about potential business travel to Russia.’’ 

When did this conversation happen? Do you recall? 

Mr. COHEN. Early on in the campaign. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And who was the campaign official? 

Mr. COHEN. Corey Lewandowski. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. What did you discuss in this meeting? 

Mr. COHEN. The possibility of which dates that Mr. Trump would 

have availability if, in fact, that we were going to go over to Russia 

to take a look at the project. Unfortunately — I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So go ahead. Sorry. 

Mr. COHEN. Unfortunately, it never came to fruition because we 

were never successful in getting the first prong of what I needed, 

which was ownership or control over a piece of property. And until 

such time, there was no reason to come up with a date. 
140 

But when I first received the information request to go to Russia 

what I decided to do is I spoke to Mr. Trump about it. He told me 

to speak to Corey and see what dates might be available if I got 

the information I needed. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So it stopped because of appearances, or did it 

stop because the parties decided not to pursue it? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m so sorry, I don’t understand your question. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So why did the pursuit of the Trump Tower 

that Mr. Trump has now said, of course, he pursued it, because he 

thought he might be going back into the development business, 

why was the reason that the deal stopped? 

Mr. COHEN. Because he won the Presidency. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. OK. So in that interim period of time, you 

must admit it looks troubling that now that we know what foreign 

influence was attempting to do, whether there was collusion or not, 

it certainly appears troubling that you were — Mr. Trump was 

part of this negotiation at the same time, what we know, perhaps 

separately, that the Russians were engaged in our election. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I don’t know about them being engaged in the 

election. I can only talk for myself. Here I would say to Mr. Trump, 

in response to his question, ‘‘What’s going on with Russia?’’ is I’m 

still waiting for documents. And then that night at a rally, he 

would turn around and do his battle cry of no Russia, no collusion, 

no involvement, witch hunt. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. OK. On a separate subject but somewhat related, on January 17 of this year The Wall Street Journal published a story stating that your hired John Gauger, the owner of 

a consulting company who works for Liberty University in Virginia, 

to rig at least two online polls related to Donald Trump. 

Did you hire him? 

Mr. COHEN. Those were back in, I believe, 2015? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. 2014. 

Mr. COHEN. 2014. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. 2014. So you did hire him? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I spoke with Mr. Gauger about manipulating 

these online polls. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And did he use bots to manipulate the poll? 

Mr. COHEN. He used algorithms. And if that includes bots, then 

the answer is yes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Yes, that’s accurate. 

Did the President have any involvement? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. In directing you to do this? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. What were the results of the poll? 

Mr. COHEN. Exactly where we wanted them to be. In the CNBC 

poll we came in at No. 9. And the Drudge Report, he was top of 

the Drudge Report as well, poll. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. Please understand also, the CNBC poll, it was called 

The Contenders, and it was the top 250 people that they named. 

And it was supposed to be the top ten most influential people. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Let me just finish with earlier today you directed a comment to my colleagues, and I’m quoting, so correct me 
141 

if I got this wrong. You said: The more people who follow Mr. 

Trump, the more people will be where I am. 

Is it your expectation that people in the administration will end 

up where you are? 

Mr. COHEN. Sadly, if they follow blindly, like I have, I think the 

answer is yes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Steube. 

Mr. STEUBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I ran for Congress I talked about how Washington was 

broken, but I certainly did not expect the level of political gamesmanship, partisanship, and sheer stagnation of policies that would 

improve the lives of Americans that I’m witnessing today. 

It is terribly disappointing to me that this committee and its 

chairman chose to spend our time in questioning an individual that 

has zero probative value and zero credibility instead of spending 

our limited time focusing on improving the lives of Americans, creating jobs, or streamlining the functioning of our Federal Government. 

Yet here we are taking testimony from a convicted liar, and not 

someone who has just lied to his clients or family or friends, but 

testimony from an individual who deliberately and premeditatedly 

lied to this body. He lied to Congress through false statements and 

written statements. He lied to Congress through his testimony. He 

then amplified his false statements by releasing and repeating his 

lies to the public, including the other potential witnesses. 

Yet now we on this committee and the American people are expected to believe Mr. Cohen’s testimony. I don’t know a juror in 

America that would believe anything Mr. Cohen says given his past 

actions and lies. 

Mr. Cohen, you stood before multiple congressional committees 

before today and raised your right hand and swore an oath to be 

honest. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. 

Mr. STEUBE. And you lied to those congressional committees. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Previously? 

Mr. STEUBE. Correct. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEUBE. You stated that Trump never directed you to lie to 

Congress. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. STEUBE. Therefore, you lied to Congress on your own accord 

and then admitted to lying to Congress, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I have already stated my piece on that. I knew what 

he wanted me to do. I was staying on party line. 

Mr. STEUBE. But he never directed you to lie to Congress? 

Mr. COHEN. He did not use those words, no. 

Mr. STEUBE. In your evidence that you provided this committee 

a mere 2 hours before the hearing started were payments paid 

made to you by Mr. Trump, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Amongst other things, yes. 
142 

Mr. STEUBE. Yet other than your testimony here today there’s 

absolutely no proof that those specific payments were for those specific purposes. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. It’s my testimony that the check that I produced as part of this testimony, the $35,000 and then the second check 

that’s signed by Allen Weisselberg and Don Trump, Jr., were 2 

checks out of the 11 that were meant for the reimbursement of the 

hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. 

Mr. STEUBE. So in your testimony, on page 13, you claim, and I 

quote, ‘‘Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from 

a home equity line of credit to avoid any money being tracked back 

to him that could negatively impact his campaign.’’ Do you have 

any proof of this direction? 

Mr. COHEN. Just the payment, sir. 

Mr. STEUBE. So no email? 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Trump doesn’t have email. 

Mr. STEUBE. So no recording? 

Mr. COHEN. I do not have recordings, no. 

Mr. STEUBE. No text message? 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Trump doesn’t text message. 

Mr. STEUBE. So no direction other than your testimony today 

that that’s what the payment was for? 

Mr. COHEN. And the fact that I paid on his behalf, at his direction, the money to Keith Davidson’s IOLA account. You’re right, 

there’s no other documentation I have. 

Mr. STEUBE. So nothing that you produced as part of your exhibits proved that President Trump directed you in any way to make 

that payment? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t even know how to answer that, sir. 

Mr. STEUBE. Well, it’s pretty simple. There’s nothing in the evidence that shows, in the exhibits that you provided today, that 

show that Trump directed you to make those payments. 

Mr. COHEN. Other than the nondisclosure agreement that has 

been seized by government authorities and is widely shown. I don’t 

believe there’s anybody out there that believes that I just decided 

to pay $130,000 on his behalf. 

Mr. STEUBE. Well, you were his attorney for over 10 years. 

Mr. COHEN. That doesn’t mean that I’d pay $130,00. 

Mr. STEUBE. Well, it doesn’t also mean that he wasn’t paying you 

for representation of counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. OK. 

Mr. STEUBE. How did President Trump even know you had a 

HELOC? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m so sorry, sir? 

Mr. STEUBE. How did President Trump even know had you a 

HELOC? 

Mr. COHEN. Because we discussed it. Because I told him the 

same thing, that I didn’t want my wife to find out about it. 

And one additional. Rudy Giuliani himself came out and expressed that Mr. Trump reimbursed me for the money that was 

spent to pay Stormy Daniels. 

Mr. STEUBE. And did you tell Chris Cuomo that you had no access to Mr. Trump during October and November 2016? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re referring to. 
143 

Mr. STEUBE. Your interview with Chris Cuomo. 

Mr. COHEN. I would need to see the document. 

Mr. STEUBE. Did you also tell Chris Cuomo that you made these 

payments without telling Mr. Trump because you wanted to protect 

Mr. Trump? 

Mr. COHEN. And I was protecting Mr. Trump. 

Mr. STEUBE. And you told him that you made these payments 

without telling him? 

Mr. COHEN. When I said that—if that’s what I said to Chris 

Cuomo, yes, that was my line. 

Mr. STEUBE. And if this unsupported claim was true then it 

would be part of an ongoing investigation as evidence of a crime 

and the Department of Justice would not let you discuss it during 

your testimony here today. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Did you answer? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I did want to say one last thing. 

Not only did I lie to the American people, I lied to the First Lady, 

when the President called me and I was sitting in a car with a 

friend of mine and he had me speak to her and explain to the First 

Lady. 

So the answer is you’re not accurate, and I don’t feel good about 

any of this, and this was not my intention. 

Sorry. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to put on the record, as being a Black American and 

having endured the public comments of racism from the sitting 

President, as being a Black person, I can only imagine what’s being 

said in private. And to prop up one member of our entire race of 

Black people and say that that nullifies that is totally insulting. 

And in this environment of expecting a President to be inclusive 

and to look at his administration speaks volumes. 

So I have some questions. I want to talk to you about this intimidation of witness. Mr. Cohen, you were initially scheduled to testify 

before the House Oversight Committee on February the 7th, but 

your legal team delayed your testimony, quoting ongoing threats 

against your family from the President and attorney Giuliani. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. And then, on November 29, after you admitted 

that the President’s negotiations over a real estate project in Russia continued well through the summer before the 2016 election, 

President Trump called you, quote, ‘‘a weak person’’ and accused 

you of lying. 

And then, on December 16, 2018, after you disclosed that it was 

the President who directed you to arrange hush money payments 

to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to conceal his extramarital 

affairs, he called you, the President of the United States, a rat. 

Mr. Cohen, why do you feel or believe that the President is repeatedly attacking you? You are stating that you feel intimidated, 

asking us to protect you, following your cooperation with law enforcement. 
144 

Mr. COHEN. When you have access to 60-plus million people that 

follow you on social media and you have the ability within which 

to spark some action by individuals that follow him, and from his 

own words that he can walk down Fifth Avenue, shoot someone, 

and get away with it, it’s never comfortable when the President of 

the United States—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. What do you think he can do to you? 

Mr. COHEN. A lot. And it is not just him. It’s those people that 

follow him and his rhetoric. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. What is a lot? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know. I don’t walk with my wife if we go to 

a restaurant or we go somewhere, I don’t walk with my children, 

I make them go before me, because I have fear. And it is the same 

fear that I had before when he initially decided to drop that tweet 

in my cell phone. 

I receive some, and I’m sure you’ll understand, I receive some 

tweets, I receive some Facebook Messenger, all sorts of social 

media attacks upon me, whether it’s to private direct message, that 

I have had to turn over to Secret Service, because they are the 

most vile, disgusting statements that anyone can ever receive. And 

when it starts to affect your children, that’s when it really affects 

you. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. On January 20, 2019, Mr. Giuliani called your 

father-in-law, quote, ‘‘a criminal’’ and said that he may have ties 

to organized crime. 

Mr. Cohen, do you believe that the President and Mr. Giuliani 

publicly targeted your father-in-law as an effort to intimidate you? 

Can you elaborate, why is your father-in-law being pulled into this? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know the answer to that. My father-in-law 

was in the clothing business, came to this country because in 1972– 

73 the expulsion of Jews from the Ukraine. He came here to this 

country. He worked hard, and he is now enjoying his retirement. 

Never in my life did I think that Mr. Trump would do something 

so disgraceful, and he is attacking him because he knows I care 

about my family. And to hurt me, he is trying to hurt them. 

Interestingly enough, my father-in-law’s biggest investments 

happen to be in a Trump property. So it just doesn’t make any 

sense to me. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I want to be clear, any efforts to prevent a witness from testifying in front of Congress is against the law. I want 

to be real clear about that. And as the chairman has said, retaliating against witnesses and threatening their family and members 

is a textbook mob tactic that does not benefit the President of the 

United States or this country. 

And I want to be on the record, this hearing is not about discrediting the President. It is about the oath of office that we take as 

Members of Congress to have checks and balances and to meet the 

laws and the policies of this country to serve. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Roy. 

Mr. ROY. Mr. Cohen, I, too, want to offer my heartfelt thoughts 

for your family and what they’re going through. I know it’s tough. 

And for your time here today. I know it’s tough for you to stand 

here in front of this committee. 
145 

The chairman suggested you volunteered to come here. You testified that you were asked to come here. Is it correct you were asked 

to come here, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROY. The combined total of the crimes for which you were 

sentenced would bring a maximum of 70 years, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROY. Yet you are going to prison for three years, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROY. The prosecutors of the Southern District of New York 

say: To secure loans, Cohen falsely understated the amount of debt 

he was carrying and omitted information from his personal financial statements to induce a bank to lend on incomplete information. 

You told my colleague here today that you did not committee bank 

fraud. 

Not parsing different statutes, which I understand could be only 

for clarify, are you or are you not guilty of making false statements 

to a financial institution, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I pled guilty. 

Mr. ROY. You said clearly to Mr. Cloud and Mr. Jordan that the 

Southern District of New York lawyers were being untruthful in 

characterizing your desire to work in the administration. Do you 

say again that the lawyers of the Southern District of New York 

are being untruthful in making that characterization, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m saying that’s not accurate. 

Mr. ROY. OK. So you’re saying they’re being untruthful. 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not using the word untruthful, that’s yours. I’m 

saying that that’s not accurate. I did not want a role or a title in 

the administration. 

Mr. ROY. I’m sure the lawyers—— 

Mr. COHEN. I got the title that I wanted. 

Mr. ROY. I’m sure the lawyers at the SDNY appreciate that distinction. 

Question, you testified today you have never been to Prague and 

have never been to the Czech Republic. Do you stand behind that 

statement? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. ROY. I offer into the record an article in known conservative 

news magazine Mother Jones by David Corn in which he says he 

reviewed his notes from a phone call with Mr. Cohen, and Mr. 

Cohen said, quote, ‘‘I haven’t been to Prague in 14 years. I was in 

Prague for one afternoon 14 years ago,’’ end quote. 

Question, you, as my friend Mr. Armstrong rightly inquired, offered to the committee taped information involving clients with the 

bat of an eye. Do you stand behind that, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, I don’t understand. You said it so fast. 

Mr. ROY. You, as my friend Mr. Armstrong rightly inquired, offered to this committee taped information involving your clients 

with the bat of an eye. Do you stand behind that offer? 

Mr. COHEN. If the chairman asks me, I’ll take it under advisement now, and it is not a problem in terms of attorney-client privilege, yes, I will turn it over. 

Mr. ROY. You, as my friend Mr. Meadows pointed out, misled 

this committee even today in a written submission that contra-
146 

dicted your testimony. You have suggested you are going to review 

that. Are you going to review it in our next break to correct the 

record, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROY. Question, you helped out the President’s campaign or 

were involved in the campaign as a representative, as a spokesman, even in your words today. It was your idea for the campaign 

dating back to 2011. Is that accurate, yes or no? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROY. 2011 is a year that sticks in my head, for it’s the year 

my daughter was born, and it was the year I was diagnosed with 

cancer. I was not then pushing for Donald Trump to be President. 

I was fighting cancer. 

Even in 2016, I was publicly backing a certain Republican from 

Texas. Some might guess who it was. But you, you were all in. And 

you either wanted Donald Trump to be your President because it 

would be good for the country or you did it for your own personal 

advancement or both. Sort of the two options. 

Real Americans in my district and across the country wanted the 

President to be President not in any way because he’s perfect, but 

rather because they are sick and tired of this hellhole. They supported the President because they are sick and tired of the games 

that we are seeing here today. They are sick and tired of politicians 

who refuse to secure the border, balance our budget, restore 

healthcare freedom, and then get the hell out of their way so they 

can lead their life. They are mystified that we amass about $100 

million of debt per hour, which means we have blown through 

$300, $400, $450 million during this charade in amassing debt— 

$450 million. They’re sick and tired of a Democrat Party that willfully ignores cartel-driven asylum crisis on our border that endangers American citizens and the migrants who seek to come here. 

Just yesterday in Eagle Pass, Texas, Border Patrol agents arrested an MS–13 gang member. In McAllen, Texas, Federal authorities are offering a reward for a man tied to Mexico’s Gulf Cartel for his alleged roles in various murders, kidnappings, and home 

invasions in south Texas. A mass Honduran migrant rush at the 

Texas border forced brief closure of the Laredo port. 

This is this week. This is what we’re ignoring. This is not what 

we are doing for the American people while we engage in this charade. This is not what the American people send us here to do. 

This is an embarrassment for our country. 

I talked to my beautiful wife back in Dripping Springs, Texas, 

just before the hearing. I said, ‘‘Don’t bother watching.’’ She said, 

as I roughly expected, ‘‘Don’t worry, I won’t. I have more important 

things to do.’’ And she, like the rest of the American people, have 

a hell of a lot more important things to do than to watch this. I 

said, ‘‘Amen, darling.’’ 

I can’t help but think that that is what the majority of the American people are thinking while watching this unbelievable circus. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have got a lot to do, as well. I have got houses and schools to 

help rebuild in the Virgin Islands, expansion of voting rights, edu-
147 

cational opportunities, criminal justice reform. Thank God the 

Democratic majority can walk and chew gum at the same time. So 

we’re here with you right now. 

Mr. Cohen, you learned well in the 10 years that you worked 

with Donald Trump. What was your position with the GOP in the 

— up to eight months ago? 

Mr. COHEN. I was vice chair of the RNC Finance Committee. 

Ms. PLASKETT. You were vice chair of finance of the Republican 

National Committee, right? 

Mr. COHEN. Correct. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. 

Mr. COHEN. I do want to say, I was a Democrat until Steve 

Wynn found out I was a Democrat and made me switch parties. 

Ms. PLASKETT. That would be the smart thing to do. 

Mr. COHEN. He said it wasn’t right for a Democrat to be the vice 

chair. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Good. Let’s get to—I only have a little bit of time. 

On behalf of the many Members here who have expressed to your 

family our apologies to your family, but I want to apologize for the 

inappropriate comments and tweets that have been made by other 

Members of this body. And as a former prosecutor and as former 

counsel on House Ethics, I think that at the very least there should 

be a referral to the Ethics Committee of witness intimidation or 

tampering under U.S.C. 1512 of my colleague Matt Gaetz, and it 

may be possibly him being referred for a criminal prosecution. So 

I want to put that on the record. 

On May 2, 2018, the President’s personal attorney, Rudy 

Giuliani, who was his personal attorney like you, appeared on FOX 

News and referred to the President’s reimbursement to you for the 

$130,000 payment for Stephanie Clifford as part of a retainer. 

And on May 3, 2018, one day after Mr. Giuliani’s appearance, the 

President tweeted, and I quote, ‘‘Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received 

a monthly retainer not from the campaign and having nothing to 

do with the campaign, from which he entered into through reimbursement a private contract between two parties known as a nondisclosure agreement or NDA.’’ 

The Office of Government Ethics, which is the agency which the 

Federal Government with responsibility over what the President 

needs to report publicly about his assets, was puzzled by this, it 

seems, and they were skeptical that a retainer was actually in 

place and asked to see the retainer agreement on call of May 8 

with the President. 

The President’s personal counsel, Sheri Dillon, replied that she 

would, and I quote, ‘‘not permit OGE staff to read the agreement 

because it is privileged.’’ Ms. Dillon would not even let OGE staff 

come to her office to review the retainer agreement. 

Mr. Cohen, in a court filing made in August of last year Federal 

prosecutors stated that, quote, ‘‘In truth and in fact, there was no 

such retainer agreement.’’ Mr. Cohen, did you ever have a retainer 

agreement in place with the President for the payment to Ms. 

Clifford? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So was Mr. Giuliani’s statement inaccurate? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 
148 

Ms. PLASKETT. Was Ms. Dillon’s statement about the retainer 

agreement inaccurate? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry, Ms. Dillon’s statement is? 

Ms. PLASKETT. About the retainer agreement, is it inaccurate? 

Mr. COHEN. And her statement is what? 

Ms. PLASKETT. And her statement to them was, quote, ‘‘not to 

permit OGE staff to read the agreement because it is privileged.’’ 

Mr. COHEN. There was no agreement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And is the President’s tweet or his statement accurate? 

Mr. COHEN. And I’m sorry, one more time? 

Ms. PLASKETT. And his statement was, Mr. Cohen, an attorney, 

received a monthly retainer not from the campaign and having 

nothing to do with the campaign from which he entered into 

through a reimbursement. 

Mr. COHEN. That’s not accurate. 

Ms. PLASKETT. You have mentioned some individuals to my colleague from New York, Mr. Connolly, and also in your testimony 

about Mr. Weisselberg and other individuals, Ms. Rhona. Who are 

those individuals? Are they with The Trump Organization? 

Mr. COHEN. They are. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Are there other people that we should be meeting 

with? 

Mr. COHEN. So Allen Weisselberg is the chief financial officer in 

The Trump Organization. 

Ms. PLASKETT. You’ve got to quickly give us as many names as 

we can so we can get to them. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Is Ms. Rhona, what is Ms. Rhona’s—— 

Mr. COHEN. Rhona Graff is the—Mr. Trump’s executive assistant. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And would she be able to corroborate many of the 

statements that you have made here? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. She was—her office is directly next to his, and 

she’s involved in a lot that went on. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. Mr. Cohen, when the President’s lawyers 

were having the discussions with the Office of Government Ethics 

in 2018 did they reach out to you to talk with you about these payments? 

Mr. COHEN. No, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And what did you—did you share anything with 

them otherwise in any other conversation? 

Mr. COHEN. I do not recall, no. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Can the committee obtain more information about 

these facts by obtaining testimony and documents from the White 

House, The Trump Organization, and the President’s attorneys? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I think that those are the individuals 

that we should be speaking with. And I yield back at this time. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The committee will now stand in recess 

again. We will come back — listen up — 35 minutes, 35 minutes 

after the last vote begins. 

So for Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cohen, we are talking about probably 

about an hour or so. 
149 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you so much. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ladies and gentlemen, we will come to 

order. 

Mr. Cohen, I want to finalize this issue relating to your truth in 

testimony form. The form requires you to list your contracts or payments originating from a foreign government, not from all foreign 

entities. 

We said we would give you a chance to consult with your attorneys. Have you done that, and do you have any additional information? 

Mr. COHEN. So my four attorneys continue to believe, as they did 

before, that the language of the truth in testimony form, which I 

was given and signed just right before this hearing and which requires disclosure of any contracts or payments from foreign governments in the last two years, did not apply to my work for BTA 

Bank, which is a Kazakh-owned entity. 

They advised that had entities been intended for disclosure that 

word would have been in the disclosure definition. However, if the 

committee’s counsel has a different view, that I should disclose my 

contract with BTA Bank, we’d be willing to do that. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. All right. Now—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Let me finish. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I want to understand clearly. You sought 

the advice of your counsel. Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. And your counsel advised you to say what 

you just said. Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. And you know that to be the truth. Is that 

right? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I will yield to the gentleman from North 

Carolina. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the chairman for his courtesy. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of making points of order and going back 

and forth on this, perhaps a way to solve this is for the chairman 

to request Mr. Cohen give to this committee all the foreign payments that he has received over the last two years, whether they’re 

an entity or a government. Because we have a strong belief, Mr. 

Chairman, there’s over $900,000 that came from the Government 

of Kazakhstan on behalf of Mr. Cohen, and it is either the truth, 

the whole truth, or nothing but the truth. 

And the rules, Mr. Chairman, really look at foreign payments 

that come from or with foreign governments. And the bank he is 

talking about is owned 81 percent by the Kazakhstan Government. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, 

and then we’re going to move on. 

What I will take — first of all, let me be clear, I said to Mr. 

Cohen that if he came in here and lied I would nail him to the 

cross. 

Didn’t I, did I tell you that? 
150 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, you did more than once. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. All right. So if there’s any ambiguity I 

want that to be cleared up. 

I have no problem in working with you to make sure that’s 

straightened out, because I don’t want it to be a thing where he 

thinks one thing, we think one thing. And we can clear that up, 

all right? 

All right. We have a number of members that have been waiting. 

Mr. JORDAN. But just on that subject — thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I yield. 

Mr. JORDAN. I don’t think we should limit to just it the BTA 

Bank which has the affiliation with Kazakhstan. I think we should 

also look at Korea Aerospace Industries, one of his other clients, 

and any other client that’s foreign that may have some connection 

to that respective country’s government. I hope him and his attorneys look at all those and we get the form exactly right as Mr. 

Meadows wants. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time. We will take that 

certainly under advisement. I am a man of my word. We will do— 

we will work with you and see what we can do to come up with 

that. I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable request. 

Mr. Khanna. Hello? Mr. Khanna. 

Mr. KHANNA. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen, I want to focus my questions on the smoking gun document you have provided this committee. This document is compelling evidence of Federal and State crimes, including financial 

fraud. 

You provided this committee with a check from President Donald 

J. Trump’s revocable trust account, which is marked as exhibit 5B. 

It is a check for $35,000, and it is dated March 17, 2017, after the 

President took office. It is right now on the screen. Do you see it, 

sir? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KHANNA. To be clear, the Trump revocable trust is the trust 

the President set up to hold his assets after he became President. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so. 

Mr. KHANNA. Do you know why you were paid from the trust as 

opposed to the President’s personal account? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. KHANNA. Did you think it was odd that he paid you once 

from his personal account and then he’s paying you through the 

scheme of a trust? 

Mr. COHEN. I’ll be honest, I was just happy to get the check. 

Mr. KHANNA. Today you testified that the check was signed by 

Donald Trump, Jr., and The Trump Organization CFO, Allen 

Weisselberg. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. 

Mr. KHANNA. According to the criminal charges against you, you 

sent monthly invoices containing false information to an individual 

identified as executive one. Weisselberg is Executive 1, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 
151 

Mr. KHANNA. The criminal charge against you then states that 

Executive 1 forwarded your invoice to someone referred to as Executive 2. Presumably Donald Trump, Jr., who is signing this check, 

is Executive 2, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so. 

Mr. KHANNA. As Federal prosecutors laid out in their criminal 

charges, payments like this check resulted in numerous false statements in the books and records of The Trump Organization. And 

it’s important for the American public to understand there’s nothing to do with collusion, this is financial fraud, garden variety financial fraud. It was disguised as a payment for legal services to 

you, but this was not a payment for legal services, was it, Mr. 

Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. 

Mr. KHANNA. It could give rise to serious State and Federal 

criminal liability if a corporation is cooking its books. 

Based on your testimony today, Donald Trump, Jr., and Allen 

Weisselberg directed this payment to you and approved this payment. Is that right? 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Trump initially acknowledged the obligation, the 

debt. Myself and Allen Weisselberg went back to his office, and I 

was instructed by Allen at the time that we were going to do this 

over 12 installments. And what he decided to do then was to have 

me send an invoice, in which case they can have a check cut. And 

then, yes, the answer would be yes to your followup. 

Mr. KHANNA. And Donald Trump, Jr., obviously signed off on 

this? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. Well, it would either be Eric Trump, Donald 

Trump, Jr., and/or Allen Weisselberg, but always Allen Weisselberg 

on the check. 

Mr. KHANNA. And you think Executive 2 is Donald Trump, Jr.? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. KHANNA. They knew that this payment was false and illegal, 

correct? 

Mr. COHEN. I can’t make that conclusion. 

Mr. KHANNA. You told Representative Kelly that the President 

was aware of this scheme. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. KHANNA. I just want the American public to understand the 

explosive nature of your testimony and this document. Are you telling us, Mr. Cohen, that the President directed transpection in conspiracy with Allen Weisselberg and his son, Donald Trump, Jr., as 

part of a civil — criminal — as part of a criminal conspiracy of financial fraud? Is that your testimony today? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. KHANNA. And do you know if this criminal financial scheme 

that the President, Allen Weisselberg, and Donald Trump, Jr., are 

involved in is being investigated by the Southern District of New 

York? 

Mr. COHEN. I’d rather not discuss that question because it could 

be part of an investigation that’s currently ongoing. 

Mr. KHANNA. But I just want the American public to understand 

that solely apart from Bob Mueller’s investigation there is garden 

variety financial fraud, and your allegation and the explosive smok-
152 

ing gun document suggests that the President, his son, and his 

CFO may be involved in a criminal conspiracy. And isn’t it true, 

Mr. Cohen, that this criminal conspiracy that involves four people, 

that there’s only one person so far who has suffered the repercussions, and that’s why you’re in jail? 

Mr. COHEN. Will be going to jail, yes. 

Mr. KHANNA. There are three other people, though, who were 

equally involved in this conspiracy. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. KHANNA. Is that true? 

Mr. COHEN. It is true. 

Mr. KHANNA. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gomez. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Cohen, I’m going to tackle the President’s tax returns. 

During the 2016 campaign you said you personally wouldn’t, 

quote, ‘‘allow him to release those returns until the audits are 

over,’’ unquote. 

For the record, nothing prevents individuals from sharing their 

own tax returns even while under audit by the IRS. Mr. Cohen, do 

you know whether President Trump’s tax returns were really 

under audit by the IRS in 2016? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know the answer. I asked for a copy of the 

audit so that I could use it in terms of my statements to the press, 

and I was never able to obtain one. 

Mr. GOMEZ. OK. So do you have any inside knowledge about 

what was in the President’s tax returns that he refused to release? 

Mr. COHEN. I do not. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Can you give us any insight into what the real reason is that the President has refused to release his tax returns? 

Mr. COHEN. The statements that he had said to me is that what 

he didn’t want was to have an entire group of think tanks that are 

tax experts run through his tax return and start ripping it to 

pieces and then he’ll end up in an audit and he’ll ultimately have 

taxable consequences, penalties, and so on. 

Mr. GOMEZ. So that’s an interesting point, that basically he said 

he didn’t want to release his tax returns because he might end up 

in an audit. So could you presume from that statement that he 

wasn’t under audit? 

Mr. COHEN. I presume that he is not under audit. 

Mr. GOMEZ. And the reason why I bring this up, because I’m also 

the only Democrat on this committee that also serves on the Committee of Ways and Means. That’s the chief tax-writing committee 

in the House of Representatives, and it is the only committee in the 

House of Representatives that has jurisdiction to request an American’s tax return, and that includes the President of the United 

States. 

My constituents need to know whether the President has financial ties that are causing him to protect his own bottom line rather 

than the best interests of this country. Can he be blackmailed because of his financial and business ventures, including by a foreign 

government? 
153 

And I know the opposition, the first thing they’re going to ask 

or say is that he released his financial disclosure form. But I believe that there’s other things we can learn from his taxes. 

Do you have any idea what we can learn in his tax returns if we 

actually—we got our hands on them? 

Mr. COHEN. No, I have actually—I have seen them, I just have 

never gone through them. They’re quite long. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Quite long. 

One of the things I also find ironic is the way they’re kind of attacking you is to undermine your credibility is—one of the ways— 

is by saying that you committed bank fraud and tax evasion. And 

the reason why it is a big deal is that it really goes down to a person’s character when it comes to taxes. But yet, the Republican minority has never asked to see his taxes, right? Something that for 

40 years, Democrats and Republicans alike, have released their tax 

returns to prove to the American people that they didn’t have financial interests that would be leverageable by a foreign government, but this minority refuses to ask for his tax returns. 

I also want to kind of go on. I’m noticing a pattern, I’m noticing 

a pattern about the President and those in his inner circle. Special 

Counsel Robert Mueller’s team has indicted or received guilty pleas 

from 34 people and three companies that we know of, the latest 

being long-term Trump adviser Roger Stone. That group includes 

six former Trump advisers. 

It appears that the President has a fondness for entrusting those 

who will, one, lie for him, two, break the law for him, three, cheat 

the system for him. Essentially he wants to surround himself with 

people who are just like him. Would you agree with that statement? 

Mr. COHEN. From the facts and circumstances, it appears so. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Cohen, the American people have a lot of questions when it comes to this President and his conduct, when he 

went to Helsinki and he bowed before Vladimir Putin, and nobody 

can really understand why he acts the way he acts. And we believe 

that the way we get those answers is really looking at everybody 

that surrounds him, who he has been associated with, and his tax 

returns, because that is the only way that we can get down to the 

bottom line. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I ask unanimous consent that we read into—or 

for the record a tweet from Dr. Darrell Scott, which says, ‘‘Michael 

Cohen asked, no, begged me repeatedly, to ask POTUS to give him 

a job in the administration. He is still lying under oath.’’ I ask 

unanimous consent. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
154 

Dr.Darrell Scott 0 Follow 

@PastorDScott 

Michael Cohen asked ... no/ BEGGED me 

REPEATEDLY, to ask the POTUS to give him a 

job in the Administration! He's STILL lying 

under oath! 

9S Retv.ee:;.. 164 likes 

-~· ·-· . 

v 
155 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have one more from Bo Dietl: ‘‘Getting sick 

watching these hearings. I know Michael Cohen personally for 

many years and he told me several times that he was very angry 

and upset that he didn’t get a post in the White House and that 

he,’’ quote, ‘‘’would do what he has to do now to protect his family,’ ’’ close quote. I ask that be—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
156 

Bo Dietle 

@Bo01etl ( Follow ) v 

Getting sick watching these hearings. I know 

Michael Cohen personally for many years and 

he told me several times that he was very 

angry and upset that he didn't get a post in 

the WH and that he llwould do what he has to 

do now to protect his family " @seanhannity 

@potus 

8:13AM- 27 Feb 2019 
157 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, two quick ones. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. And then, if we have got other ones, we’re 

going to do you, Mr. Ranking Member, and then we’ll do the other 

ones they send, because I have things, too, that I want to get in. 

Mr. JORDAN. I ask unanimous consent that an article in Salon 

magazines written by Stanley Brand, former House counsel to Tip 

O’Neill, title of the article is, ‘‘Oversight committee session with 

Michael Cohen looks like an illegitimate show hearing.’’ 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article referenced above is available at: https:// 

theconversation.com/oversight-committee-session-with-michaelcohen-looks-like-an-illegitimate-show-hearing-112253 , reprinted in 

Salon Magazine] 

Mr. JORDAN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter that Mr. 

Meadows and I sent to you, the chairman, requesting that you call 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to testify at this hearing 

also be part of the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. It is part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
158 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

<!Congress of tbe ilniteb ~tates 

j!)onsc of l\cprcsrntatibcs 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 

2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143 

(2{12J22f>,:.OS1 

1202!2-P:;~:mn 

February 25,2019 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings 

Chairman 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

JiM JOflOAN, OHIO 

flol.\lKING MINORITY M~MSUl 

We renew our request that you call Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to publicly 

testifY before our Committee, and recommend he appears alongside Michael Cohen on 

Wednesday, February 27, 2019. Cohen has pleaded guilty to crimes of deception and lies, 

including lying to Congress.' In Cohen's sentencing proceeding, two Justice Department 

components-the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District ofNew York and the Special 

Counsel's Office-provided information about the Department's views of Cohen's crimes and 

conduct. As the Deputy Attorney General, with direct supervision of these entities, only 

Rosenstein can speak to the views of both Department components. 

Rosenstein's appearance would also allow the Committee to continue its ongoing 

oversight of the Department of Justice. During our joint investigation with the House Judiciary 

Committee, former FBI general counsel James Baker testified that between May 9 and May 17, 

2017, Rosenstein organized a series of meetings with Department officials, including former FBI 

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, to strategize methods to get back at the President for firing 

FBI Director James Corney.' Rosenstein and others contemplated a range of ideas, from 

Rosenstein wearing a wire to secretly record the President to Rosenstein recruiting cabinet 

1 Press Release, Dep't of Justice, Michael Cohen Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison (Dec. 12, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-sentenced-3-years-prison. 

2 See Transcribed Interview of James Baker 7 Day 2, Oct. 18, 2018 (Mr. Baker. I believe there were a couple of 

different meetings, and they -- I believe there were a couple of different meetings, and each time, I think, it was the 

day after because I believe the meetings went late into the evening. That's to the best of my recollection. Mr. Jordan. 

Okay. And is it your understanding that there were multiple meetings that Mr. McCabe, Ms. Page, Mr. Rosenstein 

had about the potential of recording the President? Mr. Baker. I don't know. I know that they had multiple meetings 

with the Deputy Attorney General discussing a lot of things in the immediate aftermath of the firing, and I don~ 

specifically remember how many times this was discussed. Mr. Jordan. So, just to be clear, the firing of Mr. Corney 

took place on May 9th, and then the hiring of the special counsel took place on May 17th. So these numerous 

meetings and the one you had with Mr. McCabe and Ms. Page took place between the 9th and the 17th? Mr. Baker. I 

believe that's correct."). !d. at II (Mr. Baker: " ... And then there are these-- some number of conversations with the 

Deputy Attorney General about what to do next, what needs to be done, and my recollection is numerous topics 

were discussed, and these were among them. The wearing the wire and the 25th Amendment were one of a list, one 

or two of a list ofthings that we were going-- that people were going through to try to figure out what to do ... "). 
159 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings 

February 25, 2019 

Page2 

members to invoke the 25th Amendment.' McCabe, a participant in some of the Rosenstein 

meetings, is now relating these facts publicly to promote his book.' Rosenstein has disputed 

McCabe's account.' 

If you intend to proceed with Michael Cohen as the star witness of the Committee's first 

big hearing, Members should have an opportunity to assess his credibility. We have asked 

several times that you request information and documents from the Justice Department about 

Cohen and his crimes. You have refused to do so. The next best alternative, if the Committee is 

to have a fair and thorough hearing, is to have a Justice Department witness to speak to these 

matters. By virtue of his position, Rosenstein is the appropriate witness for this task. We 

therefore strongly urge you to invite Rosenstein to the Committee's hearing on February 27, 

2019. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing from you. 

a. O~a'~ tln Jor£.-

Ranking Member 

Sincerely, 

Mark Meadows 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Govermnent Operations 

3 Transcribed Interview of James Baker 137 Day 1, Oct. 3, 2018 (Baker: " ... It was I believe to the best of my 

recollection it was some combination of them that they told me that there had been a conversation with the DAG 

about the idea of the DAG wearing a wire into a conversation or conversations with the President."); Jd. at 143 

(Baker: " ... The 25th Amendment conversation, my understanding was that there was a conversation in which it was 

said I believe by the DAG that there were --that there were two members of the cabinet who were willing to go 

down this road already ... "); U.S. CONST. AMEND. XXV,§ 4. 

'McCabe Says He Ordered the Obstruction of Justice Probe of President Trump, 60 MINUTES (Feb. 14, 2019), 

https://www.cbsnews.com/newsiandrew-mccabe-says-he-ordered-the-obstruction-of-justice-case-of-presidenttrump-60-minutes/. 

'Daniel Chaitin, DOJ Rebuffs Andrew McCabe: Claim that Rod Rosenstein Sought to Oust Trump 'Inaccurate and 

Factually Incorrect', WASH. EXAMINER (Feb. 14, 20 19). 
160 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, can I respond? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Just one second, all right? 

The article that Mr. Brand, I just want to deal with this one 

right away. When we saw that article, Mr. Ranking Member, we 

knew that it was inaccurate. I mean, just on basics, I mean, that 

the case is that Mr. Brand’s views are definitely distinguishable for 

what’s going on here. 

And so we got Irvin B. Nathan, former general counsel of the 

House from 2007 to 2010, and he says in short, the committee has 

ample jurisdiction and responsibility to hear and consider the upcoming voluntary testimony of Mr. Cohen. That’s dated February 

25, 2019. 

And I want to enter that into the record. Without objection, so 

ordered. Where are we? 

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Cohen, I would like to quickly pick up on some previous lines 

of questioning before getting into my own. So I may go a little 

quickly to get it all in in five minutes. 

First, my colleague from Vermont had asked you several questions about AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, 

and in that you mentioned a treasure trove, a, quote, treasurer 

trove of documents in David Pecker’s office relating to information 

assembled from all these catch and kill operations against people 

who potentially had damaging information on the President. You 

also mentioned that the President was very concerned about the 

whereabouts of these documents and who possessed them. 

Does that treasure trove of documents still exist? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know. I had asked David Pecker for them. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So you would say the person who knows the 

whereabouts of these documents would be David Pecker? 

Mr. COHEN. David Pecker, Barry Levine, or Dylan Howard. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. OK. Thank you. 

Second, I want to ask a little bit about your conversation with 

my colleague from Missouri about asset inflation. To your knowledge, did the President ever provide inflated assets to an insurance 

company? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Who else knows that the President did this? 

Mr. COHEN. Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew 

Calamari. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And where would the committee find more 

information on this? Do you think we need to review his financial 

statements and his tax returns in order to compare them? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, and you would find it at The Trump Org. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you very much. 

The last thing here. The Trump Golf organization currently has 

a golf course in my home borough of the Bronx, Trump Links. I 

drive past it every day going between The Bronx and Queens. In 

fact, The Washington Post reported on the Trump Links Bronx 

course in an article entitled ‘‘Taxpayers Built This New York Golf 

Course and Trump Reaps the Rewards.’’ 

That article is where many New Yorkers and people in the coun- try learned that taxpayers spent $127 million to build Trump Links 
161 

in a, quote, ‘‘generous deal allowing President Trump to keep almost every dollar that flows in on a golf course built with public 

funds.’’ And this doesn’t seem to be the only time the President has 

benefited at the expense of the public. 

Mr. Cohen, I want to ask you about your assertion that the 

President may have improperly devalued his assets to avoid paying 

taxes. According to an August 21, 2016, report by The Washington 

Post, while the President claimed in financial disclosure forms that 

Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, was worth more 

than $50 million, he had reported otherwise to local tax authorities 

that the course was worth, quote, ‘‘no more than $5 million.’’ 

Mr. Cohen, do you know whether this specific report is accurate? 

Mr. COHEN. It’s identical to what he did at Trump National Golf 

Club at Briar Cliff Manor. 

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. To your knowledge, was the President interested in reducing his local real estate bills, tax bills? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And how did he do that? 

Mr. COHEN. What you do is you deflate the value of the asset, 

and then you put in a request to the tax department for a deduction. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you. 

Now, in October 2018, The New York Times revealed that, quote, 

‘‘President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 

1990’s, including instances of outright fraud that greatly increased 

the fortune he received from his parents.’’ It further stated for Mr. 

Trump, quote, ‘‘He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue 

his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars 

on tax returns, sharply reducing his tax bill when those properties 

were transferred to him and his siblings.’’ 

Mr. Cohen, do you know whether that specific report is accurate? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t. I wasn’t there in the 1990’s. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Who would know the answer to those questions? 

Mr. COHEN. Allen Weisselberg. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And would it help for the committee to obtain Federal and State tax returns from the President and his company to address that discrepancy? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe so. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you very much. I yield the rest of my 

time to the chair. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Ms. Pressley. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One more time, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for your 

leadership and the way in which you comport yourself. And I know 

there are some that would have you believe that the more you say 

something the more true it is, but, in fact, this committee, thanks 

to your leadership and our Democratic majority, has been doing the 

work of the American people. Before this committee alone we 

looked at the issue of making election day a Federal holiday, reducing drug pricing, and pursued subpoenas to reunite families, and 

just recently, before we returned here, tried to pass a universal 

background check gun bill. 
162 

So we are doing the business of the American people, including 

today. It has been said that the best sunlight—sunlight is said to 

be the best of disinfectants. Electric light is the most efficient policeman. Well, let there be light, because the point of oversight is 

for us to pursue the trust, to pursue the truth and justice for the 

American people, to understand if lies, deceit, and corruption are 

threatening American democracy and indeed our safety. 

Mr. Chairman, charities should not be abused as personal piggy 

banks. It is both against the law and extremely unfair to charities 

that play by the rules. A line of questioning that we have not yet 

addressed and have been glaringly absent in tackling is that of the 

abuses of the Trump Foundation. 

Now, the President’s charitable foundation agreed to dissolve in 

response to an ongoing investigation and lawsuit by the New York 

attorney general. The New York attorney general found what it 

called, quote, ‘‘clear and repeated violations of State and Federal 

law, including, quote, repeated and willful self-dealing by the 

Trump administration’’—my apologies, by the foundation. 

If I understand your opening statement correctly, in mid–2013 you arranged for a straw purchaser to bid $60,000 for a portrait 

of Mr. Trump painted by the artist William Quigley at a charity 

auction. Is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Why would the President want to bid up the price 

of something that he was ultimately paying for? 

Mr. COHEN. It was all about ego. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. How was it paid for? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe it was paid for by a check from the trust. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. An abuse. And again, you know, this is not a partisan pursuit here. I think ultimately what we’re demonstrating is 

patriotism. This is about what is right and just for the American 

people. 

Did the straw purchaser purchase the painting and then the 

foundation funds reimbursed the straw purchaser? Can you explain 

the mechanics of that payment? 

Mr. COHEN. I’m not involved with the foundation. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. OK. Did the President know what was happening? 

Mr. COHEN. Oh, yes. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. And how did you know he knew what was happening? 

Mr. COHEN. Because he tasked me to find the straw bidder to ensure that his painting, which was going last in the auction, would 

go for the highest amount of any of the paintings that had been 

put on the auction block for the day. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. And what happened to the painting? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe it’s in one of the clubs. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Okay. 

According to the New York attorney general, in March 2014 Mr. Trump again used the foundation to pay $10,000 for the winning 

bid on another portrait of Mr. Trump that ended up as decor in one 

of his golf courses in Miami. 

Mr. Cohen, are you familiar with that transaction? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 
163 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Are you aware of any other instances where the 

Trump Foundation was used to benefit the Trump family? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Could you elaborate? 

Mr. COHEN. So there was a contract that I ended up creating on 

Mr. Trump’s behalf for a Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Victor 

Pinchuk, and it was that Mr. Trump was asked to come and to participate in what was the Ukrainian-American economic forum. 

Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to go, but I was able to negotiate 

15 minutes by Skype where they would have a camera, very much 

like the television camera, very much like that one, and they would 

translate Mr. Trump to the questioner and then he would respond 

back. 

And I negotiated a fee of $150,000 for 15 minutes. I was directed 

by Mr. Trump to have the contract done in the name of the Donald 

J. Trump Foundation, as opposed to Donald J. Trump for services 

rendered. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you. 

Any other abuses of the foundation that you would like to share? 

Again, it is against the law and again extremely unfair to charities 

that are playing by the rules. 

Mr. COHEN. Not at this time, but if I think of one I’ll pass it 

along. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. OK. And then for the balance of my time, would 

you agree that someone could deny rental units to African Americans, lead the birther movement, refer to the diaspora as shithole 

countries, and refer to White supremacists as fine people, have a 

Black friend, and still be racist? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. I agree. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. You 

may answer the question. 

Mr. COHEN. I did. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have two unanimous consent. 

Since we’re finishing up, before we get done I want to go ahead. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Okay. Just give me one second. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. I wanted to get to Ms. Tlaib and then I’ll 

come to you, OK? They have been waiting here all day. 

Ms. Tlaib. 

Ms. TLAIB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, all of you, for centering this committee on our sole 

purpose, is exposing the truth. And some of my colleagues can’t 

handle the truth, and this is unfortunate because it’s the center of 

what is protecting our country right now. 

The people at home are frustrated, Mr. Cohen, and they want 

criminal schemes to stop, especially those from the Oval Office. 

Mr. Cohen, I am upset and know that my residents feel the same 

way that a man you worked for for the past 10 years is using the 

most powerful position in the world to hurt our country solely for 

personal gain. We are upset that some of our colleagues here are 

so disconnected of what it means to have this President of the 

United States sending checks to cover bribe payments, not hush 

payments, bribe payments you made on his behalf, one in 2017 of 
164 

March and another August 2017 after he was sworn in as President. 

They are upset that while my colleagues are trying to discredit 

your testimony by some of your own unlawful acts and lies, that 

they are disconnected with the fact that you were the personal lawyer for this President of the United States, that this President 

chose you as his legal counsel. 

My stance has always been the same, Mr. Chairman, based on 

the facts, not on future reports that we’re all waiting on. My residents back home don’t need a collusion clause with a foreign government to know this President, Individual 1, has disregarded the 

law of the land, the United States Constitution, and that he has 

misused his pardon powers. 

In the sentencing memo, Mr. Cohen, filed by the Federal prosecutors in New York in December of last year they stated, quote, ‘‘In 

particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted with respect to 

both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction 

of Individual 1.’’ 

Mr. Cohen, as you know, to President Donald J. Trump brand 

comes first, not the American people. Based on what you know 

now, based on what we know now, is that Individual 1 used his 

money, businesses, and platform to enrich himself, his brand, and 

in the process directed you, Mr. Cohen to commit multiple felonies, 

and you covered it up, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. TLAIB. You called it protecting his brand, correct? 

Mr. COHEN. And him, as well. 

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Cohen, with this, do you think the President of 

the United States is making decisions in the best interests of the 

American people? 

Mr. COHEN. No, I don’t. 

Ms. TLAIB. Especially those you said that he used horrible words 

about, like African Americans, Muslim Americans, and immigrants? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Ms. TLAIB. Just to make a note, Mr. Chairman, just because 

someone has a person of color, a Black person working for them, 

does not mean they aren’t racist. And it is insensitive that some 

would even say — the fact that someone would actually use a prop, 

a Black woman in this Chamber, in this committee, is alone racist 

in itself. 

Donald Trump is setting a precedent—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that her words be taken 

down. 

Ms. TLAIB. Donald Trump is setting a precedent — I reclaim my 

time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Ms. TLAIB. Donald Trump is setting a precedent—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Ms. TLAIB [continuing]. that the highest office can be attained 

through illegal activity—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, the rules are clear. 

Ms. TLAIB [continuing]. cover up, and hold on to business assets 

to break campaign finance laws and constitutional clauses. 
165 

What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is criminal conduct in the 

pursuit of the highest public office by Mr. Cohen and Individual 1. 

I hope that the gravity of this situation hits everyone in this body 

and in Congress and across this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the rest of my time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that her words, when she is 

referring to an individual Member of this body, be taken down and 

stricken from the record. I’m sure she didn’t intend to do this. But 

if anyone knows my record as it relates, it should be you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like — I want the words 

read back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. No, no. 

Mr. JORDAN. We want to know exactly what she said about my 

colleague. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Excuse me. 

Would you like to rephrase that statement, Ms. Tlaib? 

Ms. TLAIB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can actually read it from 

here. 

Just to make a note, Mr. Chairman, that just because someone 

has a person of color, a Black person working for them, does not 

mean they aren’t racist. And it is insensitive that someone would 

even say racist — say it is racist in itself and to use a Black 

woman as a prop to prove it otherwise. 

And I can submit this for the record. If a colleague is thinking 

that that’s what I’m saying, I’m just saying that’s what I believe 

to have happened. And as a person of color in this committee that’s 

how I felt at that moment, and I wanted to express that. 

But I am not calling the gentleman, Mr. Meadows, a racist for 

doing so. I’m saying that in itself it is a racist act. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I hope not, Mr. Chairman, because I need 

to be clear on this particular — Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Meadows, wait a minute. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have defended you of — with false—— 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Meadows, I’m the chair. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, sir, you are. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you. I will clear this up. 

Now, Ms. Tlaib, is it—I want to make sure I understand. You did 

not — you were not intending to call Mr. Meadows a racist. Is that 

right? 

Ms. TLAIB. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not call Mr. Meadows a racist. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Wait a minute. Hold on. 

Ms. TLAIB. I am trying as a person of color, Mr. Chairman, just 

to express myself and how I felt at that moment. And so just for 

the record, that’s what was my intention. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. All right. 

Is that all right, Mr. Meadows? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, there’s nothing more personal to 

me than my relationship — my nieces and nephews are people of 

color. Not many people know that. You know that, Mr. Chairman. 

And to indicate that I asked someone who is a personal friend of 

the Trump family, who has worked for him, who knows this par-
166 

ticular individual, that she is coming in to be a prop? It is racist 

to suggest that I asked her to come in here for that reason. 

Mr. President—the President’s own person, she is a family member, she loves this family. She came in because she felt like the 

President of the United States was getting falsely accused. 

And, Mr. Chairman, you and I have a personal relationship 

that’s not based on color, and to even go down this direction is 

wrong, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman 

for what you have stated. If there’s anyone who is sensitive with 

regard to race it is me, son of former sharecroppers that were basically slaves. So I get it. 

I listened very carefully to Ms. Tlaib, and I think, and I don’t 

want—I’m not going to put words in her mouth, but I think she 

said that she was not calling you a racist. And I thought that we 

could clarify that. 

Because, Mr. Meadows, you know, and of all the people on this 

committee I have said it and got in trouble for it, that you’re one 

of my best friends. I know that shocks a lot of people. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And likewise, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Yes. But you are. And I would—and I 

could see and feel your pain. I feel it. And so—and I don’t think 

Ms. Tlaib intended to cause you that, that kind of pain and that 

kind of frustration. 

Did you have a statement, Ms. Tlaib? I’m going to yield to you. 

We can just straighten this up. 

Ms. TLAIB. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to my colleague, Mr. Meadows, that was not my intention, 

and I do apologize if that’s what it sounded like. But I said someone in general. And as everybody knows in this Chamber, I’m pretty direct. So if I wanted to say that I would have, but that’s not 

what I said. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to clarify. 

But again, I said someone. And again, I was not referring to you 

at all as a racist. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. 

I thank the chairman for working to clarify this, and I appreciate 

the chairman’s intervening. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Now, to the gentleman, first of all, thank 

you for allowing us to resolve that. 

The gentleman had asked a little bit earlier—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will withdraw my request. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Oh, you don’t want to do the unanimous 

consent? 

Mr. MEADOWS. I need the unanimous consent, but I think I need 

to officially withdraw my request that it be stricken from the 

record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. OK, withdraw it. You did it? 

Mr. MEADOWS. I did. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. All right. Sounds good. 

Now I will recognize you for your unanimous consent. I think you 

want to put in the record some documents. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
167 

I ask unanimous consent that we put forth in the record the Vanity Fair article which indicates that Michael Cohen must be the 

most gifted consultant in America, outlining his insights into government healthcare and policy and real estate, suggesting that he 

is not—it is not a real company, just like he is not a lawyer. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[The article referenced above is available at: https:// 

www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/michael-cohen-must-be-themost-gifted-consultant-in-america] 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent that the L.A. Times article of July 16, 

2018, actually be put in the record, which outlines the $1.2 million 

payment and their misgivings thereafter. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article referenced above is available at:https:// 

www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-novartis-cohen20180716-story.html.] 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Any other unanimous consent requests? 

Mr.Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to make the February 9, 2019, Washington Post profile of Michael Cohen, titled ‘‘Michael Cohen’s Secret 

Agenda,’’ part of the record. This story shows Cohen to be a selfish 

manipulator who is all about himself. It even has a false anecdote 

about how he once claimed to deliver his own son, his own baby. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article may be found at:https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

graphics/2019/politics/michael-cohens-secret-agenda-as-trumpsfixer/?utm—term=.b39beefbdfce ] 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to make the May 9, 2018, Washington 

Post article, ‘‘South Korean Firm Paid Michael Cohen $150,000 as 

it Sought Contract from U.S. Government,’’ as part of the record. 

The article reported Korea Aerospace Industries paid a shell company run by Cohen. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article may be found at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

investigations/south-korean-firm-paid-michael-cohen-150000-as-itsought-contract-from-us-government/2018/05/09/0ae31788-53b7- 

11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859—story.html?utm—term=.f63ad297b92d.] 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to make Michael Cohen’s sentencing 

statement to the Southern District of New York part of the record. 

The statement establishes that Michael Cohen continues to falsely 

blame his crimes on blind loyalty to the President, but only Cohen 

is to blame for his many false statements to financial institutions 

and the IRS. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
168 

Michael Cohen - Sentencing Statement 

Thank you, your Honor. 

I stand before your Honor humbly and painfully aware that we are here today 

for one reason: Because of my actions that I pied guilty to on August 21, and as 

well on November 29. 

I take full responsibility for each act that I pied guilty to, the personal ones to 

me and those involving the President of the United States of America. Viktor Frankl 

in his book, ′′Man’s Search for Meaning,′′ he wrote, ′′There are forces beyond your 

control that can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom 

to choose how you will respond to the situation.′′ 

Your Honor, this may seem hard to believe, but today is one of the most meaningful days of my life. The irony is today is the day I am getting my freedom back as 

you sit at the bench and you contemplate my fate. 

I have been living in a personal and mental incarceration ever since the fateful 

day that I accepted the offer to work for a famous real estate mogul whose business 

acumen I truly admired. In fact, I now know that there is little to be admired. I 

want to be clear. I blame myself for the conduct which has brought me here today, 

and it was my own weakness, and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose 

a path of darkness over light. It is for these reasons I chose to participate in the 

elicit act of the President rather than to listen to my own inner voice which should 

have warned me that the campaign finance violations that I later pied guilty to 

were insidious. 

Recently, the President Tweeted a statement calling me weak, and he was correct, 

but for a much different reason than he was implying. It was because time and time 

again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than to listen to my 

own inner voice and my moral compass. My weakness can be characterized as a 

blind loyalty to Donald Trump, and I was weak for not having the strength to question and to refuse his demands. I have already spent years living a personal and 

mental incarceration, which no matter what is decided today, owning this mistake 

will free me to be once more the person I really am. 

Your Honor, I love my family more than anything in the world: My dad who is 

here today, my mom, my in-laws, siblings, love of my life, my wife Laura, my pride 

and joy, my daughter Samantha, my son, Jake. There is no sentence that could supersede the suffering that I live with on a daily basis, knowing that my actions have 

brought undeserved pain and shame upon my family. I deserve that pain. They do 

not. 

I also stand before my children, for them to see their father taking responsibility 

for his mistakes, mistakes that have forced them to bear a shameful spotlight which 

they have done nothing to deserve, and this breaks my heart. For me, the greatest 

punishment has been seeing the unbearable pain that my actions and my associations have brought to my entire family. My mom, my dad, this isn’t what they deserve to see in their older age, especially when as a child they emphasized to all 

of us the difference between right and wrong. And I’m sorry. 

I believed during this process that there were only two things I could do to minimize the pain to my family: Admit my guilt and move these proceedings along. This 

is why I did not enter into a cooperation agreement. I have elected to be sentenced 

without asking for adjournment. I have given information during countless hours of 

meetings with prosecutors that have been cited as substantial, meaningful and credible. I have chosen this unorthodox path because the faster I am sentenced, the 

sooner I can return to my family, be the father I want to be, the husband I want 

to be, and a productive member of society again. I do not need a cooperation agreement to be in place to do the right thing. And I will continue to cooperate with government, offering as much information as I truthfully possess. 

I stand behind my statement that I made to George Stephanopoulos, that my 

wife, my daughter, my son have my first loyalty and always will. I put family and 

country first. My departure as a loyal soldier to the President bears a very hefty 

price. 

For months now the President of the United States, one of the most powerful men 

in the world, publicly mocks me, calling me a rat and a liar, and insists that the 

Court sentence me to the absolute maximum time in prison. Not only is this improper; it creates a false sense that the President can weigh in on the outcome of 

judicial proceedings that implicate him. Despite being vilified by the press and inundated with character assassinations over the past almost two years, I still stand 

today, and I am committed to proving my integrity and ensuring that history will 

not remember me as the villain of his story. I now know that every action I take 

in the future has to be well thought out and with honorable intention because I 

wish to leave no room for future mistakes in my life. 
169 

And so I beseech your Honor to consider this path that I am currently taking 

when sentencing me today. And I want to apologize to my entire family for what 

my actions have put them through. My family has suffered immeasurably in the 

home and the world outside. I know I have let them all down, and it will be my 

life’s work to make it right, and to become the best version of myself. 

Most all, I want to apologize to the people of the United States. You deserve to 

know the truth and lying to you was unjust. I want to thank you, your Honor, for 

all the time I’m sure you’ve committed to this matter and the consideration that you 

have given to my future. Again, I want to thank my family, my friends, many who 

are here today, who are with me, especially all the people who wrote letters on my 

behalf. In addition, I would like to thank the tens of thousands of strangers who 

despite not knowing me at all, not knowing me personally have shown kindness and 

empathy in writing letters to me and offering support and prayer. And I thank you, 

your Honor, I am truly sorry, and I promise I will be better. 

Mr. HICE. I ask unanimous consent to make the August 20, 2018, 

CNN article, ‘‘Fed Scrutinizing Michael Cohen’s Former Accountant 

and Bank Loans,’’ part of the record. Cohen’s accountant was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and required a lawyer. In 

his sentencing memo prosecutors said Cohen attempted to blame 

his tax evasion on his accountant. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article referenced above is available at: https:// 

www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/michael-cohen-accountant-subpoena/index.html.] 

Mr. HICE. Two more real quickly. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Sure. 

Mr. HICE. I ask unanimous consent to make the February 26, 

2019, order filed by the Appellate Division of the State of New York 

regarding disciplinary proceedings against Michael Cohen part of 

the record. This order, which proactively applies starting February 

28, establishes Cohen committed a serious crime and ceased being 

an attorney when he was convicted of lying to Congress. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
170 

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION 

FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

FEB 28 2019 

Hon. Dianne T. Renwick, 

Sallie Manzanet-Daniels 

Angela M. Mazzarelli 

Jeffery K. Oing 

Justice Presiding, 

Peter H. Moulton, 

---------------------------------------x 

In the Matter of Michael D. Cohen, 

(admitted as Michael Dean Cohen), 

an attorney and counselor-at-law: 

Attorney Grievance Committee 

for the First Judicial Department, 

Petitioner, 

Michael D. Cohen, 

Respondent. 

---------------------------------------x 

Justices. 

M-4981 

M-6557 

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney 

Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. 

Respondent, Michael D. Cohen, was admitted to the Bar of the 

State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the 

Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on June 24, 

1992. 

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, 

Attorney Grievance Committee, New York 

(Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. 

Respondent pro se. 
171 

Motion Nos. 4981 and 6557 - January 14, 2019 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL D. COHEN, AN ATTORNEY 

PER CURIAM 

Respondent Michael D. Cohen was admitted to the practice of 

law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on 

June 24, 1992 under the name Michael Dean Cohen. At all times 

relevant to this proceeding respondent maintained his principal 

place of business within the First Judicial Department. 

In August 2018, respondent pled guilty to tax evasion, 

making false statements to a federally insured bank and campaign 

finance violations. By motion dated October 3, 2018, the 

Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) moved for an order 

striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys on the 

ground that he has been disbarred based upon his conviction of a 

felony, or, in the alternative, determining that the crimes of 

which he has been convicted constitute "serious crimes." 

While the October motion was sub judice, on November 29, 

2018, in a separate prosecution, respondent pled guilty to making 

false statements to the United States Congress. On December 12, 

2018, respondent was sentenced on both convictions. By letter to 

this Court dated December 5, 2018, the Committee advised that it 

intended to file a supplemental motion to strike based upon this 

second conviction and asked this Court to hold in abeyance the 

consideration of the Committee's previously filed motion and 

-2-
172 

consolidate the two motions in the interest of judicial economy. 

Accordingly, by motion dated December 19, 2018, the 

Committee asks for the same relief as the first motion, i.e. to 

strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys based upon 

his second conviction, or, in the alternative, determining that 

the crimes of which he has been convicted constitute "serious 

crimes." 

Respondent agreed to be served with both of these motions by 

email, first class mail and certified mail, return receipt 

requested. He has failed to submit responses. 

On August 21, 2018, respondent pled guilty in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York to 

evasion of assessment of income tax liability in violation of 26 

USC§ 7201 (five counts- for the calendar years 2012-2016); 

making false statements to .a financial institution in connection 

with a credit decision in violation of 18 USC §§ 1014 and 2; 

causing an unlawful corporate contribution in violation of 52 USC 

§§ 30118(A) and 30109(d) (1) (A), and 18 USC§ 2(b); and making an 

excessive campaign contribution in violation of 52 USC §§ 

30116(a) (1) (A), 30116(a) (7) and 30109(d) (1) (A), and 18 USC§ 

2(b), all federal felonies. 

On November 28, 2018, respondent pled guilty in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York to 

making false statements to the United States Congress in 

-3-
173 

vjolat:ion of 18 USC S 1001 (a) (2). 

On December 12, 2018, respondent was sentenced to three 

years in prison based upon his first conviction, a two-month 

concurrent sentence for his second conviction, concurrent threeyear terms of supervised release in both cases, and was ordered 

to pay two fines of $50,000 each, to forfeit $500,000 and to pay 

$1,393,858 in restitution to the IRS. 

By motion dated December 19, 2018, the Committee seeks an 

order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys 

pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4) (a) and (b) and the Rules for 

Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § l240.12(c) (1) on the 

grounds that he was automatically disbarred as a result of his 

conviction of a federal felony that would constitute a felony 

under New York law (Judiciary LawS 90[4] [e]). In the 

alternative, the Committee seeks an order determining that the 

crime of which respondent has been convicted constitutes a 

"serious crime• within the meaning of Judiciary Law S 90(4) (d), 

innedlately suspending him from the practice of law pursuant to 

,Judiciary L<HI S 90(4) (f) and 22 NYCHR 1240.12(b) (2), and 

directing him to show cause, following his release from 

lmpri r1ormwnt, why a final ordnr of censure, suspmu>ion or 

dl llbdrm•:nt uhould nol bf, made punm<.~nt to 22 NYCHH 

17~0.1/(r;) (2) (j). 

/1. <:<mvict i<m of a fcd<:raJ ffdony tdgger!J disbarment by 
174 

oro~at1on ot law 1t the offense would constitute a felony if 

committed under· Nev.· Y0rk law (Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e); Matter of 

Rosenthal, 64 AD3d 16, 18 [1st Dept 2009); Matter of Kim, 209 

AD2d 127, 129 [1st Dept 1995]). The federal felony need not be a 

"mirror image• of the New York felony in that it does not have to 

correspond in every detail, but it must be "essentially similar" 

{Matter of .Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147, 150 [1983); Matter of Shubov, 

25 AD3d 33 [1st Dept 2005]). Even where the elements of the 

foreign jurisdiction's statute do not directly correspond to a 

New York felony, essential similarity may be established by 

admissions made under oath during a plea allocution, considered 

in conjunction with the indictment or information (Matter of 

.::..':lsterdan:, 2E AD3d 94 [1st Dept 2005]). 

As noted, on November 29, 2018, respondent pled guilty to 

making false statements to the United States Congress in 

violation of 18 USC§ lOOl(a) (2). Respondent served on several 

matters as an attorney to President Donald Trump, when the latter 

\>"as CEO of the Trump Organization. Respondent was charged in 

connection l>'i th his appearances before the Senate Select 

Co~T<ittee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select 

Co"c.ittee on Intelligence. Specifically, it was alleged, and 

respondent expressly admitted at his plea, that on or about 

August 28, 2017, he knowingly and willfully made a materially 

false and fraudulent statement and representation, namely, he 

-5-
175 

caused to be submitted a written statement to SSCI containing 

material false statements about: (1) the Moscow Project (a 

proposed Trump Organization real estate project in Moscow, 

Russia), (2) discussions with people in the Trump Organization 

and in Russia about the Moscow Project, and (3) contemplated 

travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project. 

The Committee contends that respondent was automatically 

disbarred because respondent's conviction under 18 USC§ 

lOOl(a) (2) (making false statements to the U.S. Congress), if 

committed in New York, would constitute the felony of offering a 

false instrument for filing in the first degree in violation of 

Penal Law§ 175.35 (Matter of Verzani, 131 AD3d 49 [1st Dept 

2015]; Matter of Hidetoshi Cho, 77 AD3d 155 [1st Dept 2010)). 

18 usc § 1001 (a) (2) provides: 

"whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the ... Government of the United States, knowingly and 

willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" is guilty of a felony. 

New York Penal Law§ 175.35(1), offering a false instrument 

for filing in the first degree, declares it is a class E felony 

when a person: 

"knowing that a written instrument contains a false 

statement or false information, and with intent to 

defraud the state or any political subdivision, public 

authority or public benefit corporation of the state, 

... offers or presents it to a public office, public 

servant, public authority or public benefit corporation 

with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, 

registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of 

-6-
176 

the records of such public office, public s7rvant, public authority or public benefit corporat~on." 

"The core of the offense under both statutes is the willful 

filing in a governmental office of a false statement knowing it 

to be false" (Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490, 494 [1977]). As this 

Court found in Matter of Silverblatt (113 AD2d 1, 2 [1st Dept 

1985]) "[i]t is beyond cavil that a conviction for making a false 

statement under 18 USC § 1001 is cognizable as a felony under New 

York law for purposes of the automatic disbarment statute." 

Indeed, this Court has repeatedly held that a conviction under 18 

USC § 1001 is analogous to a conviction under the New York felony 

of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree 

and, therefore, automatic disbarment is appropriate herein (see 

Matter of Stewart, 42 AD3d 59 [1st Dept 2007]; Matter of Ramirez, 

7 AD3d 52 [1st Dept,2004]; Matter of Fier, 276 AD2d 17 [1st Dept 

2000}). 

In light of the above, we need not address the issue of 

whether respondent's earlier conviction for making false 

statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit 

decision (which forms the basis of the Committee's first motion 

to strike) is analogous to a New York felony (see Matter of 

Dickstein, 105 AD3d 77, 80 [1st Dept 2013]). 

Accordingly, as respondent ceased to be an attorney upon his 

federal conviction of making false statements to the United 

States Congress in violation of 18 usc§ lOOl(a) (2), the 

-7-
177 

Committee's motion should be granted to the extent of striking 

respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-atlaw in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to November 29, 2018. 

The Committee's first motion (M-4981) is denied as moot. 

All concur. 

Order filed. [February 28, 2019] 

Mo~ion (M-6557) is granted to the extent that respondent's name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law 

in the State of New York pursuant to Judiciary Law§ 90(4) (a) and 

(b) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c) (1), effective nunc pro tunc to 

November 29, 2018, the date respondent ceased to be an attorney as a result of his conviction of the crime of making false 

statements to Congress in violation of 18 USC§ lOOl(a) (2), a federal felony. Motion (M-4981) is denied as moot. 
178 

Mr. HICE. And finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 

to make the July 26, 2018, Washington Post article, ‘‘Michael 

Cohen Secretly Recorded Trump: Does That Make Him a Bad Lawyer,’’ part of the record. The article describes potential ethical violations of a lawyer, Cohen, recording his client, Trump, without the 

client’s knowledge. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article may be found on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/25/michael-cohen-secretly-recordedtrump-does-that-make-him-a-bad-lawyer/?utm— 

term=.a8b7b4b17413.] 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Norman. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to make the January 18, 2019, Huffington Post article, ‘‘11 Tweets from the Fake Fan Account ’Stud’ 

Michael Cohen Paid to Fawn Over Him,’’ part of the record. The 

account is described as a place for women who love and support 

Michael Cohen. ‘‘Strong, pit bull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business 

oriented, ready to make a difference!′′ 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article referenced above is available at: https:// 

www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-cohen-women-for-cohen-tweets— 

n—5c41a28ee4b0bfa693c22b39.] 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Mr. Roy. 

Mr. ROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask unanimous consent to make the April 20, 2018, article in Mother Jones titled ‘‘Michael Cohen Says He Has Never 

Been to Prague, He Told Me a Different Story’’ part of the record. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The article referencedabove is available at: https:// 

www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/michael-cohen-says-hesnever-been-to-prague-he-told-me-a-different-story/.] 

Mr. ROY. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Mr. Cohen, I have some concluding remarks, but before I do that 

do you have anything you would like to say? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I have some closing 

remarks I would like to say myself. Is this an appropriate time? 

Chairman CUMMINGS. You can do it now. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

So first I want to thank you, Chairman, because I appreciate the 

opportunity to share some final thoughts. 

I have acknowledged I have made my own mistakes, and I have 

owned up to them publicly and under oath, but silence and complicity in the face of the daily destruction of our basic norms and 

civility to one another will not be one of them. 

I did things and I acted improperly, at times at Mr. Trump’s behest. I blindly followed his demands. My loyalty to Mr. Trump has 

cost me everything, my family’s happiness, friendships, my law license, my company, my livelihood, my honor, my reputation, and 

soon my freedom, and I will not sit back, say nothing and allow 

him to do the same to the country. 
179 

Indeed, given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that 

if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful 

transition of power, and this is why I agreed to appear before you 

today. 

In closing, I would like to say directly to the President: We honor 

our veterans even in the rain. You tell the truth even when it 

doesn’t aggrandize you. You respect the law and our incredible law 

enforcement agents. You don’t villainize them. You don’t disparage 

generals, gold star families, prisoners of war, and other heroes who 

had the courage to fight for this country. 

You don’t attack the media and those who question what you 

don’t like or what you don’t want them to say. And you take responsibility for your own dirty deeds. You don’t use your power of 

your bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out 

against you. 

You don’t separate families from one another or demonize those 

looking to America for a better life. You don’t vilify people based 

on the God they pray to, and you don’t cuddle up to our adversaries 

at the expense of our allies. And, finally, you don’t shut down the 

government before Christmas and New Year’s just to simply appease your base. This behavior is churlish. It denigrates the office 

of the President, and it’s simply un-American, and it’s not you. 

So to those who support the President and his rhetoric, as I once 

did, I pray the country doesn’t make the same mistakes that I have 

made, or pay the heavy price that my family and I are paying. And 

I thank you very much for this additional time, Chairman. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. The ranking member has a closing statement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We know Mr. Cohen has 

been dishonest in the past—that’s why he’s going to prison in two 

months—but there are things today that he said during the several 

hours of questioning that just don’t add up either. He said he never 

defrauded any bank. He was having a conversation questioning 

from Mr. Comer. Obviously, that’s not true, because he’s going to 

prison for that very offense. 

He said today he was a good lawyer who understood the need to 

represent his client—his client with legal advice, but in his written 

testimony, he said he never bothered to consider whether payments 

to women for improper—whether payments to women were improper, much less the right thing to do. 

He attested in his signed truth in testimony form, that he did not 

have any reportable contracts with foreign-government entities. 

Earlier he admitted to having consulting agreements with at least 

two foreign entities owned, in part, by foreign governments BTA 

Bank of Kazakhstan and Korea Aerospace Industries of South 

Korea. 

He said to Chairman Cummings that Donald Trump directed 

him and the Trump Organization CFO, Allen Weisselberg, to, 

quote, ‘‘go back to his office and figure out how to make a $130,000 

payment,’’ but in his testimony, he says, Mr. Trump directed me 

to use my own personal funds from the home equity line of credit 

to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively 

impact the campaign. 
180 

And in response to a question about him paying to set up the 

fake Twitter account, @WomenForCohen, that he didn’t direct the 

commission of that Twitter account. He says, I didn’t set that up, 

and it was done by a young lady that works for the firm, when, 

in fact, he did ask the IT firm, RedFinch, to set it up, according 

to the owner of RedFinch. And, finally, he said he didn’t want a 

job with the administration, even though the attorneys with the 

Southern District of New York stated that this was a fact. When 

asked about this, they said, I wouldn’t call them liars, but that 

statement is not accurate. 

Mr. Chairman, I think maybe more importantly is what we 

should have been doing today. Mr. Meadows and I sent you a letter 

asking us—asking you to have Mr. Rosenstein here. I think it’s important to know that last week, when you announced that Mr. 

Cohen was coming this week, just happened to be the very same 

week that we learned the Deputy Attorney General of the United 

States was thinking about wearing a wire to record the Commander in Chief, was actually contemplating, talking to cabinet 

members and invoking the 25th Amendment. 

That’s what we should be focused on, not this sad display we’ve 

had to go through the last several hours. And, again, it’s not my 

words. You can take the words of the former general counsel for 

the House of Representatives under Tip O’Neill. 

So I hope we’ve learned some things here today. But, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, your first big hearing, the first announced 

witness of the 116th Congress, is a gentleman who is going to prison in two months for lying to Congress. I don’t think that’s what 

we should be focused on. I yield back. 

Chairman CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

You know, I’ve sat here and I’ve listened to all of this, and it’s 

very painful. It’s very painful. You made a lot of mistakes, Mr. 

Cohen, and you’ve admitted that. And, you know, one of the saddest parts of this whole thing is that some very innocent people are 

hurting, too—and you acknowledged that—and that’s your family. 

And so you come here today and you—deep in my heart, I have 

to—you know, when I practiced law, I represented a lot of lawyers 

who got in trouble, and you come saying, I have made my mistakes, but now I want to change my life. And, you know, if we— 

if we as a Nation, did not give people an opportunity, after they 

made mistakes, to change their lives, a whole lot of people would 

not do very well. 

I don’t know where you go from here. As I sat here and I listened 

to both sides, I just felt as if—and—and, you know, people are now 

using my words, that they took from me, that didn’t give me any 

credit, we’re better than this. We are so much—we really are. As 

a country, we are so much better than this. 

And, you know, I told you, and, and, and, for some reason, Mr. 

Cohen, I tell my—my children, I say, when bad things happen to 

you, do not ask the question, Why did it happen to me? Ask the 

question, Why did it happen for me? I don’t know why this is happening for you, but it is my hope that a small part of it is for our 

country to be better. If I hear you correctly, it sounds like you’re 

crying out for a new normal, for us getting back to normal. It 

sounds to me like you want to make sure that our democracy stays 
181 

intact. When I had the one meeting I had with President Trump, 

I said to him, the greatest gift that you and I, Mr. President, can 

give to our children, is making sure that we give them a democracy 

that is intact, a democracy better than the one that we came upon, 

and I’m hoping that the things you said today will help us begin 

to get back there. 

You know, I mean, come on now, I mean, when you got, according to The Washington Post, our President has made at least 

8,718—8,718 false or misleading statements. That’s stunning. 

That’s not what we teach our children. I don’t teach mine that. And 

for whatever reason, you—it sounds like you got caught up in it. 

You got caught up in it. You got caught up in it. And some kind 

of way, I hope that you will—I know that it’s painful going to prison. I know—I know it’s got to be painful being called a rat. 

And let me—let me explain. A lot of people don’t know the significance of that, but I live in the inner city of Baltimore, all right? 

And when you call somebody a rat, that’s one of the worse things 

you can call them, because when they go to prison, that means a 

snitch. I’m just saying. And so the President called you a rat. We’re 

better than that. We really are. 

And I’m hoping that all of us can get back to this democracy that 

we want and that we should be passing on our children, so that 

they can do better than what we did. 

And so you wonder whether people believe you. I don’t know. I 

don’t know whether they believe you. But the fact is that you come, 

you have your head down, and this has got to be one of the hardest 

things that you could do. 

Let me tell you the picture that really, really pained me. You 

were leaving the prison—you were leaving the courthouse, and I 

guess it’s your daughter had braces or something on. Man, that 

thing—man, that thing hurt me. As a father of two daughters, it 

hurt me. And I can imagine how it must feel for you. 

But I’m just saying to you, I want to, first of all, thank you. I 

know that this has been hard. I know that you face a lot. I know 

that you are worried about your family, but this is a part of your 

destiny. And hopefully this portion of your destiny will lead to a 

better—a better—a better Michael Cohen, a better Donald Trump, 

a better United States of America, and a better world. And I mean 

that from the depths of my heart. 

When we’re dancing with the angels, the question will be asked, 

in 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing? Did we play 

games? And I’m tired of these statements saying—people come in 

here and say, Oh, oh, this is the first hearing. It is not the first 

hearing. The first hearing with regard to prescription drugs. Remember? A little girl, a lady sat there, Ms. Worsham, her daughter 

died because she could not get $333 a month in insulin. That was 

our first hearing. 

Second hearing, H.R. 1, voting rights, corruption in government. 

Come on now. We can do more than one thing, and we have got 

to get back to normal. With that, this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ