Late Tuesday night, both Politico and the Washington Post attempted to create a scandal over the fact that President Donald Trump gave three of his most trusted aides $45,000 each as a "cash gift for the holidays," while ignoring an actual scandal surrounding a $213,000 bonus California Gov. Gavin Newsom paid his "Swiss army knife," longtime aide/confidant Lindsey Cobia, through his Campaign for Democracy PAC.

Politico rushed out its bare-bones piece with the earth-shattering news around 9 PM ET, with only Harp's name in the headline as part of the lefty media's ongoing insinuations that Harp and Trump are having some sort of inappropriate relationship. The piece noted that the amount equals 30 percent of each aide's taxpayer-funded salary, but didn't note anything improper about the gifts, which a White House spokesperson said were part of Trump's "longstanding practice of giving Christmas gifts to people in his orbit...both in government and in his time in the private sector."

The Washington Post followed up about an hour later, building on Politico's reporting with a statement from former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter alleging "the payments appear to violate a federal statute that prohibits the supplementation of federal employees’ salaries from outside sources," with Painter claiming to know Trump's mindset. "He’s clearly trying to make it easier for them financially to work in government service at the White House," Painter said. "You can't do that."

Painter's analysis is exceptionally flawed, but that's a discussion for another day.

What both Politico and WaPo seemingly find unworthy of covering is the December 10, 2025 bonus payment of $213,000 from Newsom's Campaign for Democracy PAC to Cobia, who was paid $195,000 in salary for the year, which I reported on in late August.

Recommended
Iran Burns Another Proxy: Houthis Nearing Panic After Tehran-Ordered Offensive Fails streiff Patrick Clancy Fights Back Against the 'Xanax Moms' As Juror Shreds Their Conspiracy Theories Teri Christoph

Cobia, who was named as one of The Hill's 50 Most Beautiful People in 2012, when she worked for House Democratic Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, has been a fixture at Gavin Newsom's side since 2016, when she left a government affairs position at Lyft to run Newsom's campaign for Proposition 63 (background checks to purchase ammunition). A photo of the two working together from the early days still sits atop her X profile.


Rumors have long swirled in California political circles that Newsom was having an affair with Cobia; in early 2021 a few local papers reported on it, and in November 2021 the California Globe reported on allegations that Newsom had abruptly canceled his trip to the UN Climate Conference in Scotland because his wife learned that Cobia was on the list of staffers set to travel with him. After canceling the trip, Newsom wasn't seen in public for 10 days until RedState spotted him in a Vogue photo spread from Ivy Getty's San Francisco wedding.

Since then, she's traveled extensively with Newsom on PAC-related trips, such as to the GOP presidential primary debate at the Reagan Library in September 2023 and the first and only debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in June 2024.

Cobia is married to Michael Redding, an attorney who worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney before being named — on the same day Newsom canceled his Scotland trip — by California Attorney General Rob Bonta as a Special Assistant Attorney General "serv[ing] as a legal and policy advisor on law enforcement, firearms, and criminal justice," with a $180,000/year salary. In May 2025, Redding was named a Senior Advisor to Newsom and appointed Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Safety.

And now there are reports that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is seeking additional information from the Campaign for Democracy PAC regarding "tens of thousands of dollars" in travel reimbursement payments to staffers and contractors, including $24,701 to Cobia.

Federal watchdogs specifically flagged payments described as “Travel and Event Reimbursement,” saying federal disclosure rules may require campaigns to identify the businesses that ultimately received reimbursed money.

The commission ordered the PAC to provide the “missing or clarifying information” by Oct. 6, or explain when additional itemization was not required.

If the PAC doesn't adequately explain the spending, it could face an audit or enforcement action.

But you won't hear about any of this from Politico or the Washington Post.