Cohen’s Allegations Against NY Officials
On Friday, former lawyer Michael Cohen accused New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of pressuring his former client, Donald Trump, to testify against him in a civil fraud and “hush money” lawsuit filed against the current president.
“I felt compelled to give them what they wanted,” Cohen stated in a Substack post. He noted that, despite their different professional backgrounds, James and Bragg employed a similar strategy.
As Trump prepares to challenge Bragg’s conviction in a federal appeals court, Cohen took the stage with an independent journalist to share his insights on joining the legal process.
The legal team representing Trump is also working to overturn a substantial $454 million civil fraud judgment linked to claims that he inflated his real estate assets.
Cohen shared that from his initial meetings with attorneys from both the Manhattan Prosecutor’s Office and the New York Attorney General’s Office, he felt an intense pressure to provide information and testimony that would help build a case against Trump. This, he believes, was aimed at securing a conviction.
His testimonies suggest that he hoped his cooperation would be seen positively during a trial that could have ramifications for Trump’s potential return to the White House in January 2025. This follows Trump’s time in federal prison for charges including tax evasion and bank fraud.
“While engaging with prosecutors, it became apparent that their primary aim was my testimony to convict President Trump,” he remarked, particularly in reference to the Bragg case.
He also mentioned that when his testimony didn’t align with the needs of the prosecution, they often resorted to leading questions to obtain desired answers.
Cohen accused the attorney general’s team of making it clear that they were looking to leverage his testimony against Trump.
Furthermore, discussions surrounding the case at the appellate level have not necessarily confirmed the president’s innocence regarding his conviction. Instead, they highlighted how witnesses can be heavily dependent on prosecutors in their haste to secure a guilty verdict.
“You might wonder why I’m speaking up now, and it’s straightforward: I’ve seen firsthand the harm that occurs when prosecutors target someone and then seek evidence that supports that initial narrative,” he concluded.
“Justice should not only be effective; it should be trustworthy,” he added. “If politics and prosecutorial interests blur together, public trust will erode.”
