Michael Cohen Alleges Pressure from Prosecutors
Michael Cohen, who previously served as President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, has recently claimed that he was pressured and coerced into testifying against Trump by prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the New York Attorney General’s Office.
In a personal article published on Substack, Cohen specifically named New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, stating that their actions were driven by a desire to secure a conviction against Trump.
Cohen expressed, “From the time I first began meeting with attorneys from the Manhattan Prosecutor’s Office… I felt pressured and coerced to provide only information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire…,” adding, “They share the same strategy. Both used their platforms to raise their profile and claim the role of officials who ‘took down Trump.’
Cohen recounted his involvement in two significant trials regarding Trump. The first was a civil trial in New York in 2023, where Trump was accused of fraudulently inflating his assets to secure favorable loans. The second involved alleged falsification of business records linked to hush money payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election.
During his initial meeting with Bragg, Cohen was serving a three-year sentence after admitting to facilitating hush money payments to Daniels and McDougal. Following a year in federal prison, he was released to serve the remainder of his sentence at home, continuing to meet with prosecutors in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence for his cooperation.
“I was curious about what benefits there would be from cooperating,” he noted, explaining his motivation to pursue a Rule 35(b) claim to return to his family and rebuild his life.
Cohen indicated that the prosecutors seemed focused solely on securing a conviction against Trump, often employing leading questions when his testimony did not fit their narrative.
He stated, “During my interactions with prosecutors… it was clear that they were only interested in my testimony to convict President Trump,” remarking on their use of inappropriate questioning to elicit favorable answers.
Cohen also criticized James and Bragg for undermining their credibility and the public’s trust in the legal system by appearing politically motivated from the outset.
He emphasized that his intention in speaking out was not to defend or condemn Trump, but to address the structural issues in the judicial process. He believed that circumstances often shape outcomes well before they reach the jury.
“I have witnessed firsthand the damage that can be done when prosecutors first select their targets and then seek evidence that fits a predetermined narrative,” Cohen clarified.
In response, President Trump took to Truth Social, asserting that the actions of the prosecutors were politically motivated and detrimental to the country.
Trump stated, “These horrible radical leftists… should pay dearly for it! It was set up from the beginning,” describing the situation as embarrassing for New York courts.
