Cohen Alleges Pressure to Target Trump in Testimony

Clear Facts

• Michael Cohen stated he was pressured and coerced by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James to testify against Donald Trump.
• Cohen testified in two cases against Trump: a civil fraud trial led by James and a criminal case prosecuted by Bragg’s office.
• Cohen says prosecutors only sought testimony that fit their narrative and helped convict the former president.

Michael Cohen, once Donald Trump’s lawyer, has publicly admitted in a recent Substack post that he felt both pressured and coerced to offer testimony against President Trump.

Cohen explained that this pressure began from his first meetings with prosecutors working under Bragg and James.

He stated he “felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump.”

Regarding Letitia James, Cohen said he was “compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.”

Cohen recalled James’s past remarks: “Letitia James made it publicly known during her 2018 campaign for attorney general that, if elected, she would go after President Trump.”

He continued, “Her office made clear that the testimony they wanted from me was testimony that would help them do just that. Again, I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.”

Cohen testified in a civil case accusing Trump of inflating assets and a criminal trial focused on alleged falsification of business records relating to hush money.

Both trials ended with juries finding Trump guilty.

Cohen is a former attorney who pleaded guilty to several offenses in 2018, including lying to Congress, and admitted he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization during Trump’s hush money trial.

He pointed out that a federal appeals court recently reopened Trump’s attempt to overturn a conviction, saying, “Silently letting the record stand without clarification feels like complicity.”

He clarified his motives: “I am not writing this to defend Donald Trump, nor to relitigate his conduct… I am writing because I have seen this system from the inside, not as an observer or analyst, but as a central subpoenaed participant.”

Cohen said he began cooperating with the Manhattan DA’s office in August 2019 and continued after release from prison, hoping for a reduction in home confinement due to his cooperation.

He emphasized the prosecutors’ focus: “During my time with prosecutors, both in preparation for and during the trials, it was clear they were interested only in testimony from me that would enable them to convict President Trump.”

Cohen accused prosecutors of asking “inappropriate leading questions to elicit answers that supported their narrative.”

He said, “Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook. Both used their platforms to elevate their profiles, to claim the mantle of the officials who ‘took down Trump.'”

Cohen described their approach as blurring the line between justice and politics, damaging credibility.

He voiced concern about targeted prosecution: “I have witnessed firsthand the damage done when prosecutors pick their target first and then seek evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.”

He offered a warning: “When politics and prosecution become indistinguishable, public trust erodes; not just in individual cases, like mine and/or Trump’s, but in the system itself. That erosion serves no one, regardless of party, personality, or power.”

For Americans who value an unbiased legal system, Cohen’s admission adds another layer of concern over the fairness of recent high-profile prosecutions involving President Trump.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Read the full report here