Once a loyal fixer for Donald Trump, Michael Cohen has now turned the tables, alleging high-level pressure to testify against the president in a stunning reversal of allegiance.
Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, claimed in a recent Substack article that he was pressured by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James to provide damaging testimony in investigations targeting Trump. Cohen testified in two trials: a civil case by the Attorney General’s Office alleging asset inflation by Trump, resulting in a $454 million penalty later overturned on appeal, and a criminal case by the DA’s Office over alleged falsified business records tied to payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during the 2016 election. Additionally, a federal appeals court has revived Trump’s bid to challenge his conviction in the business records trial, ordering a lower court to reconsider jurisdiction.
According to Breitbart, critics of the legal actions against Trump argue that these cases represent a troubling overreach by progressive prosecutors eager to tarnish a political figure who has consistently challenged the establishment. The notion of coercion, as alleged by Cohen, raises serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process. Could this be less about justice and more about settling political scores?
Cohen’s assertions are not mere speculation; he insists his experience is grounded in reality. As he put it, his perspective “is not theoretical,” but “it is lived” because he had “testified in two trials” against Trump. If true, this paints a grim picture of prosecutors prioritizing convictions over fairness.
Let’s not forget Cohen’s own history—he’s no saint, having served time for federal crimes, including a three-year prison sentence starting in 2018 for hush-money payments and lying to Congress. Released to home confinement in 2020, his credibility has long been under scrutiny. Yet, even a flawed witness can point to flaws in the system.
Consider the criminal trial where Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Bragg’s argument hinges on payments to Stormy Daniels, routed through Cohen, being misclassified as legal expenses rather than campaign costs, allegedly to hide a conspiracy. Legal scholars like Jonathan Turley, however, have questioned whether a crime even exists here.
Trump has pleaded not guilty, and now a federal appeals court has given his team a lifeline by pushing for a jurisdictional review of the business records case. This development could shift the battleground, potentially undermining Bragg’s strategy. It’s a rare glimmer of hope for a man many see as unfairly targeted.
Cohen’s Substack piece details his first meeting with Manhattan DA prosecutors in August 2019, while he was early into his prison term. He admits to asking how cooperation might benefit him, eyeing a chance to reduce his sentence and return to his family. This self-interest doesn’t negate his claims but certainly colors them.
Digging deeper, Cohen alleges that during trial preparations, prosecutors only wanted testimony that would nail Trump. He stated, “it was clear they sought evidence to 'enable them to convict President Trump.” Sounds like a predetermined outcome, doesn’t it?
The civil case, accusing Trump of inflating asset values for loan benefits, ended with a hefty penalty that was later reversed. That reversal alone suggests the initial judgment may have been overzealous. Was this a genuine pursuit of accountability or a public relations stunt?
The criminal case, tied to payments during the 2016 election, smells of selective prosecution to many observers. Why focus so intensely on bookkeeping when broader issues loom large in New York? It’s hard not to see a political agenda at play. Cohen’s role as a key witness, once described by Breitbart News as Trump’s fixer, makes him both central and controversial. His testimony was expected to detail his involvement in the alleged misclassification of payments. But can a man with his track record be fully trusted?
These cases aren’t just about Trump; they’re about how far the legal system can be stretched to target high-profile figures. If Cohen’s coercion claims hold water, they expose a dangerous precedent for weaponizing prosecutions. That’s a threat to everyone, not just one man.
Public trust in institutions is already fragile, and stories like this only deepen the skepticism. When prosecutors appear more interested in headlines than justice, the average citizen wonders whose next. It’s a slippery slope we can’t afford to slide down.
Ultimately, while Cohen’s motives may be murky, his allegations deserve a hard look. Trump’s legal battles, from convictions to appeals, continue to unfold under intense scrutiny. Whether this is a witch hunt or warranted accountability, the truth must cut through the noise.