From the New York Post: Ex-legal fixer Michael Cohen on Friday accused New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of forcing him to testify against his former client, Donald Trump, as part of their civil fraud and “hush money” cases against the now-sitting president.
“I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking,” Cohen wrote in a Substack post. “Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook.”
Cohen took to the independent journalists’ platform to reveal his thoughts about participating in the legal proceedings, as Trump seeks to have his appeal to overturn Bragg’s conviction heard by a federal appeals court.
The president’s attorneys are also still seeking to have the $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump for inflating his real estate empire tossed.
Cohen, who had served over a year in federal prison for tax evasion, bank fraud and lying to Congress, said he hoped by participating in the cases against Trump, that “my home confinement and later my supervised release sentence would be shortened.”
“I wanted to do whatever I could to obtain my Rule 35(b) motion, return home to my family and resume my fractured life,” Cohen wrote.
But he said it became clear that prosecutors were only interested in testimony from him that would enable them to convict President Trump, and added, “When my testimony was insufficient for a point the prosecution sought to make, prosecutors frequently asked inappropriate leading questions to elicit answers that supported their narrative.”
“I 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,” Cohen wrote.
Cohen also wrote:
I am not writing this to defend Donald Trump, nor to relitigate his conduct. That ground has been plowed endlessly, often loudly, and rarely thoughtfully. I am writing because I have seen this system from the inside, not as an observer or analyst, but as a central subpoenaed participant. When courts now revisit questions of jurisdiction, immunity, and evidentiary boundaries, they are not engaging in sterile procedural debates. They are exposing how justice is pursued, how power is applied, and how outcomes are shaped well before verdicts are rendered.
READ MORE from the New York Post.
Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter.)
The DML News App: www.X.com/DMLNewsApp
The Dennis Michael Lynch Podcast archive is available below, with the most recent on top. Never miss an episode. Subscribe to the show by downloading The DML News App or go to Apple Podcasts.
