Ex-legal fixer Michael Cohen on Friday accused New York Lawyer Common Letitia James and Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg of forcing him to testify in opposition to his former consumer, Donald Trump, as a part of their civil fraud and “hush cash” instances in opposition to the now-sitting president.
“I felt compelled and coerced to ship what they had been searching for,” Cohen wrote in a Substack put up. “Letitia James and Alvin Bragg could not share the identical workplace or political calendar, however they share the identical playbook.”
Cohen took to the unbiased journalists’ platform to disclose his ideas about collaborating within the authorized proceedings, as Trump seeks to have his enchantment to overturn Bragg’s conviction heard by a federal appeals court docket.
The president’s attorneys are additionally nonetheless searching for to have the $454 million civil fraud judgment in opposition to Trump for inflating his actual property empire tossed.
“From the time I first started assembly with attorneys from the Manhattan DA’s Workplace and the New York Lawyer Common’s Workplace in reference to their investigations of President Trump, and thru the trials themselves,” Cohen wrote on his new platform, “I felt pressured and coerced to solely present data and testimony that may fulfill the federal government’s need to construct the instances in opposition to and safe a judgment and convictions in opposition to President Trump.”
Cohen’s first-person account claimed he hoped by turning into concerned within the trials that outlined the years earlier than Trump’s return to the White Home in January 2025 that his cooperation could be regarded upon favorably after serving multiple 12 months in federal jail for tax evasion, financial institution fraud and mendacity to Congress.
“Throughout my time with prosecutors, each in preparation for and in the course of the trials, it was clear they had been solely in testimony from me that may allow them to convict President Trump,” he famous of Bragg’s case.
“When my testimony was inadequate for a degree the prosecution sought to make, prosecutors regularly requested inappropriate main inquiries to elicit solutions that supported their narrative.”
For the James case, Cohen additionally alleged that the Empire State legal professional basic’s workforce “made clear that the testimony they needed from me was testimony” that “would go after President Trump.”
He additionally famous that current debate over the instances on the appeals-level has not exonerated the president of the conviction and judgment, respectively, however uncovered how a “rush” to acquire findings of guilt by prosecutors will end in witnesses being “leaned on.”
“Chances are you’ll fairly ask why I’m talking out now. The reply is easy. I’ve witnessed firsthand the harm carried out when prosecutors choose their goal first after which search proof to suit a predetermined narrative,” he concluded.
“Justice should be greater than efficient; it should be credible,” he added. “When politics and prosecution grow to be indistinguishable, public belief erodes.”
