Former President Donald Trump has responded to comments made by his ex-attorney Michael Cohen, who claimed he felt “coerced” by New York prosecutors to provide negative testimony against Trump. In a recent post on Substack, Cohen expressed that he was pressured to align his testimony with the prosecution’s desire to build cases against Trump, stating, “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.”
Trump took to Truth Social to react to Cohen’s remarks, stating, “These horrible Radical Left people, doing everything possible to destroy our Country, should pay a big price for this!” He further claimed that the investigations led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg were a “SET UP from the beginning” and implied that the New York courts were “embarrassed by what has happened.”
Cohen, who played a significant role in multiple legal cases against Trump, has been pivotal to the prosecution’s arguments due to his insider knowledge of the former president’s legal and business affairs. His testimony was especially crucial in the hush-money case where it ultimately helped secure Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts. Trump has consistently labeled these investigations as politically motivated “witch hunts,” arguing that they have led to substantial financial penalties for his businesses.
Cohen’s recent comments, which he described as part of a “retribution tour,” come amid Trump’s attempts to transfer the hush-money case from state to federal court. This move follows an appeals court’s suggestion to reconsider the case’s handling, which may impact the legal standing of the charges against Trump. Cohen clarified that his intent was not to defend Trump, but rather to illuminate the dynamics of how such cases are constructed and the pressures witnesses face.
The former attorney detailed his experiences with the prosecutors, claiming they sought only testimony that would corroborate their case against Trump and often posed leading questions to attain desired answers. This admission raises further questions about the integrity of witness testimonies in high-profile legal battles.
As Trump’s legal team awaits a decision regarding the shift to federal court, Cohen’s insights could potentially lead to more scrutiny of the prosecutorial practices involved in Trump’s cases. The situation continues to be fluid, with Trump expecting that federal court might provide a strategic advantage, particularly regarding presidential immunity against criminal charges.