Former Trump Attorney Reveals Coercion by Prosecutors to Build Cases Against Client

A former attorney for President Donald Trump has stated that he felt pressured and coerced by prosecutors during his cooperation in investigations targeting his client.

In an extensive Substack post, Michael Cohen described how, from the initial meetings with Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and New York Attorney General’s investigators to the trials themselves, he was compelled to provide information and testimony designed to secure convictions against President Trump.

“From the time I first began meeting with lawyers from the Manhattan DA’s Office and the New York Attorney General’s Office in connection with their investigations of President Trump, and through the trials themselves, 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.

The comments follow an appeals court decision ordering a lower court to reconsider whether Trump’s New York hush money case should have been moved from state to federal court.

Cohen emphasized he was speaking out because he witnessed firsthand how prosecutors target individuals before gathering evidence to fit a predetermined narrative. “There are moments when silence becomes complicity,” he wrote. “When letting the record stand without context feels less like restraint and more like consent. This is one of those moments.”

Cohen clarified he was not defending Trump or relitigating his conduct but rather highlighting systemic issues in high-profile prosecutions. He noted that he was a central subpoenaed participant, testifying in two cases: a civil fraud case and a criminal hush money prosecution.

In the civil fraud case, New York alleged Trump inflated assets to secure favorable loan terms, leading to an initial $454 million penalty later overturned on appeal. The hush money case charged that Trump falsified business records related to payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election.

Cohen recalled his first meeting with Manhattan prosecutors in August 2019 while he was serving a federal prison sentence for crimes he pleaded guilty to. “One of the very first questions I asked those prosecutors was how I would benefit from cooperating,” he wrote, stating his goal was to reduce his sentence and return home.

Despite his efforts, prosecutors consistently sought testimony that aligned with their narrative against Trump. Cohen noted similar tactics by then-New York Attorney General Letitia James during her 2018 campaign, where she publicly signaled her intent to pursue President Trump if elected.

The recent appeals court ruling, which directs U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein to reconsider jurisdictional questions in the hush money case, has drawn Cohen’s attention. He stressed that the decision does not exonerate Trump or endorse his actions but serves as a reminder of procedural integrity.

“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.”