Michael Cohen claims he 'felt pressured and coerced' by Letitia James and Alvin Bragg to 'build the cases' against Trump

If anything characterizes Michael Cohen, it is certainly not his ability to keep friends. He went from being one of Donald Trump's closest allies to becoming a deadly foe and a key witness in two cases that sought to end the Republican's political career ahead of the 2024 election. Now, Cohen has turned on the prosecutors in both cases, Letitia James and Alvin Bragg.

In a article on Substack, Cohen claimed that, "From the time I first began meeting" with lawyers from both prosecutors' offices, "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."

"Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook. Both used their platforms to elevate their profiles, to claim the mantle of the officials who 'took down Trump.' In doing so, they blurred the line between justice and politics; and in that blur, the credibility of both suffered," he said.

"I am not writing this to defend Donald Trump, nor to relitigate his conduct"

The lawyer assured that this article is not intended to "defend Donald Trump," nor is it "relitigate his conduct." According to Cohen, his motivation for writing this piece now was that "a federal appeals court has just reactivated President Donald Trump's efforts to undo his New York hush money conviction [Stormy Daniels case], ordering a lower court to reconsider whether the case belongs in state court or should be moved to federal court."

Cohen noted that "as expected, the reaction was immediate and predictable. Some called it accountability under siege. Others labeled it proof of partisan lawfare run amok. What was missing, again, was any serious discussion of how these cases are actually built, who they rely on, and what happens behind closed doors long before a jury ever hears a word." And that, according to the lawyer, is what he tried to explain with his article after his experience from inside the case.

"You may reasonably ask why I am speaking out now. The answer is simple. I have witnessed firsthand the damage done when prosecutors pick their target first and then seek evidence to fit a predetermined narrative. I have lived inside that process. I have suffered from that process. My family has suffered from that process. And as courts now reconsider where the Bragg and James cases belong, how they were brought and how they were tried; that experience is relevant. More today than ever before," he said.