{"id":687137,"date":"2026-10-15T23:06:04","date_gmt":"2026-10-15T23:06:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/?p=687137"},"modified":"2026-10-15T23:06:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T23:06:04","slug":"michael-cohen-has-not-recanted-his-testimony-against-donald-trump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/?p=687137","title":{"rendered":"Michael Cohen Has Not Recanted His Testimony Against Donald Trump"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Michael
Image: Stone Cold Truth with Roger Stone<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Please follow us on Truth Social<\/a>, X<\/a>, Youtube<\/a>, Minds<\/a>, Telegram<\/a>, Rumble<\/a>, GETTR<\/a>, Gab<\/a>, Instagram<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Originally published at Stone Cold Truth with Roger Stone<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

There is an old rule in politics: words matter. There is an even older rule in a courtroom: sworn words matter even more.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That distinction is essential in understanding what seems to be the extraordinary reconciliation between President Donald Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen \u2014 and the increasingly widespread claim that Cohen has now \u201crecanted\u201d the testimony he gave against Trump.<\/p>\n

He has not.<\/p>\n

Perhaps I am particularly sensitive to this question. Charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller\u2019s thugs and pressured to give false testimony against President Trump in return for leniency in sentencing for the contrived process crimes I had been convicted for in a DC Soviet style show trial, I refused.<\/p>\n

Michael Cohen chose a different path He told Trump\u2019s persecutors what they wanted to hear.<\/p>\n

President Trump has understandably seized upon Cohen\u2019s alleged about-face regarding the prosecutors who pursued him. In January, Cohen accused the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James of pressuring him to provide testimony useful to their cases against Trump. Cohen wrote that he \u201cfelt pressured and coerced\u201d to provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government\u2019s desire to convict Trump.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure President Trump understands that Michael Cohen has not<\/em> recanted or withdrawn any of his testimony against Trump in the so-called hush money case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. But saying \u201cI felt pressured and coerced\u201d<\/strong> is not the same thing as saying \u201cmy testimony was false.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cohen himself has gone out of his way to make precisely that distinction.<\/p>\n

When Cohen appeared with Dan Abrams on SiriusXM and was directly asked whether his allegations of prosecutorial pressure meant his previous testimony was untruthful, Cohen answered unequivocally: \u201cNo, to the exact contrary.\u201d<\/strong> He then said that nothing about his allegations of pressure should suggest that the information he provided was anything other than \u201ctruthful and accurate\u201d<\/p>\n

There is simply no intellectually honest way to describe that as a recantation. A recantation means taking back a previous statement. It means saying, in substance: What I told you before under oath was not true.<\/em><\/p>\n

Cohen has not done that. In fact, he has specifically done the opposite.<\/p>\n

This distinction became glaring during Cohen\u2019s remarkable August reunion with President Trump on WABC. Trump repeatedly praised Cohen for supposedly recanting his testimony. \u201cYou took it back,\u201d Trump told him, adding, \u201cI wouldn\u2019t even be talking to you right now if you didn\u2019t, to be honest.\u201d Cohen did not correct the President. That\u2019s because he has taken nothing back. He said nothing.<\/p>\n

That silence undoubtedly helped create the impression that Cohen had withdrawn his allegations against Trump. But silence is not a recantation.<\/p>\n

And when Cohen was subsequently confronted directly with the question, he stood behind his sworn testimony. The New York Times,<\/em> got this narrow but important factual point right: Cohen \u201chas not taken any of it back.\u201d<\/p>\n

This presents a rather obvious contradiction that neither Cohen nor many of those celebrating his supposed recantation appear anxious to address. If prosecutors pressured Cohen to provide testimony designed to secure a conviction against Donald Trump, what exactly did Cohen say because of that pressure that was untrue?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Name it. Which statement? Which allegation? Which material fact? What part of his sworn testimony does Michael Cohen now withdraw?<\/p>\n

Thus far, the answer is: none of it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cohen testified for Bragg in the Manhattan criminal prosecution that ultimately resulted in Trump\u2019s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. He also testified in Attorney General James\u2019s civil fraud case. His testimony was not incidental to either proceeding, although it was also not the only evidence presented against Trump.<\/p>\n

Those were not television interviews. They were not podcasts. They were not Substack posts. They were sworn testimony in legal proceedings.<\/p>\n

Cohen now says the prosecutors behind those cases were politically motivated and that he felt pressured and coerced by them. Yet he simultaneously maintains that what he told the courts was truthful and accurate.<\/em> Both statements can theoretically be true. A witness can believe prosecutors exerted enormous pressure upon him while still maintaining that the testimony he ultimately gave was truthful.<\/p>\n

But if that is Cohen\u2019s position, then it is not a recantation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The distinction is particularly important because Cohen himself appears acutely aware of it. When CNN\u2019s Jake Tapper characterized Cohen as saying he had been \u201cpressured and coerced\u201d into testifying against Trump, Cohen corrected him. The comment, Cohen explained, was that he \u201cfelt pressured and coerced.\u201d<\/strong> Cohen then added: \u201cAnd I think the distinction is extremely important.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed it is.<\/p>\n

Cohen is an attorney. He knows the difference between alleging prosecutorial pressure and admitting that sworn testimony was false. He also knows the potential consequences of admitting that testimony he gave under oath was knowingly false. Perhaps Cohen understands that to recant his sworn testimony now could open him to new State charge of perjury. Perhaps those encouraging Cohen to recant his sworn testimony understand they could face charges of obstruction if Cohen was given anything in return for his new claims.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is not to minimize what Cohen has<\/em> said. His accusations against Bragg and James are extraordinary precisely because he was one of the government\u2019s most important cooperating witnesses. According to Cohen, prosecutors approached their investigations determined to build cases against Trump and pressured him to provide information useful to those cases. Those allegations deserve scrutiny on their own merits.<\/p>\n

But they should not be embellished into something Cohen himself refuses to say.<\/p>\n

There is another fascinating dimension to all of this. Michael Cohen spent years attacking Donald Trump in the most viciously personal terms imaginable. He wrote two anti-Trump books. He became a fixture in the anti-Trump media. He testified against his former boss. According to the Times, Cohen sought a pardon from President Joe Biden and, after failing to obtain one, subsequently resubmitted his pardon application with Trump\u2019s name in Biden\u2019s place.<\/p>\n

Criticism of Alvin Bragg is not recantation. Criticism of Letitia James is not recantation. Saying prosecutors pressured you is not recantation. Calling the system politically weaponized is not recantation. Even seeking a presidential pardon is not recantation.<\/p>\n

Taking back your sworn testimony is recantation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Michael Cohen has conspicuously refused to do that.<\/p>\n

Perhaps Cohen will someday say explicitly that material testimony he gave against Donald Trump was false. If he does, that will be major news, and it will raise profound questions about the prosecutions themselves as well as Cohen\u2019s own conduct under oath.<\/p>\n

But he hasn\u2019t said it yet.<\/p>\n

Instead, when finally asked the question directly, Cohen said exactly the opposite: the information he provided was \u201ctruthful and accurate.\u201d President Trump has claimed that Cohen \u201cfully RECANTED his testimony.\u201d But the first half of that proposition is contradicted by Cohen\u2019s own public statements. And it raises the question that Cohen has still declined to answer:<\/p>\n

What, specifically, did Michael Cohen testify to about Donald Trump that was not true?<\/strong><\/p>\n

But there has not<\/strong> been a recantation.<\/p>\n

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM! Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image: Stone Cold Truth with Roger Stone Please follow us on Truth Social, X, Youtube, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Gab, Instagram Originally published at Stone Cold Truth with Roger Stone. There is an old rule in politics: words matter. There is an even older rule in a courtroom: sworn words matter even more. That distinction… Continue reading Michael Cohen Has Not Recanted His Testimony Against Donald Trump<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[20,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-687137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economic-empowerment","category-national-security","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=687137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=687137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=687137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=687137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}