Via Middle East Eye

Iranian academic Mohammad Marandi has warned that Tehran would consider South Korea an enemy and could strike its economic and military interests across the Persian Gulf if Seoul joins the US-led war on Iran.

Speaking on Al Mayadeen’s The Grand Standoff, Marandi said South Korea’s involvement in efforts to secure freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz would expose its interests in the region to Iranian retaliation.

“If the South Koreans participate in this war against Iran, Iran will see it as the enemy,” Marandi said, adding that Tehran would seek to “destroy whatever assets South Korea has in this region”.

Those targets would not necessarily be military installations, he said, and Iranian strikes could include South Korean assets in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

“So the Koreans are very vulnerable to Iran,” said Marandi. “Iran can hurt them very badly.”

His comments came as South Korea considers potential naval contributions to efforts to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global energy supplies.Various options are under consideration, but no decision has been mad e, South Korea’s presidential office said on Friday. 

The office said general options had been discussed on possible military contributions, including combat participation, noncombat roles and search operations, Al Jazeera reported. “Please be advised that nothing has been decided yet concerning actual contributions,” the presidential office said.

Seoul was considering sending military assets to the region and seeking approval from parliament, South Korean media reported.  Options under consideration included a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and a naval logistics support ship, a report by The Guardian said. 

South Korean broadcasters also reported that a navy explosive ordnance disposal team could be included. Any new deployment of military personnel would have to be reviewed by South Korea’s National Security Council, passed by a resolution of the cabinet and approved by the National Assembly, the presidential office said.

The debate comes as South Korea faces mounting pressure from Washington to join efforts around the Strait of Hormuz. US President Donald Trump has blasted Seoul for not backing the US war on Iran and tied the spat to wider strains in the US-South Korea alliance. South Korea also depends heavily on the waterway for its energy supplies. 

Last year, the country depended on shipments traversing Hormuz for 61 percent of its crude oil imports and 54 percent of its naphtha imports.

Marandi said the potential contribution was not likely to be a game-changer in the conflict and said South Korea had little military capability to contribute to the US. “What is a ship or two from South Korea going to do? It’s foolish,” he said.

Trump blasts South Korea:

I called the president of South Korea. I said, “Would you help with Iran? If you would like, we don’t need help.” He said, “No thanks.”

I said, “What do you mean? We have 39,000 soldiers over there guarding you from Kim Jong Un, and you are not going… pic.twitter.com/xD1dZ1AANQ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 17, 2026

But he warned that any participation could have economic implications far beyond military assets. “Iran will not only target the South Korean military assets, but Iran could easily destroy their economic assets across the Persian Gulf region,” Marandi said.

Under pressure from Washington, South Korea expanded the deployment of an anti-piracy naval unit from Somalia to waters around the Strait of Hormuz in 2019. 

However, South Korea’s defense minister said in March that any substantially different mission in the strait would require parliamentary consent.

Independent investigative journalist Nick Shirley spent the better part of a year investigating alleged fraud at nonprofits accused of diverting taxpayer funds meant for immigrant services. California responded by passing a law that makes it harder to look at those nonprofits at all. Now he is suing to have that law thrown out. 

Shirley filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California on September 4, arguing that Assembly Bill 2624, nicknamed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, violates his First Amendment rights by restricting his ability to investigate and report on immigration-related service organizations. Critics gave the bill a blunter name months ago. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2624 last month. The law, which doesn’t take effect until October 1, 2027, expands California’s existing Safe at Home program, a shield the state originally built for domestic violence survivors, to cover nonprofit employees who help people navigate the immigration system.

Anyone who distributes information or images of a covered worker under circumstances the law defines as inciting violence or threats faces a penalty of $4,000. 

“Now, in a world where we all want more transparency and not less, it is more critical than ever that we do not just sit back and do nothing,” Shirley asked in a video posted to X announcing the lawsuit.

“That is why I am filing this lawsuit against the State of California. Because why would they create a law that pushes for less transparency when all we want is more transparency, especially when it comes to our tax dollars being defrauded? And why specifically make immigration support service providers a protected class inside of California?”

Under the law, a worker at a covered organization, or an entity acting on their behalf, can submit a written demand blocking publication of certain identifying information about them.

Shirley and other critics say that provision hands anyone under scrutiny a built-in kill switch for the story, and thus any accountability for fraud.

According to the bill’s language, “A program participant or an individual entity or organization authorized to act on their behalf may make a written demand to a person, business or association to not publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the internet the personal information or image of the program participant,” he said, reading from the statute.

“California has decided to push for less transparency and create laws that penalize citizens and journalists for looking into potential fraud inside ‘immigration support services providers,'” Shirley wrote in the X post announcing the suit.

Shirley traces the bill’s origin to January 31, when he announced that he was in California investigating alleged fraud.

Days later, Newsom said the San Diego Somali community felt “under siege” from what he called “right-wing provocateurs,” a comment Shirley says was about him. On February 5, California Attorney General Rob Bonta held a news conference dismissing the fraud allegations, calling them “reckless, false, outrageous, and ridiculous.”

Fifteen days later, Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, who happens to be married to the attorney general, introduced AB 2624.

“They needed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, AB 2624, to protect the fraud and stop people from exposing these locations inside of immigration support providers,” he said.

The bill’s text defines immigration support service providers broadly enough to include legal services, healthcare, and nonprofits generally, and one of the organizations that helped push the legislation has itself pulled in tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for immigration legal work in the state. Shirley’s history with this beat predates the California fight. 

Shirley’s lawsuit does not seek monetary damages.

“We’re not suing for a single dollar,” he explained. “We’re suing simply on the fact that they’re taking away your First Amendment, right with this new law. In fact, I might spend months, I might spend years fighting this lawsuit for so long, think about it for so long. These corrupt politicians have been able to push and shove us around and receive no consequences for their actions.”

I’m suing California…

California has decided to push for less transparency and create laws that penalize citizens and journalists for looking into potential fraud inside “immigration support services providers.” A written demand is all it takes to stop the publishing of a… pic.twitter.com/nFnfDUff0h

— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) September 4, 2026

A three-month investigation into widespread catalytic converter thefts in Southern California culminated Thursday with five arrests and the recovery of an enormous cache of allegedly stolen auto parts, according to KTLA.

Law enforcement agencies executed several search warrants across Los Angeles and Orange counties, uncovering roughly 2,400 catalytic converters with an estimated value of $4.3 million. Images released after the raids show converters packed into large containers and stacked throughout a warehouse allegedly connected to the operation.

Investigators believe the suspects were part of a broader system for handling stolen converters rather than simply carrying out individual thefts. Authorities say the investigation connected thefts reported across several northern Orange County communities to an organized operation that collected, stripped, transferred and purchased the stolen equipment.

KTLA writes that the searches also turned up more than $105,000 in cash, two firearms that authorities said were not registered and several boxes containing precious metals. Catalytic converters are attractive to thieves because they contain valuable metals that can be extracted and resold.

The operation brought together several agencies, including the Orange and Los Angeles county sheriff’s departments, California DMV investigators, state insurance investigators and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Authorities said the scale of the seizure was the product of months of coordinated investigative work.

Following the arrests, officials encouraged vehicle owners to make their cars harder targets by parking in garages or well-lit locations when possible. They also recommended catalytic converter protection devices and having identifying information etched onto vulnerable vehicle components to make stolen parts more difficult to resell.

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

A certain pattern is emerging on the far left. Political figures spend years currying the favor of other extremists with outrageous commentary, proudly proclaiming their commitment to eliminating the Senate, opening the border, and other measures. Then, they delete all of the comments and declare themselves mainstream. The idea is to run in the center but govern from the far left, the so-called Spanberger strategy. The latest example is William Lawrence, who is running for Michigan’s 7th Congressional District. However, Lawrence’s prior self reveals just how radical this movement could prove.

Like many professors, pundits, and politicians on the left, Lawrence has called for sweeping changes in our constitutional system. Lawrence reportedly has demanded a “fundamental overhaul” of the Constitution while calling for the elimination of the Senate, police, prisons, and borders.

He has even denounced the nuclear family as an “isolating, individualistic, violent way of organizing society.”

Notably, he is the latest radical to show that the “Big Tent” party has little room for moderates. While establishment figures like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries seek to use this mob, radicals have made clear that they will be next. Darializa Avila Chevalier is the latest Democratic Socialist to mock the establishment’s pitch of a Big Tent party: “A big tent doesn’t pay your rent, lower your grocery bill, or take on the corporations bleeding our country dry. Democratic socialism does.”

In Lawrence’s case, he even put this feelings to music, writing a song a few years ago that calls for the death of moderate former Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, declaring, “Our generation says f**k you for everything…Hurry up and die so that we can get started.”

He has also denounced capitalism and the very concept of the nation-state.

Lawrence was previously arrested for resisting police officers while protesting a pipeline.

As discussed earlier, candidates like James Talarico in Texas have scrubbed their social media accounts or dismissed their earlier radical claims, including attacks on capitalism. Supporters view these candidates as already proving their bona fides and understanding that they are just sanitizing their records for voters who want the illusion of a moderate. Accordingly, many applaud figures such as Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, dismissing her own extremist statements just a few years ago as “Woke 1.” like some distant childhood stage.

These radical figures are learning that their views are distinctly unpopular with American voters so they are perfecting stealth socialist candidates who can run a type of Spanberger campaign while later pursuing a socialist agenda.

Lawrence’s past positions show little nuance and closely track the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. Destroying the constitutional system, rejecting the nation-state, eliminating prisons, and other radical positions propelled these candidates through the primaries. The effort to now scrub the records shows the utter contempt that many have for average voters.

Lawrence shows the delusion of establishment figures such as Gavin Newsom that they can use a mob to gain power without being eventually devoured by it. In my book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the French Revolution and its decline into what the Framers called a mobocracy. What became known as “The Terror” was started not by the working class, but by educated lawyers, journalists, and even aristocrats as part of the Jacobin movement.

These are hardcore revolutionaries with an agenda that would destroy the world’s oldest and most successful democratic system in history. Party leaders facilitate them because they can only think about the next election, not the next generation. Lawrence is a cautionary tale that Benjamin Franklin remains correct, this is our Republic but only if we can keep it.

An Amazon-branded Boeing 767 cargo jet overran a runway at Miami International Airport on Sunday afternoon, leaving five people dead and five others injured.

Flight-tracking website Flightradar24 said the Boeing 767-300 cargo aircraft, operated as 21 Air Flight 7598, was arriving from San Juan, Puerto Rico, shortly before 2 p.m. when it overran Runway 30, struck several vehicles, and came to rest in a parking lot. 

A 21 Air Boeing 767 operating for Amazon overran Miami’s Runway 30 this afternoon. Flightradar24 data shows a ground speed of 112 knots as it left the usable runway.

Downloadable flight data and updates available at https://t.co/uHIF4KdM17 pic.twitter.com/dnfX0uWjxt

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) September 6, 2026

Footage from the scene shows the 767 cargo jet colliding with multiple vehicles before coming to rest in a parking lot filled with Tesla Cybercabs, Cybertrucks, and other vehicles.

The first Cybercab accident is not what I expected https://t.co/9KknfA7tRp pic.twitter.com/YFvz9HfsJS

— Robin (@xdNiBoR) September 6, 2026

NBC News quoted Miami-Dade Fire Chief Raied Jadallah as saying that five people died in the incident and five others were injured. Three of the injured were transported to a trauma center in critical condition, while two others were taken to a local hospital.

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel told the outlet, “This is a fast-moving situation and we’re still gathering details. We’re working closely with local authorities and officials to understand exactly what happened,” adding, “Right now, our absolute priority is the safety, well-being, and care of everyone involved.”

Flightradar24 said that, as of 1700 ET, departures at MIA had resumed.

Departures have now resumed at Miami as well. https://t.co/HNHCeSA6z1 pic.twitter.com/8oOJUdTBJB

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) September 6, 2026

The National Transportation Safety Board said it is gathering data and working with the FAA to determine the cause of the crash.

Authored by Jeff Schogol via Task & Purpose,

The Army has awarded a $464.8 million contract for a laser weapon designed to destroy the type of drones that Iran has launched against U.S. troops and partner nations in the Middle East for more than five months.

The service has selected the LOCUST X3 laser made by AeroVironment, Inc. for its Enduring-High Energy Laser program, according to a company news release.

The 30-kilowatt laser is specifically designed to counter mid-sized drones that the U.S. military refers to as Group 3 unmanned aerial systems, said John Garrity, vice president of directed energy systems at AeroVironment, Inc. One such unmanned aerial system that has frequently been used against U.S. troops in the Middle East is Iran’s Shahed-136 one-way attack drone.

“LOCUST X3 is intended to be the Group 3 killer,” Garrity told reporters on Aug. 7. “When we talk about Group 3, that’s just one of the more prevalent threats that you see in warfare today, seen in conflicts in Iran and in Ukraine with Shahed drones.”

The laser allows U.S. troops to destroy drones at greater ranges than other types of weapons, and the LOCUST X3 can bring down targets in seconds, Garrity said. Those attributes allow the weapon to rapidly destroy drone swarms.

“When you talk about a LOCUST laser weapon system, you’re able to put effects on target at wide ranges at the speed of light,” Garrity said. “If you’re able to kill off drones in single-digit seconds or less, depending on the range and the type of material, you’re able to jump between targets quite effectively and efficiently.”

The laser is also meant to destroy smaller drones, which the military calls Group 1 and 2 unmanned aerial systems, he said.

“Unfortunately, all three classes of those drones can do a tremendous amount of harm to our assets and our servicemen and women,” Garrity said.

The LOCUST X3 is meant to be “the apex predator” of the Army’s layered defenses against small to mid-level drones, said Aaron Westman, senior director for business development at AeroVironment, Inc.

“It can really kill a lot of threats,” Westman said during the media roundtable. “Its job is to really, let’s say, thin the herd to be able to kill high volumes of threats.”

That allows the military to save its more expensive interceptors for specific threats so that its system of layered defenses “doesn’t run out of bullets,” Westman said.

Currently, the U.S. military’s inventory of ground-based air defense missiles has been so depleted during the Iran war that experts estimate it will take years to replenish all the interceptors that have been fired.

Westman added that a missile can miss its target, but with a laser, “as long as you can see something, you can hit it.”

AeroVironment, Inc. will deliver dozens of LOCUST X3 lasers to the Army over the next few years as part of the contract, a company news release says. The laser is designed to be mounted on vehicles, such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Efforts are ongoing to determine if the laser can also be mounted on the Infantry Squad Vehicle.

An Army spokesperson previously told Task & Purpose that if the laser were approved and fielded as planned, it would become the service’s first directed-energy program of record.

Over time, the company expects to field higher power versions of the lasers, Garrity said.

Earlier versions of the LOCUST laser have already been fielded, with some laser systems deployed within the continental United States, Garrity said. One feature common to the company’s lasers is that they use an Xbox controller.

“To a young soldier, sailor, airman, guardian that’s using these systems, it’s not unlike what they’re using at their own house for video games,” Garrity said.

The Trump administration is drafting a rule that would allow some married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive federal child care subsidies, an initiative reportedly championed by Vice President JD Vance, according to the New York Times. 

The proposal would use the existing Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which has traditionally helped lower-income parents pay for child care while they work, attend school or receive job training. Federal guidance currently ties CCDF assistance largely to those activities.

Under the proposal, a married couple meeting income requirements could qualify when one spouse works at least 35 hours a week and the other cares for their child at home. The subsidy would effectively help compensate for income forgone by the stay-at-home parent. Unmarried couples with a stay-at-home parent and nonworking single parents would not qualify under the draft.

The Times reports that the change reflects a broader effort within the administration to support families that choose parental care over commercial day care. Vance has previously argued that “Young children are clearly happier and healthier when they spend the day at home with a parent.”

Critics warn that expanding eligibility without adding funding could reduce assistance available to working parents and threaten child care providers that depend on subsidy payments. Joshua McCabe of the Niskanen Center said, “Expanding the eligibility without increasing funding would mean more parents competing for the same dollars, and leaving more parents — particularly single working parents — worse off.”

Krystal Gastineau, a Colorado child-care center owner who said about half of the children she serves receive subsidies, warned that the proposal could pull funding away from providers: “If they could, I think parents would choose to take the money and stay home.” She added, “That would take away a major source of income.”

Supporters argue that federal policy should treat parental care more like paid child care and give families greater flexibility. The proposal could potentially be implemented without new legislation, although questions have reportedly been raised about its legality, particularly the preference for married couples, as well as possible fraud risks.

The draft still requires White House approval and a public-comment period and could change before becoming final.

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

The federal government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side with gun owners challenging state and local bans on AR-15-style rifles.

In a brief filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to overturn rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits, which upheld AR-15 bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, respectively.

“The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” the federal government argued.

The cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, have been consolidated for Supreme Court review.

Connecticut has prohibited what it deemed “assault weapons” since 1993. It significantly expanded the ban after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, describing AR-15-style rifles as particularly dangerous and preferred by mass shooters.

Cook County, which covers the city of Chicago, adopted its current firearm ordinance in 2006, prohibiting the possession, sale, and transfer of a list of semiautomatic weapons.

The ‘Common Use’ Debate

At the center of the dispute is whether AR-15-style rifles qualify as weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes and therefore fall under Second Amendment protection.

The idea dates back to the Supreme Court’s 1939 decision upholding a federal ban on short-barreled shotguns because those weapons were not “in common use.”

The Court relied on the same concept in 2008 to invalidate a ban on handguns in the nation’s capital, affirming that they are “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”

Most recently, the Court referred to the common-use test in 2022 when it struck down a New York law requiring people to show a special need before receiving a license to carry a handgun in public.

Connecticut argues that AR-15-style rifles do not meet the Supreme Court’s legal standard.

“Americans do not commonly own assault weapons for self-defense,” state lawyers argued in an earlier Supreme Court filing, adding that the weapons are “neither used nor useful for that purpose.”

The gun owners challenging the bans, however, argue that AR-15s easily pass the common-use test.

“If the most popular rifle in the country is not in common use,” the challengers said in their petition, “it is hard to see what that phrase could possibly mean.”

The Justice Department is siding with challengers in the debate.

“Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States, with law-abiding citizens using them for lawful purposes such as self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” the government said.

“Legislatures may not ban arms in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

DOJ Counters Pro-Ban Arguments

Sauer also rejected arguments that AR-15-style rifles can be banned because of their military origins, firepower, or use in mass shootings.

“When it comes to lethal arms, rifles such as AR-15s are not ‘especially dangerous,'” the government argued.

Handguns are easier to carry and conceal and are used in crimes far more often than rifles, the government said. Yet the Supreme Court has already ruled that handguns cannot be broadly banned.

The government also rejected the argument that AR-15 bans are acceptable because people can still use handguns for self-defense.

Sauer compared that reasoning to banning one type of First Amendment-protected speech simply because another remains available.

Allowing a government to ban rifles because handguns remain legal would be “like saying books can be banned because people can always read newspapers,” he wrote, quoting an analogy Justice Brett Kavanaugh made as an appeals court judge.

How Courts Could Judge ‘Common Use’

The government also proposed a way for courts to determine whether a weapon is in common use without relying solely on estimates of how many people own it.

A longstanding ban adopted by Congress and most states could be evidence that a type of weapon is not commonly and lawfully possessed, the brief said.

The opposite would also be true. A firearm that has remained widely legal for decades would weigh in favor of constitutional protection.

The government argued that both the legal history and ownership figures favor the AR-15.

The AR-15 was developed by ArmaLite in 1956 and has been commercially available for decades. Industry estimates suggest that between 28 million and 32 million AR-15-style rifles are in circulation in the United States.

In 1994, Congress adopted a narrow ban on certain new semiautomatic firearms but did not prohibit possession of previously manufactured rifles. That ban expired in 2004.

The respondents’ briefs are due Oct. 21. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for Dec. 2.

A ruling is expected before the Court concludes its 2026-2027 term, typically in late June.

S&P Dow Jones Indices announced Friday that Nike is being booted from the S&P 100 after nearly two decades, another sign of how America’s most exclusive blue-chip benchmark is being reshaped by the artificial-intelligence spending boom. But that’s not the entire story… 

Perhaps what really happened with Nike is that it lost its way. Instead of focusing on basketball shoes and athletic leisure, it pursued the whole woke culture, which damaged the brand.

Injected itself into far-left politics. 

And this … 

BREAKING: Nike is set to be removed from the S&P 100 after nearly 18 years.

The stock is now down almost 80% from its 2021 peak, turning one of the market’s most iconic consumer brands into one of its biggest recent disappointments. pic.twitter.com/3uJNIxcg4j

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) September 5, 2026

Via Fox News…

Not surprising whatsoever who accelerated Nike’s demise. 

LMAO, look at the marketing & strategy officers for Nike.

Don’t worry, guys; I’m sure Nike will climb out of the huge woke hole they are in 🥴🫠 pic.twitter.com/7CXinp8VUA

— Mrs B (@attackdogX) September 6, 2026

S&P Dow Jones Indices noted that Nike will remain in the broader S&P 500.

Nike’s peak was in late 2021, when it sported a $280 billion market cap that has since crashed to as low as $56 billion following Friday’s close, its lowest market capitalization since 2013.

No longer a growth story? 

Nike’s upcoming demotion from the S&P 100, set to take effect on Sept. 21, comes after a series of missteps as the sportswear giant struggles to revive sales and has lost market share to rivals including On and Hoka.

Perhaps management should not have focused on left-wing cultural issues but instead on clothing and sneakers.

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Michael Cohen, a key witness in the New York criminal and civil cases against President Donald Trump, has “fully recanted” his testimony in both cases, the Republican president announced Friday via Truth Social.

Previously known as Trump’s longtime fixer, Cohen was used by New York Attorney General Letitia James in her controversial civil lawsuit against the Trump Organization and by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in his so-called hush money case against Trump.

The civil case against the Trump Organization culminated in a $364 million fine over claims Trump inflated his asset values to secure more favorable loans for his business. The fine was tossed by the New York Appellate Division, which ruled the amount violated Trump’s Eighth Amendment rights.

In his Truth Social post, Trump said Cohen was “pressured” and “coerced” into saying “things that were not true.”

The fallout between Trump and Cohen began after the 2016 election, after Cohen started cooperating with federal prosecutors.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison and served more than a year behind bars after pleading guilty to multiple charges, including making false statements to Congress.

Trump and Cohen have made amends in recent months, particularly after Cohen came forward saying he was pressured by New York prosecutors to testify against Trump.

Trump thanked Cohen “for having the Wisdom and Courage to step forward and do the right thing!”

“His Act of Bravery is a Great Credit to the Justice System in New York City and State,” Trump added, before demanding that the cases be dismissed.

“I am sure it was not easy for him! Now we are asking that any remnant of those Politically Weaponized Cases against me be immediately terminated and dismissed.”

The president said that James and Bragg “broke the law in order to do this in order to prevent me from becoming the President of the United States. Such a thing can never be allowed to happen again!”

Trump appeared to be referring to a Jan. 16, 2026, Substack post in which Cohen accused prosecutors from James’ and Bragg’s offices of pressuring and coercing him to provide testimony that would help them build their cases against Trump.

TRUMP: Reposts Michael Cohen article claiming political power corrupts justice, citing insider warning pic.twitter.com/FlydWGDuBI

— Trump Truths (@trumptruthsbot) September 4, 2026

Cohen wrote at the time:

“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.”

He later added:

“I experienced a similar dynamic in the Attorney General’s civil case. Letitia James made it publicly known during her 2018 campaign for attorney general that, if elected, she would go after President Trump. Her office made clear that the testimony they wanted from me was testimony that would help them do just that. Again, I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.”