After years of being smeared, surveilled, financially exposed, imprisoned, and silenced, I will file a claim asking whether America’s justice system became America’s political weapon.
Everyone has an opinion these days. Social media practically demands it. One side screams conspiracy, the other screams cover up, and somewhere in the middle are actual facts, sitting alone at the bar wondering why nobody invited them to the conversation. Opinions are fine. Hell, America was built on loud opinions. But opinions untethered from facts are nothing more than political fan fiction dressed up as certainty.
Yesterday, during my appearance on Jake Tapper’s CNN program, Jake asked me directly whether I intended to file a claim through the newly created Weaponization Fund. My answer was simple: yes. In fact, I am currently on the fourth iteration of the submission letter itself. Why? Because unlike the talking heads who spit out instant analysis between commercial breaks for reverse mortgages and erectile dysfunction medication, I prefer facts, documentation, and precision.
The letter begins as follows:
Dear Weaponization Fund,
“There are moments in American history when the truth is buried so deeply beneath politics, ambition, media frenzy, and prosecutorial misconduct that the people caught in the middle are no longer viewed as human beings. They become symbols. Targets. Sacrificial lambs.
I know because I became one.
My name is Michael Cohen. For years, I stood beside Donald Trump and his family as lawyer, advisor, confidant, and defender. I was not merely associated with the man who became President of the United States. I was one of the closest people in his orbit. And for that reason alone, I became a target in what can only be described as one of the most dangerous examples of political weaponization in modern American history.
If the Weaponization Fund truly exists to support individuals destroyed by politically motivated law enforcement tactics, selective prosecution, government leaks, abuses of power, and intentional destruction of reputation, then there is perhaps no clearer example than what happened to me.”
Now, let’s pause right there because this is where the predictable outrage machine starts revving its engine. Somewhere online, a keyboard warrior with a cartoon eagle as a profile photo is already typing that this means January 6 defendants are about to receive golden parachutes and beachfront property. Except that is not what AG Balnche or the Fund’s document actually say.
Words matter. Especially legal words.
The continuous use of phrases like “could” or “might” does not mean “will.” That distinction matters in law. It matters in policy. And it matters in journalism, though lately journalism sometimes resembles a middle school food fight with microphones. Nowhere in anything I have reviewed does it specifically offer compensation to January 6 participants. Yet people have decided to treat speculation as settled fact because outrage generates clicks and clicks generate revenue.
Funny how that works.
And while everyone rushes to frame this discussion through a partisan lens, let’s revisit a few inconvenient facts about yours truly.
I was falsely connected to the Steele dossier allegation claiming I traveled to Prague to coordinate with Russian officials. I did not go to Prague. Period. Years later, after headlines ricocheted around the globe and cable news hosts treated speculation like gospel, the narrative quietly collapsed under the weight of reality. But by then, the damage had already been done. That is the problem with political innuendo. The correction arrives long after the mob has moved on to its next target.
Then there was the unlawful release of my tax records. Twice. Think about that for a moment. Americans are told their private financial information is sacred and protected under federal law. Unless, apparently, you become politically radioactive enough for someone to leak it for public consumption. Funny how privacy suddenly becomes conditional when politics enters the room.
And then came one of the most chilling moments of all. Federal Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted my habeas corpus petition after I was remanded back into custody for refusing to waive my First Amendment rights. Let that sink in carefully. I was sent back to prison by AG Bill Barr because authorities sought to prevent publication of a book critical of Donald Trump. Not in Russia. Not in North Korea. In the United States of America.
Judge Hellerstein saw exactly what it was. Unconstitutional retaliation.
That ruling alone should have terrified every American regardless of political affiliation. Because once government power is weaponized against speech, nobody’s rights remain secure. Not yours. Not mine. Nobody’s.
Which brings me back to this Weaponization Fund.
If the purpose of this fund is to address politically motivated abuse, selective enforcement, unconstitutional conduct, reputational destruction, and weaponized prosecution, then I am precisely the type of individual it should protect. That is not ego. That is documented reality.
And for those clutching their pearls over the possibility that I will file a claim, I would gently remind them that even Jim Acosta, beloved by many on this very platform, has allegedly filed one as well.
Interesting how outrage becomes selective depending on whose name appears in the headline.
America cannot survive on narratives built from assumptions, rumors, and ideological hysteria. Facts matter. Due process matters. Constitutional rights matter. And if we lose sight of that because outrage is more entertaining than truth, then the real weaponization will not come from one administration or another.
It will come from a culture that stopped caring whether something was true at all.