Michael Cohen, who was an attorney for former President Donald Trump before turning against him, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking damages relating to his imprisonment, Slate reported. The news outlet outlined the issue in a piece co-authored by Cohen's friend and his attorney, while another outlet called the case a "long shot."
In an effort to drum up support for Cohen, Slate printed a piece titled, "Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?" The authors assert that Cohen was kept in jail in retaliation for turning against Trump and attempting to write a tell-all book.
"It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020," the article began.
"Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday," authors Jon Dougherty, Cohen's attorney, and Norman L. Eisen, Cohen's friend, wrote. This passionate plea is anything but impartial.
The article describes Cohen's conviction as a grave injustice and urges Americans to join them in the fight to recover supposed damages. "Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration," the piece said.
"A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in 'retaliation' for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president," the authors claimed.
They contend that Cohen was only offered release from prison after agreeing to sign a nondisclosure agreement. A judge eventually reversed that decision and allowed Cohen to profit from his sleazy betrayal.
Still, the authors warned about the consequences of not punishing Trump and other officials for an alleged limit on Cohen's freedom of speech. "The courts must provide a deterrent remedy to right this wrong, or these 'freedoms' will become illusory. A Bivens action for damages provides such a deterrent," the authors asserted.
"An order telling the federal officials to stop what they are doing, without any further consequences for those officials, does not. Without a deterrent remedy for this particular abuse of power, we are confronted with profound implications for American life and rights: Free speech, a free press, unfettered scholarship, frequent and loud protest, and more are at stake."
These hyperbolic warnings fall flat in the face of the facts, as even MSNBC pointed out. The outlet noted that the appeal is a "long shot" for Cohen and will likely amount to nothing.
Still, as a writer for the establishment media outlet, MSNBC's Jordan Rubin threw in that Cohen's case was consequential because of an abuse of power. "[T]he case highlights the dangers of officials retaliating against critics without a legal remedy to check that behavior," Rubin wrote.
"It’s an issue that goes beyond Trump and Cohen, but it’s especially difficult to ignore in the shadow of a potential revenge-packed second Trump term," he warned. However, this warning falls flat in light of what the left has done to Trump since he left office.
The former president has been the victim of lawfare with four criminal prosecutions built on flimsy charges have been stacked against him. Trump's enemies were literally trying to imprison him and interrupt his candidacy just ahead of the 2024 election.
Despite the media's appeal, Cohen is not a sympathetic figure to most Americans. The attempt to turn his case into a cautionary tale falls flat in the face of what was actually done to Trump.
