Michael Cohen's testimony postponed in Donald Trump's New York fraud trial

Allen Weisselberg takes the stand in Trump civil fraud trial

Former President Donald Trump's ex-lawyer and "fixer," Michael Cohen, will not testify next week as planned in the New York civil fraud trial against Trump and his company, due to a medical issue.

"Unfortunately I need to attend to a pre-existing medical condition that impedes my ability to testify this upcoming week. Rest assured, I will testify at the earliest opportunity," Cohen said in a statement to CBS News.

The Daily Beast first reported this development.

Cohen is a key witness in the case, in which Trump and others are accused of years of systematic fraud. Cohen's 2019 congressional testimony alleging that Trump artificially inflated his wealth was the catalyst for both this civil investigation, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, and a criminal investigation led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Just before proceedings broke for the weekend Friday afternoon, a lawyer working for James' office asked to approach the bench to discuss a "scheduling issue" that arose "in the last 45 minutes."

Lawyers for both sides huddled with the judge and then left without publicly addressing the issue. 

Cohen had been expected to take the stand as soon as Tuesday and undergo at least two days of questioning. Trump, his onetime boss and now adversary, planned to attend the proceedings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Trump previously attended the first two and a half days of the trial. The state is seeking to claw back $250 million in what it calls "ill-gotten gains" from fraud, and impose sanctions designed to severely restrict his ability to do business in New York.

The trial has so far included testimony from three current and former Trump Organization executives, the company's longtime outside accountant, and a banker involved in approving loans in which Trump was a guarantor.

On Friday, the court heard testimony on exhibits showing executives scrambling to justify inflating some valuations, volleying ideas like applying a "premium for presidential property" to certain assets.

Read more
f

We and our partners use cookies to understand how you use our site, improve your experience and serve you personalized content and advertising. Read about how we use cookies in our cookie policy and how you can control them by clicking Manage Settings. By continuing to use this site, you accept these cookies.