Stormy Daniels gives graphic account of encounter with Donald Trump at criminal trial

Gain access to the Editor's Digest without paying anything

Every week, Roula Khalaf, the FT's Editor, handpicks her preferred articles and shares them in her newsletter.

During the long-awaited testimony at the criminal case against former US President, Donald Trump, for allegedly paying hush money, pornographic actor, Stormy Daniels vividly described Trump's supposed sexual advances towards her in a hotel room in 2006.

Daniels provided such scandalous information to the court that Trump's lawyer asked the judge to declare a mistrial. The attorney argued that her testimony was "unjustifiably and inappropriately biased," but the judge denied the request.

On Tuesday morning, the 45-year-old person who reportedly received a $130,000 payment during the 2016 presidential campaign to remain silent about an alleged encounter, took an oath. This happened very close to where Trump, who appeared visibly restless, was sitting with his legal team.

Daniels was a bit anxious and giggly as she told the court about how she ended up in Trump's luxurious penthouse suite. They had met at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, and during their conversation, they talked about the adult film industry. Trump, who was only a celebrity on television at that time, then generously offered Daniels a role on the upcoming season of his show, The Apprentice.

The woman declared that she lightly hit Trump on his buttocks using a rolled-up magazine. She also claimed that he assured her not to be concerned about his spouse Melania, as they do not share a bedroom.

According to Daniels, she stated that she exited the bathroom only to discover Trump nestled on the bed while wearing his "boxer shorts and T-shirt".

The woman refused to have sexual relations with the wealthy real estate businessman, causing him to say, "I believed you were committed to your desires," and suggested that she engage in the act "to escape your current living situation." The jury overheard these remarks, but they were later removed from the official case record.

The both of them engaged in a short sexual encounter without protection, as stated by Daniels.

After four weeks of trial, the evidence brought shame upon the expected Republican candidate for president. He had to stop campaigning and sit in court all week, as he listened to his former friends and colleagues reveal shameful information about his past.

During Daniels' testimony, Trump was in court with his adviser Boris Epshteyn and son Eric. He was seen whispering in anger to his counsel and staring directly at the witness on multiple occasions.

Following a break for lunch, Todd Blanche, the lawyer representing President Trump, requested a mistrial, stating that the witness's testimony had no relevance to the charged behavior.

On his Truth Social platform, Trump expressed his discontent with the trial, stating that the prosecution had gone too far without any solid case. He called for a mistrial.

The trial judge has threatened to imprison the 77-year-old if he persists in violating a gag order imposed by the court by making derogatory remarks about witnesses and jurors participating in the trial.

Judge Juan Merchan concurred with Blanche's view that certain remarks could have been avoided, yet he determined that a mistrial was not necessary from his standpoint.

Trump is being accused of tampering with the business documents pertaining to the compensations made to Daniels. He has continuously refuted allegations of being in a relationship with the performer and has often castigated her on various social media platforms.

At first, Daniels denied being involved in any sexual relationship. However, she later violated a confidentiality agreement that she had agreed to by accepting a payment of $130,000 when she spoke openly about the incident during Trump's presidency.

Lawyers that represent the government have stated that Trump instructed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to give money to Daniels because he was worried that her story would hurt his chances of winning the election in 2016. They argue that because of this, the payments can be seen as an effort to disrupt the democratic process.