Why Stormy Daniels’ testimony could be damning to Donald Trump

Get Exclusive US Coverage And Analysis In Your Inbox With Daily Inside Washington Email

"Receive Our Free Washington Insider Email"

There's a tale about Donald Trump that was kept secret with the help of tens of thousands of dollars, but it has recently come to light. It was brought up in court, and you can read all about it in many pages of court transcripts.

He has been accused of committing a crime by attempting to conceal a possible sex scandal, while his assistants hurriedly worked to maintain his chances of victory after a previous scandal.

The legal matter concerning the ex-president in New York has little to do with sexual misconduct, extramarital relationships, legal agreements to remain silent, or coverage in sensational newspapers. It pertains to deceit and deception.

The blog post discusses a contender for the presidency who has been accused of fabricating business records to hide payments made to his attorney. The said attorney, in turn, prevented the release of information regarding Mr. Trump's affair with a pornographic actor, just a few weeks before voters were due to participate in the 2016 presidential election, by paying her to keep quiet.

To comprehend the reason behind Mr. Trump's attempt to conceal a potential scandal, it is imperative to grasp the intricate particulars of the situation, referred to by lawyers from both sides as "messy details."

For two days, Stormy Daniels spoke in court in New York City about what happened before, during and after her meeting with Mr. Trump in a hotel room in 2006. She shared explicit information that the judge and defense attorneys did not allow to be recorded. The courtroom was very cold.

According to her testimony, the incident was not sensational or disgraceful. Instead, it was quite common and frightening. It involved an unexpected request for intimacy from a man, which left her in shock and unable to react. After the incident, she felt a sense of numbness and shame for consensual compliance.

The information presented in court, which included a portrayal of Mr. Trump in his undergarments as well as the woman's sensation of losing consciousness, poses issues for everyone involved in the lawsuit. However, they clarify what the defendant aimed to keep private. This was conveyed to the judge on Tuesday by Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger.

The account given by her was very important for the attorneys as it provided the jurors with significant background information. This helped them comprehend why the previous head of state would take a huge risk of committing a serious crime in order to suppress public awareness regarding the accusations during his presidential campaign.

The Assistant District Attorney, Joshua Steinglass, explained to the judge that the specific information regarding the events that occurred in the room, which he referred to as the "messy details," served as the driving force behind President Trump's efforts to silence the woman just weeks before the 2016 election. This was the primary motive behind his actions, and the reason why he went to great lengths to prevent the public from learning about what had happened.

Although Ms Daniels is not currently facing any charges in court, the defense lawyers made it seem as though she was. Meanwhile, the client they were defending sat angrily, glaring at Ms Daniels. He even rolled his eyes and cursed loudly enough for the judge to hear, despite the fact that she was sitting just a few feet away from him during this week's courtroom proceedings.

In defense, it is claimed that Ms Daniels is untruthful, an individual who insists on obtaining money through blackmail, and someone who is only seeking to gain fame. Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Trump's lawyer, Susan Necheles, constantly interrupted with swift and direct inquiries, questioning whether Ms. Daniels was completely making up her statements or altering her account.

Ms Daniels looked calm, resting her arm as she narrowed her eyes at Ms Necheles as if she was talking nonsense. She cleverly responded to her questions and rejected their assumptions, causing frustration for Ms Necheles.

On Thursday, Ms Necheles stated that for more than two decades, the individual had been engaged in the profession of creating and implementing sex films, as well as writing, acting, and directing them. She further added that the individual had acquired a significant amount of knowledge in producing fictional tales with a touch of reality in regards to sex.

"Wow," said Ms Daniel in between laughter as she responded to the question.

"I wouldn't phrase it like that," she stated. "The intimacy displayed in those movies is authentic - just like in that lodging."

She mentioned that she didn't need to pen down this one, unlike her movies.

If that narrative was false, I could have expressed it in a more effective manner.

Ms. Necheles attempted to embarrass the adult film star by asking inappropriate questions. She even insinuated that the porn industry meant the star would always agree to sexual activities. Ms. Necheles also spent a considerable amount of time questioning the star's involvement in paranormal activities in an attempt to discredit her as a reliable source. However, these tactics were unsuccessful in achieving Ms. Necheles' desired outcome.

"Have you acted in more than 200 adult films and engaged in sexual activities?" she inquired. "And in those films, there were scenes where both men and women were nude and having sexual intercourse, correct? But you claim that just observing a man sitting on a bed while clothed in a t-shirt and shorts caused you to feel extremely uncomfortable to the point of dizziness and nearly fainting?"

"When a man who is twice your age surprises you, it can be unexpected," responded Ms. Daniels with a quick retort.

“Do you have much proficiency in remembering these fabricated tales?” inquired Ms. Necheles at a separate juncture.

"I am skilled in learning lines, not in the art of sexual activities," responded Ms Daniels. "I'm fairly certain we all have that knowledge."

When questioned about why she was rejoicing over Mr. Trump's indictment, Ms. Daniels requested clarification.

"There are numerous accusations."

Ms Necheles analyzed the 13-year-old celebrity magazine interview regarding the incident and reviewed it carefully. She was searching for inconsistencies that would aid in breaking the case. However, her analysis led to lengthy discussions lasting for 15 minutes regarding the accurate meaning of the term "dinner".

Lawyer Todd Blanche alleged that the prosecution was implicitly suggesting the occurrence of a rape by permitting Ms. Daniels to assert that Mr. Trump did not use protection. He claimed that this was a subtle hint for rape, a kind of "dog whistle" for the crime of rape, from the prosecution.

The judge was surprised that the defense lawyers did not oppose any reference to condoms when the woman was giving her testimony. He agreed that it was inappropriate and expressed his regret that it was mentioned. He couldn't understand why the attorneys didn't raise any objections. This occurred when the jury was not present.

It is not certain how the jury will understand these interactions or if they will consider her trustworthy as an important witness in the lawsuit. Nonetheless, Ms Daniels seemed resolute in defending herself against numerous efforts to discredit her integrity.

The person in question is aware of her profession and takes pleasure in it. She openly despises Mr. Trump and isn't afraid to insult him or his followers if they attack her. She recognizes that she was instructed to pay a large sum of money in legal expenses when a defamation case against Trump fell through, but she wants him to be responsible for his actions and trusts that she did nothing wrong except speak the truth.

She didn't feel any remorse about encountering Mr. Trump on that specific night back in 2006. Instead, she expressed that she found the conversation to be enjoyable.

"Hasn't your narrative totally shifted now?" inquired Ms Necheles at the conclusion of her testimony period spanning two days.

Ms. Daniels responded with a negative answer, stating that the attempt to alter her opinion or behavior had not been successful.