Semafor Signals
Supported by
Stormy Daniels’ detailed testimony about Trump encounter rattles defense
Insights from MSNBC, The New York Times, and the BBC
The News
Stormy Daniels testified at Trump’s hush-money trial on Tuesday. A star witness for the prosecution, she gave direct, detailed testimony about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Donald Trump in a hotel suite at a golf tournament. At one point, the defense moved for a mistrial based on the nature of the testimony, which was denied by Judge Juan Merchan.
Daniels is a key player in the hush money trial: Ahead of the 2016 election, Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, paid Daniels $130,000 to keep silent about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Trump has denied ever having sex with Daniels.
The adult film actress told the court she felt “ashamed” after the encounter, and that Trump did not ask her to keep their encounter confidential.
Daniels said that in fall 2016, she and her then-publicist decided to sell the story to news outlets, testifying: “My motivation wasn’t money. It was to get the story out.” Daniels added that she did not negotiate the $130,000 figure. In cross examination, Trump’s lawyers tried to undermine her credibility as a witness. Daniels pushed back at the defense’s questions suggesting money was the driving motivator for her allegations about Trump.
Separately on Tuesday, US District Judge Aileen Cannon postponed indefinitely Trump’s criminal trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents, which could mean the hush-money case is the only one to conclude before the presidential election in November.
SIGNALS
Trump’s denial of the encounter with Daniels could backfire
Trump’s determination not to concede that he had encounters or relationships with Daniels or Karen McDougal is “hurting his own defense,” MSNBC’s columnist Glenn Kirschner argued. Trump strongly denies having any encounters with Daniels, but her testimony included evidence of several meetings and phone calls between the two, with dozens of witnesses. By preventing his attorneys from conceding they did have some encounters, the jury is put in a position of choosing to believe Daniels or the former president, a person who is known to make false claims, Kirschner wrote. It may be wiser for a defense in such a case to “concede the dalliance, but fight over the commission of the crime,” he added.
Trump’s defense counters Daniels’ testimony by focusing on money
Trump’s attorneys could undermine Daniels’ testimony that she didn’t care about the money she was being paid by showing text messages between Daniels and her publicist at the time, The New York Times reported. A back-and-forth between her former publicist and the editor of The National Enquirer “looked something like an auction, with the two of them bidding back and forth until they got to $120,000,” the Times wrote. Trump fixer Michael Cohen took over the deal after the Enquirer’s publisher refused to pay, and the agreed-upon sum rose to $130,000.
Judge and defense fight for a PG courtroom, potentially to Trump’s detriment
The prosecution’s strategy has been to “spotlight the sleaze, and soft-pedal the records,” The New York Times wrote last week. But on Tuesday, prosecutors assured Judge Merchan that Daniels’ testimony about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump would be brief and not “involve any descriptions of genitalia.” Still, Merchan was forced to sustain several objections from Trump’s team over Daniels’ graphic descriptions of the meeting. The objections could cost his defense “because it makes them look to the jury like they have something to hide,” legal expert Joyce Alene posted on X.
Daniels’ testimony spotlights Trump’s marriage
Trump’s attorneys have argued that he paid for Daniels’ silence to protect his marriage, not his political prospects. But Daniels testified Tuesday that Trump told her not to worry about his wife, Melania, because “we don’t even sleep in the same room.” That detail will likely “undercut Trump’s defense that the catch and kill scheme was to protect his marriage and Melania, rather than his campaign; he doesn’t seem too concerned about her here,” opined attorney and legal commentator Asha Rangappa.
