Stormy Daniels testimony on sex, lies and money was risky for both sides

Daniels first took the stand on Tuesday, describing in sometimes disturbing language what she said was an evening in 2006 when she and the businessman-turned-reality TV star had sex in a Lake Tahoe hotel.

Trump, the former president who is also the presumptive GOP nominee, listened intently to what she said, at times reacting so audibly that the judge warned his attorneys that he could be intimidating the witness and must stop.

When Daniels returned to the witness stand Thursday, it was to face off against Trump lawyer Susan Necheles, who took a no-holds-barred approach to challenging the porn actress’s credibility on a host of issues.

Daniels’s testimony was often explosive — in her rapid-fire, often indignant delivery, and in the details she offered of a sexual encounter that at times sounded nonconsensual.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued unsuccessfully for a mistrial based on Daniels’s testimony, saying it went too far in suggesting to the jury that Trump may have committed some sort of sexual assault, in a case in which he is only charged with falsifying business records.

Blanche called some of Daniels’s phrasing “a dog whistle for rape.”

“It almost defies belief that we are here for a records case,” he said. “This is not a case about sex.”

For the second time in two days of court proceedings, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan rejected his mistrial request and faulted the defense for not objecting more to what prosecutors did.

Merchan faulted Necheles in particular, saying she should have objected when prosecutors elicited testimony about Trump allegedly not using a condom. “I wish those questions hadn’t been asked,” the judge said. “But for the life of me I don’t know why Ms. Necheles didn’t object. … Why on earth she wouldn’t object to the mention of a condom I don’t understand.”

Trump left court furious.

“Everybody saw what happened today,” he told reporters, ignoring shouted questions about his legal team. “He’s a corrupt judge, and he’s totally conflicted.”

A couple of hours later, Daniels appeared to taunt the former president on X, writing: “Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh ... wait. Nevermind.”

It would be unusual and risky for Trump to testify in his own defense, because then he could be cross-examined by prosecutors. His lawyers have cited Daniels’s comments about him in an unsuccessful effort to get Merchan to relax a gag order that bars Trump from speaking about witnesses in the trial outside of court.

During the cross-examination, Daniels was at times defiant and occasionally morose, insisting that she was telling the truth about that night with Trump and saying that the experience, while making her more famous than she’d been before, had changed her life overall for the worse.

Both prosecutors and defense lawyers took significant risks in their use of Daniels’s testimony. Prosecutors opened themselves up to a possible appeal issue that could threaten a conviction, while Trump’s defense attacked Daniels on nearly every front, a tactic that could boomerang against him if the jury decides she was being bullied.

Prosecutors said they needed to elicit many of the details about the alleged sexual encounter to bolster Daniels’s credibility and explain why Trump was motivated to keep her story from becoming public.

Daniels, who sometimes propped her left arm over the back of the witness chair as she testified, was resolute that she had told the truth about the night in question.

Necheles noted that Daniels has appeared in more than 100 adult films and suggested that her risqué résumé made her an expert at telling fake stories of sex.

“You have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear to be real?” the lawyer asked.

“Wow,” Daniels replied, laughing. “That’s not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room.”

Necheles kept hammering at Daniels, asking: “You have a lot of experience in memorizing these fictional stories?”

Daniels replied, “I have experience in memorizing dialogue, not how to have sex — pretty sure we all know how to do that.”

The combative exchange about sex, lies, and money encapsulated the standoff that played out before the jury this week. As the questions and answers raced back and forth in the courtroom, jurors swiveled their heads to try to keep up with the verbal volleys.

The decision to spend so much time on Daniels was an interesting one, in part because she admitted she had no evidence to offer on the actual charged criminal conduct — payments made by Trump to reimburse his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who had paid Daniels $130,000 to stay silent about the alleged sexual encounter ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

As part of her cross-examination, Necheles asked whether Daniels had knowledge of Trump’s role in those payments.

“Not directly, no,” Daniels replied.

“You know nothing about what he does or does not know about the business records?” Necheles asked.

“I know nothing about his business records,” Daniels said. “No, why would I?”

Necheles then asked whether Daniels knew about the details of Trump’s indictment.

“There’s a lot of indictments,” Daniels said, drawing a few laughs from the packed courtroom.

Trump has been indicted in three other jurisdictions besides Manhattan — federal charges in D.C. and state charges in Georgia related to his alleged interference in the 2020 election, and federal charges in Florida of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

All three of those trials have been delayed, and Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 88 counts he faces.

After Daniels was done testifying, the jury heard an emotional account from Trump’s former White House aide Madeleine Westerhout, who burst into tears on the witness stand describing her ignominious departure from the job.

Westerhout left the White House after some statements she made in a private setting became public. She sobbed as she recounted the incident, and she said she learned a lot from the “youthful indiscretion.”

She also heaped praise upon her former boss.

“He never made me feel like I didn’t belong there,” she said. “He was a really good boss. He, I hope, respected me and my job. I just found him very enjoyable to work for.”