Stormy Daniels rocks Trump trial: Key witness or Achilles heel?

In the storm of Stormy Daniels’ testimony at Donald Trump’s hush money trial, the question looms: did she inadvertently aid Trump’s defense? Despite vividly recounting her alleged tryst with Trump and the subsequent hush payment, her credibility faced scrutiny, potentially bolstering Trump’s narrative of innocence. The trial’s twists and turns, from lurid details to financial motivations, create a high-stakes drama where credibility is key, leaving jurors to navigate between conflicting testimonies in a courtroom clash of narratives.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

By Patricia Hurtado, David Voreacos and Erik Larson

As Stormy Daniels finished testifying at Donald Trump’s hush money trial, one question lingered – did she help prosecutors prove the former president falsified business records?

Daniels recounted in lurid detail her tryst with Trump in a hotel room in 2006 before seeing him several more times over the next year, an account the former president adamantly denies. A decade later, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen paid her $130,000 to stay silent just before the election.

Prosecutors said they needed testimony from Daniels, an adult film star, because she could demonstrate why Trump wanted to keep her story away from voters shortly after the release of the now infamous Access Hollywood tape in 2016. Trump lawyer Susan Necheles used her cross examination to depict Daniels as an extortionist and liar whose shifting accounts of her evening with Trump couldn’t be trusted.

“Your story has completely changed, hasn’t it?” Necheles asked Thursday. “No, not at all. You’re trying to make me say it’s changed but it hasn’t changed,” Daniels said.

Read more: SA set to export nuclear reactors in 5 years…

The 45-year-old’s testimony, spread over several hours on Tuesday and Thursday, could be central to a jury that must decide whether Trump falsified records to mask his repayment of Cohen.

On Thursday, Necheles grilled Daniels over inconsistencies in accounts she has given in the past 18 years about the sexual encounter she said she had with Trump at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe.

Necheles honed in on such details as whether they ate dinner together, whether she blacked out, and if Trump’s security man, Keith Schiller, was standing outside the suite. As the questioning got tense, Daniels held her ground Thursday, less angry than on Tuesday.

Jurors listened intently, swiveling their gaze between Necheles at the podium and Daniels in the witness box. But their conclusions pose more danger for prosecutors than for Trump.

“Stormy doesn’t help the prosecution’s case that much, but she could hurt them,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which brought the case. “If she comes across as an extortionist and a liar, it could garner sympathy with the jury and make his story more credible.”

‘Blacked Out’

Daniels was assertive when confronted with excerpts from past interviews in which she gave different details of what she says happened in Trump’s hotel suite.

Necheles pointed to details of what Trump was wearing and whether they actually had any food. The questioning came after Daniels on Tuesday testified that Trump waited for her in bed wearing boxers and a T-shirt, that they didn’t eat dinner, and that she felt “faint” and temporarily “blacked out” when she realized Trump’s intentions.

Necheles highlighted past interviews, including with In Touch magazine in 2011. Daniels blamed In Touch for some inconsistencies in her story.

“This is an abbreviated version,” Daniels said. “They left out a lot of stuff because they couldn’t fact-check it.”

Necheles also delved into Daniels’ financial motivation for accusing Trump. The lawyer suggested that Daniels had made more than $1 million off of her account of the Trump tryst, referring to her book, documentary, the Cohen payment, and other ventures.

The adult-film star was questioned extensively about her online sales of merchandise related to the former president, much of which portrays her as a hero fighting to take him down. The items include a $30 “Stormy Daniels Political Power” comic book and a $40 “Stormy Daniels Indictment Patron Saint Altar Candle,” which features her image stylized as a Renaissance painting.

“That was me doing my job,” Daniels insisted.

When Trump’s lawyer suggested Daniels made $40 off each candle, she corrected her.

“No, actually I’m making about $7,” Daniels said.

Westerhout Testifies

After Daniels was done, jurors heard from Madeleine Westerhout, a former White House assistant who sat outside the Oval Office. She testified about receiving personal bills from the Trump Organization in New York for him to sign.

Prosecutors have previously shown jurors checks that Trump signed as president to reimburse Cohen. Westerhout also interrupted her testimony to weep about being fired for speaking to the press at a White House dinner without authorization.

Read more: RW Johnson: Obsessive Thabo Mbeki’s counter-revolution bogeyman returns

“I’m very regretful of my indiscretion but I feel like I’ve learned a lot,” said Westerhout, as she began to cry. Judge Juan Merchan handed her a tissue.

At the end of the day, Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked Merchan to amend his gag order to allow the former president to respond publicly to Daniels’ testimony.

Prosecutor Christopher Conroy said that Trump attacks “anyone he deems worthy of his venom,” and witnesses remain afraid to appear in court.

Merchan denied the request.

“My concern is not just with protecting Ms. Daniels or a witness who testified,” Merchan said. “My concern is with protecting the integrity of the proceedings as a whole.”

Merchan also dismissed a renewed request for a mistrial after Blanche angrily listed a litany of complaints about the Daniels testimony. Merchan said the issue of whether the two had an affair was for the jury to decide.

“Your denial puts the jury in a position of having to choose to decide who to believe — Donald Trump, who denies there was an encounter, or Stormy Daniels, who claims there was,” Merchan said.

After the trial wrapped up for the day, Trump called Merchan “corrupt” and the mistrial ruling a “disgrace.”

Michael Bachner, a New York defense attorney, said there will be similar issues about credibility when Michael Cohen takes the witness stand as soon as next week.

“Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen are going to end up being two sides of the same coin,” Bachner said. “The prosecution is putting two witnesses on with enormously substantial credibility issues. It was very important for the prosecution to minimize the credibility concerns, at least of Stormy Daniels.”