Site icon The Punching Bag Post

Stormy weather at the Trump trial

One of the two long awaited witnesses at President Trump’s so-call hush money trial has finally taken to the stand.  Stormy Daniels, the one-time porn performer did not disappoint – if you are the type who enjoys salacious content.

Daniels went on in great detail about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.  He said it never happened.  She says she met him at a Lake Tahoe hotel – in a luxury room larger than her home.  She described his Hugh Hefner-style pajamas and his boxer shorts – and that he calls her “Honeybunch.”

She offered even more details about their conversation.  She asks about his wife – to which she claims he said that he and First Lady Melania do not “sleep in the same beds.”  Daniels got even more salacious in describing for the court the “missionary position.”

There was only one thing wrong with her testimony.  It and nothing … as in nada … to do with the case being tried.  It had only one purpose.  It was an attempt to demean and damage Trump personally – to get the jury to hate Trump as much as Daniels admitted on the stand that she hates Trump.  It was to prejudice the jury.

It was the prosecution that not only put her on the stand, but then elicited the totally inappropriate testimony.  It was so bad that Judge Juan Merchan admonished Daniels and the prosecution for bringing up those unrelated and off-limits issues.  It brought both an objection from Trump’s defense team and a motion to declare a mistrial.

The motion was denied by Merchan, but he did agree to have that portion of Daniels testimony stricken from the record – and to instruct the jury to discount what she said.  Of course, that is an impossible remedy.  You cannot unring that bell by pretending that you did not hear it.  The issue of a mistrial will be raised again during closing arguments – and does provide an opening for a potentially successful appeal of a guilty verdict.

Daniels motives were clear – and her tactics characteristically sleezy.  But more importantly, is she a credible witness in terms of the real issues relating to the trial?

The Trump-hating media folks argue that she is.  I am not so sure. 

In describing the alleged encounter with Trump, Daniels’ story has again evolved.  At some points she said she had a consensual sexual encounter with Trump.  At other times she denied it.  In testimony, she strongly implied that she was taken advantage of by a powerful man and that the event was displeasing and discomforting to her.  She implied that she was a victim – not a willing participant.  Was she now claiming sexual assault or rape? 

This from a woman who has made a living by handing her body over to innumerable men for profit?   She was not exactly dragged into the bushes against her will – if such an encounter really took place.

I suspect the defense team will note that she is an established liar … that she will do damn near anything for money …  and that as a writer, performer, and media personality, essentially an experienced fictional storyteller.

In many ways, it is curious that the prosecution would have called her as a witness.  She does not seem to be able to provide any direct evidence as to the purpose of the money … nor any testimony on that point that did not come from Michael Cohen.

This case is all about documents and what Trump knew or believed – and that all-important, but difficult issue, of “intent.”  Judging from her testimony so far, it does not seem like she even knows what the case is about.  Her mission was to sully up Trump.  Mission accomplished.

Ironically, I tend to believe that Daniels and Trump did, indeed, have a sexual encounter.  Not that I find her credible, but rather that I find Trump to be less credible.  After all, the man is a known womanizer – on par with President Clinton. I cannot prove it one way or another (nor can anyone else) – but all that is irrelevant to the case before the jury.

I just think that Daniels was brought in by the prosecution for just one more pornographic performance.

So, there ‘tis.

FOOTNOTE: Was the frumpy look — seen in the photo atop this commentary — part of prosecutorial stage crafting?  Just asking.  And I am totally discounting reports that she appeared in court because she was told she might get to see a hung jury…

Exit mobile version