
<p>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.</p>



<p>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.”</p>



<p>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.”</p>



<p>There was only one thing wrong with her testimony. ; It and nothing &#8230; as in nada &#8230; 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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>The Trump-hating media folks argue that she is. ; I am not so sure. ;</p>



<p>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? </p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>I suspect the defense team will note that she is an established liar &#8230; that she will do damn near anything for money &#8230; and that as a writer, performer, and media personality, essentially an experienced fic<a>t</a>ional storyteller.</p>



<p>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 &#8230; nor any testimony on that point that did not come from Michael Cohen.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



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



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>



<p>FOOTNOTE: Was the frumpy look &#8212; seen in the photo atop this commentary &#8212; 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…</p>

Stormy weather at the Trump trial
