On May 7 and May 8, adult film actress Stormy Daniels took the stand in a trial relating to the hush money case against former President Donald Trump. In her testimony, she elaborated on her 2006 encounter with Trump and the subsequent non-disclosure agreement (NDA) negotiations that followed.
The testimony from Daniels offered an insight into the high-pressure world of celebrity and political damage control, especially during a tense presidential race.
The Celebrity Meeting and the Magazine Incident
Daniels, in a Lower Manhattan, New York courtroom, relayed her experience of meeting Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada in 2006. She talked about a brief sexual encounter and Trump’s continuous pursuit of her after that, including the promise of a potential appearance on his reality TV show, “The Apprentice.”
Despite objections from Trump’s legal team, Daniels gave an elaborate account of the sexual incident in 2006. At times, her narrative suggested that the encounter might not have been completely consensual.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump was reportedly heard muttering curses under his breath, prompting the judge to talk privately to his lawyers about the behavior.
Daniels, who seemed anxious and spoke quickly, provided a detailed account of the night she visited Trump in his suite and their sexual encounter.
Upon arriving at Trump’s suite for what she thought was a dinner, Daniels found Trump dressed in pajamas. After a playful remark from her, he decided to change into a suit. During dinner, Trump asked her about her career in the adult film industry, including STD testing, as per Daniels. She also recalled a playful incident where she spanked him with a magazine.
She was surprised when, after coming out of the bathroom, she found Trump on the bed in a T-shirt and boxers, indicating her reluctance for the sexual encounter that followed.
Daniels shared her shock: “I just thought, oh, my God, how could I have misinterpreted things to end up here? It’s pretty obvious what the expectation was when someone’s lying on the bed in their underwear.”
While she did not feel physically or verbally pressured by Trump, Daniels pointed out the clear power imbalance, commenting on Trump’s larger physical size and the presence of a bodyguard outside the room.
Daniels explained, “Before I knew it, I found myself on the bed, a distance away from where we initially stood. My clothing and shoes were removed.”
During her testimony, Daniels also conveyed how she mentally detached during the act, focusing on the ceiling to distract herself from the situation, a detail which was confirmed but later dismissed by the judge. She also mentioned Trump’s non-use of a condom and described the sexual position they assumed. After the encounter, Daniels stayed quiet as she gathered her belongings.
Daniels: “My hands were shaking so hard. I was having a hard time getting dressed.” He said, “Oh, great. Let’s get together again honey bunch. We were great together.” “I just wanted to leave.”
Trump, denying any sexual encounter with Daniels, has maintained his innocence against allegations of manipulating business documents to conceal payments made to silence her during the 2016 election campaign.
Fast forward to 2011, Daniels agreed to an interview with In Touch magazine about the alleged affair for $15,000. “The money didn’t matter to me,” Daniels testified, as reported by New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane-Newman. “I just wanted to get the story out.”
However, the interview never saw the light of day. Daniels testified that shortly after her conversation with the magazine, she was confronted by a threatening stranger in a Las Vegas, Nevada parking lot. The man allegedly intimidated her, referring to her interview with the magazine and mentioning her daughter.
“He threatened me not to continue to tell my story,” Daniels said, as reported by Crane-Newman.
Scared, Daniels said she consulted a lawyer about the parking lot incident and documented the threat.
High-Stakes Negotiations and a Race Against the Clock
In 2016, during Trump’s highly contested presidential campaign, Daniels reconnected with her manager and began to discuss selling her story again. This time, the potential impact on the election increased the urgency of the situation.
“I was afraid that if it wasn’t done before the nominations and things, then I wouldn’t be safe,” Daniels testified.
Through her manager, Daniels got in touch with Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer. They began negotiations for a non-disclosure agreement, with Cohen offering Daniels $130,000 to maintain silence about the alleged affair.
Daniels testified that her motivation wasn’t money but a desire to expose the story before the election and ensure her safety. She finally signed the NDA in October 2016, just weeks before Election Day.
Media Frenzy and Legal Disputes
The story of the hush money payment went public in January 2018 when The Wall Street Journal reported on the deal. This set off a media storm around Daniels’ life, leading to her daughter being shunned by peers.
She later sued Trump, arguing the NDA was invalid as Cohen, who negotiated the agreement, was no longer working for Trump at the time. Daniels also faced a defamation lawsuit from Trump after her then-lawyer released a sketch of the man who allegedly threatened her in the parking lot. Daniels testified that she did not authorize the sketch.
The Stand: Credibility and Motive
During the cross-examination, Trump’s defense team aimed to discredit Daniels’ motives and the timeline of events. They questioned Daniels on her varying reasons for wanting to tell the story and suggested she was trying to extort money from Trump. Daniels denied these allegations.
The defense also pointed out Daniels’ previous public criticisms of Trump and suggested her accusations were politically motivated. Though Daniels admitted to disliking Trump, she insisted her testimony was truthful.
The trial is set to continue, with further witness testimonies and closing arguments from both sides expected. The jury will ultimately decide if Trump violated campaign finance laws by arranging the hush money payment.
The case heavily relies on witness credibility, with Daniels’ account being a key part of the prosecution’s argument. The outcome could significantly impact Trump’s legacy and potentially establish new legal precedents regarding campaign finance violations.
