May 9, 2024

"Necheles notes that in [Stormy] Daniels’s book, she describes the early part of the encounter, writing that she made him her 'bitch.'"

"Necheles seeks to suggest there’s an inconsistency here, because Daniels wrote about being aggressive with Trump but then testified that she was intimidated when he approached her for sex. Necheles is in extremely dangerous territory here: She could convince jurors that Daniels was inconsistent. But these jurors may also understand how complex these types of situations — and memories of them — are. Necheles eventually cuts right to the point of her cross-examination about the sexual encounter: 'You made all this up, right?' she asks. Daniels responds forcefully: 'No.'"

From the NYT coverage of the the cross-examination in the Trump trial. Nechelles is Trump's lawyer, Susan Nechelles.

From an earlier point, there's more about this "complexity": "Stormy Daniels’s story of her sexual encounter with Trump is very nuanced and complex, and Daniels describes a lot of different types of motivations and a really conflicted approach to the whole episode.... Susan Necheles, I think, is going to attack her mixed motivations directly, making her seem as if she was lying about how much she wanted to have dinner with Trump in 2006, and how she understood the encounter."

76 comments:

tim maguire said...

I would think that anyone with much experience with sex could understand how feeling intimidated and acting aggressively can (and early in a relationship often do) co-exist.

RideSpaceMountain said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary Beth said...

Is the point of this to help jurors find an excuse for believing this recollection of what happened over her earlier one?

Since when does "nuanced" mean a 180 degree turnaround?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Good God! The amount of jigging, fruging and pirouetting these clowns are doing to convince themselves that the "walls are closing in" on Trump is astounding! Too bad they can't put that much effort in to real journalism.

RideSpaceMountain said...

Call girl's braggadocio. Every hooker thinks they're topping from the bottom. No one gives them money because they like them. They're paying her to leave when they're done with her. The sisterhood will never speak of it out loud, but women like Daniels are despised by Necheles.

Dave Begley said...

This might be a case study for trial practice classes in law school.

Looks like Susan is doing an excellent job!

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Her story is "nuanced and complex"?

Perhaps, if you find shifting and melodramatic narratives, brand new sordid details that contradict earlier more chaste versions and admitting her past falsehoods "complex." But pulling the "ooh I blacked out" trick out of her ass is not IMO nuanced at all. It's cheesy. Like her acting skills. The amateur lawfare whore Blasey Ford put on a more compelling performance, AND did it in an affected voice.

Old and slow said...

What in the hell does any of this nonsense have to do with an accounting entry?

AndrewV said...

Penthouse Magazine published letters that were more believable than Ms Daniels's testimony.

Never-Biden Never-Putin said...

What kind of sex was it???

Because in Soviet Demcoratic 'Merica - we have laws.

Inga said...

I so appreciate the NYT live coverage of this trial. The reporters are good describing at the interplay between the jurors, the prosecution, the defense and the defendant’s reactions, including reports of the defendant’s sleeping and other bodily functions which were noticed by many in the courtroom. It’s really too bad the trial wasn’t able to be televised.

Never-Biden Never-Putin said...

When inept and greedy leftists can't get Putin - get Trump.

Iman said...

Does our Mr. O.Possum have any insider knowledge of Stormy Daniels’ Paranormal Investigation in New Orleans?

I believe he may!

Inga said...

Why does Trump continue to deny this encounter even happened? The testimony by Daniels wouldn’t have been necessary had he been truthful about it.

Iman said...

After today This jury must have nothing but contempt for the mattress actress AND the court.

Tim said...

She said (and signed) that it never happened. She says now yes it did. Which is the lie? she also owes Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars for her lost defamation(?) case.

n.n said...

It sounds like Daniels, like Carroll, like Ford have vivid imaginations, a lust for green deals, a Capitol hangover, and a restricted viability life.

Chuck said...

So Trump never had sex with that woman.

And, it was consensual.

Again, I am confident that this whole great big misunderstanding will get straightened out when Trump testifies.

Arashi said...

I was going to post a comment about a person who has sex for money testifying that THIS time she was intimidated and their lack of moral standing but decided not to. So maybe (not really) the progressives are correct, the only way to "save our democracy!" is to put Trump in jail for a few hundred years or maybe draw and quarter him live on pay per view.

If we had a press that cared to do their actual job, they would be curious to find out who is paying for all of these show trials and what monetary compensation the folks like Ms. Daniels have been promised or hope to get. But we do not, and our very corrupt justice system is an active member of the mob and gleefully participates in the show trials.

Beria would be impressed.

Drago said...

Inga: "The reporters are good describing at the interplay between...."

How do you actually know the reporters are good at describing anything if we cant see it?

Are you mindreading again?

Is it similar to how great the reportees were in describing the hoax dossier, russia russia russia collusion, etc?

I think we need to define a rule or axiom that describes exactly how gullible Inga is with the leftist reporter twaddle.

Inga's Axiom: the less transparent and hidden the actual event, the more "legitimacy" Inga ascribes to the reporting of that event by reporters who have gotten everything horrifically and corruptly wrong for 30 years.

Smilin' Jack said...

"Susan Necheles, I think, is going to attack her mixed motivations directly, making her seem as if she was lying about how much she wanted to have dinner with Trump in 2006, and how she understood the encounter."

She was an experienced member of the oldest profession; I'm sure she understood the encounter perfectly. What she didn't understand at the time was that she would profit from it even more 18 years later.

Leland said...

She blanked out like she was drugged, but she took control and made Trump do for her what she wanted from the sexual encounter. Is this what you mean by her story being nuanced and complex? It seems incoherent to me. Was she aware of what happened as she claimed in the book, or did she come to afterwards as she testified?

Static Ping said...

It is so bizarre to see people making serious legal analysis of the testimony of a porn star who is literally irrelevant to case at hand and should not even be a witness.

Our elites are idiots. Our institutions are corrupted. The center cannot hold.

Chuck said...

Dave Begley, w/r/t your belief that Susan Necheles did a remarkably textbook cross, allow me to introduce you to George Conway's Twitter feed. He's in the courthouse in the press gallery room. With Katie Phang. And where he's also aggregating and re-Tweeting other in-person reporters.

It's been a shitshow as they see it.

n.n said...

Maybe it wasn't rape-rape h/t Whoopi, but rather penetration of the back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP. #NoJudgment #NoLabels

n.n said...

Re: rape... that would explain why there is no forensic "burden" of evidence.

Jupiter said...

So this bears upon the notations on the checks how?

hombre said...

The crossexam was absurd. Only four questions were necessary: 1. Did you sign this letter (entering letter) denying emphatically ever having sex with Trump? 2. Were you lying then or are you lying now? 3. Were you ordered to pay Trump $300k as a result of losing a defamation suit against him? 4. Have you defied the court order and refused to pay him?

The rest is argument about her credibility.

Yancey Ward said...

It is hilarious to see the lefty writers trying to salvage Daniel's credibility. If a person has told the same story in even just two versions, the default isn't to trust one or the other- that is basic logic in action- you distrust both versions and just assume the truth is something else, not that you will ever know what that is.

hombre said...

Igna restored (11:48): Loving the NYT and the despoiling of our legal system to further the Gramscian cause.

Enigma said...

Female porn stars are routinely "intimidated" by...unnaturally huge...male porn stars that they "act" with across dozens of films. Some of the scenes call for the female actors to say "Be gentle with me, it's my first time." Some female porn stars put on leather gear and carry whips and tie people up with dog collars too. That's how they "make a man their bitch." Literally.

Acting. By an experienced professional porn star. Acting.

Idiocracy. We have arrived.

mikee said...

I am opposed to legalized sex work for a host of reasons, but hey, how nuanced and complex was it even possible for this pay-to-play relationship to be? Married guy bangs a professional sex worker, pays off woman to avoid public revelation, both go on with their lives until hooker realizes the guy can be mulcted further due to his new political role. Hilarity ensues.

What complex meandering paths the woman's mind followed during all this, or what she said about it, is so far from relevant as to be just wasting the court's time to run up the hourly billing by both benches.

That such idiocy disqualifies Trump from any public office goes without saying, but let me say it: Just because we're used to people screwing around doesn't make it any less irresponsible. Bill Clinton should have resigned with AlGore swinging the door so hard the knob would hit the lecher in the ass on his way to divorce court with Hillary. Kamala Harris's start in politics on her knees should tell you all necessary unqualifications she has for anything. And Trump should fight this ridiculous lawfare case, win the election, and immediately go quietly into retirement for his misdeeds, leaving a chosen, supported VP stepping up in office at the White House.

mikeski said...

I so appreciate the NYT live coverage of this trial.

I heartily endorse this event or product.

Indigo Red said...

He's accused of bookkeeping errors (crimes.) That the two had a sexual encounter is neither here nor there according to the criminal charges.

Michael K said...

"Inga" is enjoying the salacious testimony of this whore. Why don't you pick up a copy of Stacy Abrams' book ? I hear her imaginary sex scenes are even spicier.

Michael K said...

"Inga" is enjoying the salacious testimony of this whore. Why don't you pick up a copy of Stacy Abrams' book ? I hear her imaginary sex scenes are even spicier.

Tomcc said...

Someone's loins are burning.

Lucien said...

NYT is so dumb that they assume a sexual encounter occurred.

Mark said...

So I just read a passage of the testimony where Trump's lawyer is trying to slut shame Daniels. Why she thought it a good idea to suggest Daniels was lying by saying that Daniels had lots of experience with fake stories in her porn film, only to have Daniels respond that the sex is real - just like she's saying the sex with Trump was real - is beyond me. But just the slut shaming is unlikely to impress the jurors.

Jake said...

This cross seems weak.

Mark said...

NECHELES: “You have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex.”

DANIELS: “Wow. 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 [with Trump].”

NECHELES: And now there is a story you are telling about President Trump?

DANIELS: “If that story was untrue, I would’ve written it to be a lot better”.

Iman said...

Daniels says she doesn’t know what this case is about… which raises a question:

Why is she even there?

Yancey Ward said...

"Why does Trump continue to deny this encounter even happened? The testimony by Daniels wouldn’t have been necessary had he been truthful about it."

They would called Daniels as a witness anyway, Inga, and I suspect you know it. However, here is a challenge for you- prove that she and Trump had sex. Surely, if you are 100% sure it happened, then you should be able to point one piece of incontrovertible evidence that proves this as a fact.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Daniels made Necheles look foolish in her attempt t to get Daniels to say the event never actually happened. Who truly believes that Trump didn’t have sex with Daniels? Seriously? Are Trumpists that naive or are they so bamboozled by Trump still after all that has transpired that they no longer recognize how irrational it is to doubt that Trump had sex with Daniels? How is Trump going to deny having sex with Karen McDougal, even if she doesn’t take the stand as a witness? It’s common knowledge that Trump has a penchant for paying off sex partners since he had been running for president. The story has been told for years now. I doubt Melania believes Trump, she’s been married to him long enough to know what he is, maybe she doesn’t care, Trump told Stormy that he’s didn’t share a bedroom with Melania. He is a serial philanderer, his history follows him.

William said...

When someone invites you to stay over and have breakfast, and then makes you French Toast in the morning, it's one thing. When the waitress at the diner, passes over the counter for the twentieth time that morning a serving of hash and eggs, it's another thing. I get the sense that there wasn't a lot of nuance and complicated entanglements in her affair with Donald Trump. She did seem to go out of her way to criticize everything about him and his lovemaking but I doubt she was paying all that much attention at the time.

Howard said...

Another example of Trump the innocent being taken advantage of by people he trusted.

Jake said...

Read through the tx from Tuesday. Stormy describing how she spanked Trump with a rolled up magazine when he was being rude sounds a little bit like flirting. I think they did the deed and I think she was totally fine with it. Potential down payment on an Apprentice appearance (just like to be a headliner stripper you need to have "credits" or "credentials" according to her testimony and the reason she started doing porn). If it pans out, great. If not, I'm sure clever accounting could have used it as a write off.

Static Ping said...

Please, keep discussing testimony that is irrelevant to the case at hand and guarantees reversal on appeal.

Lucien said...

I predict that neither Christian Blasey Ford nor Stormy Daniels will get as many speaking fees, or be lauded as many times as a "feminist icon" as Anita Hill.

narciso said...

She changed the story from 2011

Mary Beth said...

But just the slut shaming is unlikely to impress the jurors.

Making up sex stories is a particular skill and one that she may or may not have used in talking about sex with Trump. You calling it slut shaming betrays your own bias.

Drago said...

Inga: "Why does Trump continue to deny this encounter even happened?"

LOL

Sweet Jesus!

Inga has 100% returned to Full Blown "You Dont Know What Mueller Knows"-Mode!

You can almost hear the carney barkers:

Incredible! Amazimg! Astonishing!

Come see Wisconsin Clarvoyant Inga who knows all and tells all!

Mikey NTH said...

"I totally made him my bitch."
"I totally blacked out at him forcing sex on me."
"Why yes I've had more trains on me than the Union Pacific."
"I was just like a nine year old girl. "

Who on the prosecution called this woman as a witness to anything? That should be considered deliberate sabotage of the case.

Mikey NTH said...

Mark - please explain how Stormy Daniels, a porn actress, can be "slut shamed" when she is a professional harlot. I really want to follow that convoluted path to understand how asking questions about a supposed sexual encounter can shame a profession harlot.

Tom said...

There is absolutely no way she had sex with Trump for no money.

Here’s what I think happened. I think she got her picture with Trump at a golf outing. She knew he was at the same hotel. Once the presidential election was close to over, she tried to use that picture and the fact that they were at the same hotel as a way to extort him before he lost the election.

Allegations of banging Stormy Daniels wouldn’t have costed him the election. But, it would have upset his family. Cohen had a way to make it go away and keep a bit of cash for himself and they all extorted Trump.

Trump dropped Cohen once he knew Cohen was playing both sides of these sorts of issues - probably for years.

If she said he paid her, then I’d believe he had sex with her. But there’s no way she banged him for free. She no longer can have sex for free - she destroyed that capacity in herself.

boatbuilder said...

Sure, she gets exposed as a complete liar and extortionist.

What the hell does any of this have to do with the accounting charges that this thing is allegedly premised upon?

Jim at said...

People like Inga still don't get it.

It doesn't matter if he had sex with her or not. It has nothing to do with the case at hand.

Jeebus.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lonejustice said...

Blogger Drago said...
Why does Trump continue to deny this encounter even happened?"

Because it did happen. Drago is the always Trump supporter who masturbates every day to Stormy Daniels videos on Porn Hub. What a sick fuck.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

Daniels made Necheles look foolish in her attempt t to get Daniels to say the event never actually happened. Who truly believes that Trump didn’t have sex with Daniels? Seriously? Are Trumpists that naive or are they so bamboozled by Trump still after all that has transpired that they no longer recognize how irrational it is to doubt that Trump had sex with Daniels? How is Trump going to deny having sex with Karen McDougal, even if she doesn’t take the stand as a witness? It’s common knowledge that Trump has a penchant for paying off sex partners since he had been running for president. The story has been told for years now. I doubt Melania believes Trump, she’s been married to him long enough to know what he is, maybe she doesn’t care, Trump told Stormy that he’s didn’t share a bedroom with Melania. He is a serial philanderer, his history follows him.

Inga might be a room temperature IQ, but even she is starting to realize that she has been swallowing lies told to her by the media.

With someone this stupid change is a slow process. When Daniels blurted out the "Blackout" excuse the lie became obvious to everyone.

But even the dumbest people among us are starting to figure it out.

Inga said...

Trump could settle the whole question as to whether he had sex with Stormy or not. There is no gag order to stop him from testifying (as he claimed before being corrected by the Judge) under oath. He claims he wants to refute Stormy’s testimony and his lawyers asked the judge to modify the gag order so he can do so.

He can testify under oath. What is he afraid of?

Yancey Ward said...

Again, Inga, prove it. I don't know if they had sex, but it is more than plausible that Daniels and her lawyer fabricated the entire event just for the money. Yes, Trump is a faithless husband, and I think it very likely has had sex with several women since marrying the latest wife, but I see no particular reason to believe Daniels and lots of reasons to doubt her, especially that she was shopping the story around for money 10 years after it happened and when she might have thought, true or not, Trump would have to pay up.

The fact is that nobody other than Trump and Daniels knows the truth, but one fact does remain- Trump has always denied it and Daniels has claimed it for money, denied it for money, and again claiming it. What no one can do is say there is no doubt because there is lots of doubt.

Inga said...

“It doesn't matter if he had sex with her or not. It has nothing to do with the case at hand.”

It seems to matter a great deal to Trump. Does he think that if he continues to deny he had sex with her people will believe he had no reason to pay her off to hide it right before the election? Oh please.

Drago said...

"Why does Trump continue to deny this encounter even happened?"

LLR-democratical lonejustice: "Because it did happen. Drago is the always Trump supporter who masturbates every day to Stormy Daniels videos on Porn Hub. What a sick f***."

lonejustice proving conclusively, once again, why he is the least capable of all the LLR-democraticals.

There are some that still believe LLR-democratical And Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck created the "lonejustice" alter ego to provide "organic" support for Chuckles meandering missives at Althouse blog.

This was driven home by lonejustice's sudden appearance with postimgs praising Chuck along the lines of "not only are you a powerful man, you are a handsome man as well!"

And remember, BOTH lonejustice and Chuck described themselves as super duper legal beagle lawyer types.

A bit too "on the nose", wouldn't you say?

Drago said...

And just think, hapless lonejustice had to compose that pile of drivel he vomited up, he also had to review it and then hit publish!

Never-Biden Never-Putin said...

Inga loves her a Soviet Style clown show show-trial.

effinayright said...

Michael K said...
"Inga" is enjoying the salacious testimony of this whore. Why don't you pick up a copy of Stacy Abrams' book ? I hear her imaginary sex scenes are even spicier.
*******

Sex with Stacy?

You might as well drop bratwurst into the Grand Canyon.

Jim at said...

It seems to matter a great deal to Trump.

And just how is Trump's opinion germane to the issue before the court?

Do you even fucking know what this trial is about?

Hint: It ain't about where Trump may or may not have stuck his dick.
Or even his thoughts on where he may or may not have stuck his dick.

Do you understand this?

Seriously. Do you?


Jim at said...

Trump could settle the whole question as to whether he had sex with Stormy or not.

I'm going to write this very slowly so even you might be able to understand.

Trump could get on the stand and shout to the world he banged the hell out of her to the point of where she blacked out. With angels and unicorns floating around her head.

He could claim some sort of Wilt Chamberlain challenge that his sexual prowess is/was unmatched by anyone on Earth and by damn, Stormy Daniels is the one who's going to find out for sure.

It. Does, Not. Matter. To. The. Issue. Before. The. Court.

Jamie said...

He can testify under oath.

Sigh. Several things:

1. As many have noted, whether or not they had sex is entirely irrelevant to the case.

2. There's this thing called the 5th Amendment that means that while any defendant can testify, none can be compelled to testify. Because...

3. ...come on, Inga, is there any world in which Trump gets on the stand, says under oath, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and you and your ilk don't immediately shriek, "Perjury!"? Where on earth is the upside for Trump, the defendant in a criminal case that turns solely on an accounting question (and also a person who has never done his own accounting nor likely expressed any opinion to his accountants about how they do his accounting, because why would he), to testifying?

JAORE said...

"...these jurors may also understand how complex these types of situations — and memories of them — are."

Hella excuse you got there. The woman must be believed, then not then believed again. All with no supporting evidence. Is there a limit to inconsistencies or total flip-flops? It seems not.

Is there a comparable blanket belief system for any actions alleged by a man? (It is to laugh.)

Achilles said...

Blogger Inga said...

Trump could settle the whole question as to whether he had sex with Stormy or not. There is no gag order to stop him from testifying (as he claimed before being corrected by the Judge) under oath. He claims he wants to refute Stormy’s testimony and his lawyers asked the judge to modify the gag order so he can do so.

He can testify under oath. What is he afraid of?


"Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks Stormy Daniels if she knows what Donald Trump is charged with.

"I don’t really understand. ... I'm just here to answer the question asked to me," she says.
"There’s a lot of indictments," she says with a shrug.

Necheles asks Daniels if she knows anything about Trump's business records.

"I know nothing about his business records, no, why would I?" Daniels responds."



Shortly after a motion for mistrial was presented as nothing Daniels testified to had anything to do with the charges at hand.

Mark said...

it is more than plausible that Daniels and her lawyer fabricated the entire event just for the money....one fact does remain- Trump has always denied it...What no one can do is say there is no doubt because there is lots of doubt

There is zero doubt that Trump PAID her the money. Why? Why pay her for a lie? Why pay her when Trump is exactly the kind of guy that would say, "I'll be damned if I'm going to pay her for lying." Why pay her to stay silent about something that never happened? And why did Daniels believe that Trump would pay for the lie? It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, that is, if it is a lie. It doesn't make sense if they didn't have sex, which Trump wanted to be kept quiet, in addition to wanting to keep quiet the fact that he paid her off. But it does make sense if it all really did happen. That would explain why Trump paid the money. It would explain also why his own internal accounting records listed it as "legal expenses" rather than "settlement payment" or some other true and accurate characterization.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

“1. As many have noted, whether or not they had sex is entirely irrelevant to the case.

If it’s irrelevant to the case, why is Trump continuing to deny it happened? Why have his lawyers pushed Stormy to say she is lying about having had sex with him? Trump may believe that if he continues to deny it, that the jurors will think it’s doubtful that he paid hush money to her. That’s sort of a “duh”.

2. There's this thing called the 5th Amendment that means that while any defendant can testify, none can be compelled to testify. Because...”

Who said he should be “compelled” to take the stand? As a person who wants the truth to come out, he should want to testify on his own behalf.