"Stormy Daniels is talking about going to the bathroom in Trump’s hotel suite... Daniels keeps chuckling as she describes the scene, as if she's giving an interview."

Writes Maggie Haberman at the NYT.

I think "keeps chuckling... as if she's giving an interview" reveals Haberman's opinion that Daniels is not a good witness.

Then there's this from Jonah Bromwich, one of the other NYT reporters watching the trial:

Stormy Daniels says she came out of the bathroom and found that Trump was in the bedroom, waiting for her, in his boxer shorts and a T-shirt. She had been planning to go, she said. He was seated on the bed, between her and the exit.

Haberman adds:

“What did I misread to get here,” she describes thinking. She says she tried to leave and he blocked her path, but not in a threatening manner.

A few minutes later, from Jesse McKinley at the NYT:

Justice Merchan is noticeably upset, and Stormy Daniels seems confused, after some objections, about what to answer from prosecutors. We are in an intense, intense moment here.

Hmm... "intense, intense"... I could use some concrete information here. What's wrong?

Jonah Bromwich offers this:

Daniels is describing a remarkably intense encounter, and says that the room spun in slow motion...

Did she say she felt as though the room were spinning in slow motion or did she actually say "the room spun in slow motion" as if she were dictating a bad novel.

... and the blood left her hands and feet. She says that Trump did not act particularly threatening but blocked her access to the door to the bedroom. Then she says she “blacked out,” though she did not take alcohol or drugs.

Blacked out!! Now I suspect she's been lying all along about having sex with Trump and she wants to avoid perjuring herself and is hiding inside a claim of blacking out. 

At this point, the judge — who has sustained one objection and seems unusually angry — called for a sidebar. He sustains another objection.

I'm not there, so I'm not seeing what is making the judge so angry — "unusually angry" — but my presumption at this point is that the Stormy Daniels performance is a disaster for the prosecution.

Then there's this disturbing dimension from NYT reporter Michael Rothfeld, her prior inconsistent statements:

[T]he ominous overtones of Stormy Daniels’s testimony her sexual encounter with Trump were not present in early versions of this story she has told. In her 2011 interview, she did not mention blacking out and described it much more casually than she is doing now....

In recent years, her narrative has evolved. In the documentary “Stormy” that aired on Peacock in March, she referred to the power imbalance she has described today, saying: “I was nine years old again.” 

She said she could have fought Trump off, but said to herself, “I’m not supposed to act like that. There’s that whole dynamic because I was from the South that he was an elder and a man, and I was taught to show respect and be a good girl.”

He was an elder and a man, and I was taught to show respect.... In the South they raise you to submit to sex from old men? I can only judge the words. If I could see and hear her, would that be more believable or less believable? It would be hard to be less believable.