May 7, 2024

"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.

125 comments:

rhhardin said...

On the credenza, in the empty room : no ptyx

Real American said...

of course, the judge is upset. His side is losing!

Joe Smith said...

Reporting on X is that Stormy testified that she had sex with Trump without a condom.

I do not believe this at all.

Did Trump get a blowjob? Maybe (doubtful). Did he fuck her with a condom? Maybe (doubtful).

The man is a germaphobe. She is a whore. He would not stick his dick in her unprotected...not in a million years.

Joe Smith said...

WTF does any of this have to do with payments and election law violations?

This is just the hack judge using his power to humiliate a defendant.

Mark said...

Speculation based on others speculative reporting is a new depth to Boomer Navel Gazing.

WisRich said...

Testifying? Sounds more like auditioning for her next gig.

Readering said...

old lawyer adage, Tell the truth it's the easiest to remember.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

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

That sounds like the best explanation for such a claim

Political Junkie said...

Who is more honest, Story or CBF (I won't write the bitch's full name). They are both liars, one in it for money, one in it for ideology. If I had to save one from a burning building, of course I would save Stormy.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Mark said...
Speculation based on others speculative reporting is a new depth to Boomer Navel Gazing.

Poor Mark. Throwing a tantrum now that the walls may not be closing in after all

Yancey Ward said...

LOL Lefty Mark- the NYTimes reporters are Trump-haters. If they can't even spin this disaster for the prosecution, then it must be 10 times worse than they are reporting. Don't worry, Lefty Mark, Steiner's attack will reverse the course of the battle.

With that out of the way- Althouse is correct- Daniels is telling a story that can't be proven one way or the other- still perjury, but less dangerous than admitting to a tryst that didn't actually happen or admitting that it didn't happen and having Bragg trying to charge her with perjury for denying the tryst. "Was unconscious" covers both dangers. It is Schrodinger's Fuck- it both happened and didn't happen.

Roadkill711 said...

So, did rooms spin and cause her to black out when she made porn movies? Or is she suggesting Trump is some super, mesmerizing, Svengali-like lover such as she had never before experienced?

Like the Prof, I too think she is lying to avoid perjury. This trial may turn out to be a 'two-fer' for Trump: Acquittal on the charges, and a debunking of the Daniels/sex/hush-money story.

BJK said...

If the jury believes that the Stormy-Trump tryst was never consummated, and that Trump was the victim of extortion...does that make the chances of a conviction more or less likely?

(Assuming there is a possibility of a fair trial, of course.)

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Shoulda had Stormy take lessons from Christine Blasey Ford.

RideSpaceMountain said...

The Slore Chuckles. That's actually not a bad name for a poem. Might get working on that.

Lyssa said...

Very little gets my feminist ire up like women trying to claim powerlessness in stories like this. She was an adult woman, who accompanied a man to a hotel room, yet she claims she was as helpless as a small child when met with a mild come-on? If I believed that was true of women, I would believe we shouldn’t be allowed out without a chaperone.

iowan2 said...

Is there someway to get a legal injunction to stop this trial?

Up to today, the Trial has just proven to be a sham.

But today has moved this into a very dangerous place in the justice system.

You have a witness that has zero to contribute to the indicted charges. She is creating from whole cloth and a story the that is impossible to prove, and impossible to impeach.

Isn't there a legal way to get the trial suspended for appellate review? To get the obviously corrupt judge removed?

Mr. D said...

Sounds like ol’ Stormy is doing a bizzaro world reading of Helen Reddy’s song “Angie Baby.”

Enigma said...

Prostitutes are paid to do the things their clients desire. This may be sex, this may be talking, this may be dressing as a school girl, this may be dressing as a French maid, and this may be simulating an interview. Consider the source.

Now do Bill Clinton and Juanita Broderrick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, and Dolly Kyle Browning. Here Stormy "blacked out"...errr...some of Clinton's non-prostitute accusers were vilified for attacking Slick Willy and the Democrats tried to prevent them from speaking.

[I don't include Monica Lewinsky because we all saw the glimmer in her eye when looking at Bill.]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-a-look-at-bill-clintons-alleged-sexual-misconduct/

Readering said...

sounds like reason judge upset is that there had been a conference before she took the stand setting boundaries on her testimony, and she has crossed them.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

The true Trump haters will eat this up and say "See, see, see! He's a sexual predator. I knew it!" Doesn't matter that Stormy is making everything up out of whole cloth.

Jim said...

I think that, in general, when a witness' story "evolves" that's not a good thing for the witness' credibility.

Iman said...

Daniels is a disaster so far… a bad liar and top shelf sleaze.

Iman said...

A case that depends on a mattress actress and the convicted perjurer Cohen? How low can this administration go!?!?

Yancey Ward said...

"sounds like reason judge upset is that there had been a conference before she took the stand setting boundaries on her testimony, and she has crossed them."

Daniels didn't cross them, if the boundaries even exist, Readering. If boundaries were crossed, it was the prosecutors that crossed them.

What it actually sounds like is the judge is upset that Daniels' story sounds like horseshit to everyone including himself.

robother said...

Blacked out? So, by her own admission, not an actual witness to anything that occurred or didn't occur thereafter. Did she reconstruct the sexual memory through some psycho-legal-sexual technique mastered by her blackmail lawyer? Going to be interesting to see how Judge Merchan limits the cross-examination to minimize the damage here. At this point, even the Kangaroos must be embarrassed.

Narr said...

Reminds me of the old scriptwriter's saw: if your characters start acting too weird, set it farther South.

Mizz Stormy Daniels a meek Southern belle? Barf.

She has gotten her fifteen minutes many times over, and should be retired.

Gunner said...

Stormy seems crazy even for a porn star. Great idol these Dems pick.

Shouting Thomas said...

A humorous bit. I commented on Instapundit that Althouse seems to have concluded that Daniels lied about having sex with Trump, and that Althouse is not a Trump fan.

The response was hilarious. Not a single person seemed able to grasp the significance Daniels’ testimony failing on a non-Trumper. Go read it for yourself. It’s a litany of commenters denouncing Althouse for one reason or another. A total failure to take your allies on a case by case basis.

Shouting Thomas said...

A humorous bit. I commented on Instapundit that Althouse seems to have concluded that Daniels lied about having sex with Trump, and that Althouse is not a Trump fan.

The response was hilarious. Not a single person seemed able to grasp the significance Daniels’ testimony failing on a non-Trumper. Go read it for yourself. It’s a litany of commenters denouncing Althouse for one reason or another. A total failure to take your allies on a case by case basis.

BarrySanders20 said...

So does Trump's lawyer move for a mistrial?
Does the prosecutor during his own case?
Does the judge grant one sua sponte?

Lots of ways to flush an embarrassing case. And the judge is on record of being protective of the integrity of his court (he asserts without evidence). He's a laughingstock, the court has lost legitimacy, and the mockery and ridicule are well earned. Flush it, and have the plunger handy.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Maybe Marchan isn't happy because he's not getting much in the way of jerk off fantasy material.

Achilles said...

Readering said...

sounds like reason judge upset is that there had been a conference before she took the stand setting boundaries on her testimony, and she has crossed them.

Daniels was being coached by both the Judge and the Prosecution.

Achilles said...

Stormy Daniels was allowed by the judge to testify in a case about falsifying records.

The FEC investigator that investigated this case was not allowed to testify about why he didn't think Trump violated campaign finance law.

"Judge" Merchan will probably face bar sanctions and be removed over the fallout from this "trial."

mikee said...

FYI: In the South both young women and young men are taught at an early age that certain elderly men are to be (respectfully) stayed the hell away from unless we wanted to be groped, and that een then it would not be any fun for us. Usually such lessons were in reference to a senile, elderly distant uncle or a senile, old friend of the family, whose gross intentions and grasping behavior were well known and tolerated because they hadn't yet risen to the point of dragging younger family members behind the wisteria at family gatherings.

Mark Twain, for example, inflicted himself upon some family members late in his life. And while Catholic priests currently hold the public's attention for buggery and ephebophilia, not too many decades back all Southern single men over 30 or so were open to suspicion of such inclinations. The Baptists even worried that dancing might break out.

rhhardin said...

Porn stars are not whores. They're actors, and the audience is the camera, not the stud. They're not after his repeat business, in particular. Stuff is shot out of sequence and so forth. That's what fluffers are for.

Sociologically it's called a precarious business, where reality and illusion have to be managed.

Others are strip clubs (illusion of sex, reality of bouncers), and gynecological examinations (standard moves to make everything be interpreted as non-sexual).

Joan P. Emerson Behavior in Private Places : Sustaining Definitions of Reality in Gynecological Examinations (1970)

Kari Lerum Precarious Situations in a Strip Club : Exotic Dancers and the Problem of Reality Maintenance (2001)

Darkisland said...

The CNN version of the testimony which I quoted in a previous note does not mention blacking out. It does say this:

Blogger Darkisland said...

Stormy Daniels is describing what happened next in the hotel room.

"I had my clothes and my shoes off. I removed my bra. We were in missionary position," Daniels says.

Asked if she remembers how her clothes came off, she says no. "Next thing I know I was on the bed," she testifies.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is trying to elicit more details, but the objections are sustained.


From this entry we go to one describing how she got dressed and had trouble getting her shoes on because she was shaking so bad.

I think I could infer that she is claiming they had sex by her reference to the missionary position.

But I notice that she never actually says they had sex.

Is that just keeping salacious details out as the judge instructed? Or is it cautious wording?


And what the hell does this have to do with any of the charges? There is no dispute that she was paid. There is no dispute that Cohen paid her. There is no dispute that she was paid to keep quiet about something that may or may not have happened.

The charges relate to how it was entered in a ledger and whether it should have been a legal fee, campaign expense or something else.

John Henry

n.n said...

Water closet fetish.

Rabel said...

Althouse wrote:

"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...."

It's worth noting the out-of-the-blue defense of Daniels' inconsistency by Rothfeld that followed Althouse's ellipsis:

"Experts on traumatic sexual experiences say that a person's perception of such encounters can change over time, and that the most traumatic details may emerge only later."

I added a quote mark for clarity on the first Rothfeld quotation. Blogger wouldn't let me indent.

Big Mike said...

It would be hard to be less believable.

Oh, I wouldn’t bet on that, Althouse. I wouldn’t bet on that at all.

Louise B said...

Ann-I am having trouble understanding your blogged sentence in the paragraph that begins Blacked out! As I'm reading it, you're stating Trump (he) wants to avoid perjuring herself (Stormy?) Can you update as to what you mean here? Thanks.

gspencer said...

Waiting for her to produce the bra and panties used in her made-up "encounter."

Maybe she got Trump to autograph them as treasured mementos.

Achilles said...

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.

That was the point where every eyebrow in the room raised and all eyes turned to the "Judge" who is presumed to be orchestrating this fiasco.

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

Ann used to believe Daniels. But now all of these presumptions they have made about Trump have to be examined. You can't just blurt out stupidity about "believe women" anymore. It is too obviously stupid.

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.

This goes way beyond being a disaster for the "Prosecution." All of these women that have come out with bullshit gold digging claims have set good women back and have damaged our social fabric.

Ann even believed a nutter and obvious liar like E. Jean Carroll. Women thought that Blasey Ford was "credible." But everyone everywhere is going to be re-examining these bullshit claims.

I also look forward to the release of "Judge" Merchan's instructions to the "prosecution" and their "witness."

Darkisland said...

Blogger Lyssa said...

She was an adult woman, who accompanied a man to a hotel room, yet she claims she was as helpless as a small child when met with a mild come-on?

I suspect that most women would have no trouble dealing with it, as you say.

Daniels is not "most women", she is, essentially, a whore, selling sex for money to men. She probably deals with stuff like this on a daily basis and she seems as hard as tool steel.

Dealing with this is part and parcel of her trade. I call bullshit on her being intimidates.

I also question how a professional whore could go alone with a man to a hotel room, go into the bathroom (giving him a chance to get undressed) and then being surprised to find that he was thinking sex might be involved.

Any man in this situation would probably assume that sex would be involved. The main questions would be what kind and how much would it cost? A TV slot in this case, it seems.

Or, they both could have misread the signals but that would imply a pretty high level of stupidity on both parts.

John Henry

Darkisland said...

Her tesitmony is somewhat muddy, perhaps on purpose. But one way to read it is that when she came out of the bathroom, she was already undressed. Then she took her bra off.

That is from reading CNN quoting her.

If I am in a hotel room alone with a sexually promiscous woman and she comes out of the bathroom in her skivvies then removes her bra, my natural assumption is that she wants me to make her a cup of coffee.

John Henry

Gusty Winds said...

She says that Trump did not act particularly threatening but blocked her access to the door to the bedroom.

It’s like the Christopher Walken Sat Night Live character in the red smoking jacket. The character or the skit was called The Continental. Have some chamapangña. Wowie wow wow wow!

Gusty Winds said...

She had been planning to go, she said.

Yeah. Sure. A porn star agrees to go to a rich man's hotel rooms and just plans on leaving.

Gusty Winds said...

Then she says she “blacked out,” though she did not take alcohol or drugs.

I'm sure a lot of women would testify truthfully about their male partner blacking out immediately after sex. It's a great time for a quick nap.

Big Mike said...

And note that cross examination hasn’t even started!

Gusty Winds said...

In the South they raise you to submit to sex from old men?

I thought that was the Mormons???

Jersey Fled said...

I think we make a mistake if we assume the jury will evaluate the evidence as we do, i.e. as rational people*. This is a Manhattan jury that hates Trump and is going to find him guilty no matter what. Which changes the proceedings from a trial of Trump to a trial of the legal system in general and the Democrats in particular. Either way, whether he is acquitted or found guilty, Trump wins. That’s what the judge is furious about.

My guess is that the judge is now looking for an exit strategy. If he’s smart he’ll declare a mistrial and avoid further damage.

* Note: Yes, believe most of us here are rational people.

Michael said...

The prosecution in this case (from Bragg to Biden) should wear fright wigs and floppy shoes and spend their time piling in and out of tiny cars and squirting each other with seltzer bottles.

Big Mike said...

This trial may turn out to be a 'two-fer' for Trump: Acquittal on the charges, and a debunking of the Daniels/sex/hush-money story.

@Roadkill, I think Judge Merchan is not going to let acquittal happen. However Trump is well on his way to winning in the court of public opinion.

Biden is going to pass away peacefully in his sleep, lest he drag down the down-ballot candidates.

Lilly, a dog said...

Porn "stars" are not well known for their acting. A regular woman with great big fake tits is just sharing her "truth." Can't catch a break with this crowd.

robother said...

These Southern Belles, so delicate. Sometimes they have a similar effect on the male of the species, as Little Feat wrote:

"And I don't remember church bells or the money I put down
On the white picket fence and boardwalk of the house at the edge of town
Oh, but boy, do I remember the strain of her refrain
The nights we spent together, and the way she called my name"

Lucien said...

So is this leading to a motion to strike her testimony, and for mistrial?

Christopher B said...

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

I don't mean to be too snarky but 'lying to avoid perjury' needs some explaining.

In theory only two people know what (or who) went down in that hotel room. Whether Stormy says they did or didn't have sex, or Trump says they did or didn't have sex, could only be called perjury based on the other's testimony (and IIRC both have told the story both ways). The only 'lying to avoid perjury' I can see is if she wasn't actually anywhere near Trump's hotel room and is obfusticating over whether or not they had sex as a distraction from that question.

chuck said...

It would be helpful if actual journalists were observing the trial.

Leland said...

From the little bit quoted, sounds like she is describing a date rape rather than a consensual sexual encounter. Isn’t that the type of evidence that got Weinstein’s conviction tossed on appeal? This is supposedly a trial about campaign finance fraud, and now a person that isn’t a witness to the fraud is describing another crime possibly committed by the defendant that has not and is not being prosecuted. How would that be allowed?

Original Mike said...

I've always thought Trump and Daniels had an affair; something going on over some period of time. But this is all there was (assuming it happened at all), a onetime event?

Hassayamper said...

"Judge" Merchan will probably face bar sanctions and be removed over the fallout from this "trial."

HAHAHA! Sanctions from the New York State Bar? You can't be serious. I'd bet next month's mortgage payment he is more likely to get an award from them for presiding over this circus.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Christopher B said...
Althouse: Now I suspect she's been lying all along about having sex with Trump and (s)he wants to avoid perjuring herself and is hiding inside a claim of blacking out.

I don't mean to be too snarky but 'lying to avoid perjury' needs some explaining.


Really? I think it's a pretty straightforward concept:

She's telling a lie that can't be disproved, to avoid telling a lie that might be disproved

Skeptical Voter said...

Supposedly Trumps attorneys moved for a mistrial after this fiasco--but the judge wouldn't grant it.

But it's all a part of the goat rodeo that's the prosecution's case here.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

she "blacked out"

that's new.

LOL.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Did Stormy tell any of her beach friends this story?

Kevin said...

It was a dark and Stormy courthouse.

Suddenly a chuckle rang out!

Joe Smith said...

"And while Catholic priests currently hold the public's attention for buggery and ephebophilia..."

Now do public school teachers/administrators.

Far more prevalent than the Catholic Church...

Just an old country lawyer said...

Lord a mercy! Is there a lawyer in this fair land who wouldn't be just itching to handle the cross on this steaming, stinking pile?

Balfegor said...

Re: Christopher B:

I don't mean to be too snarky but 'lying to avoid perjury' needs some explaining.

It's just harder to persuade a jury that evidence is sufficient to convict if the assertion is "I blacked out and don't recall what happened" vs. a clear and specific narrative that could be contradicted by other evidence, including other details from her own testimony.

Rusty said...

rhhardin said...
"Porn stars are not whores. "
Oh. No? They're being paid for sex.
In this case the whore is overacting..

rcpjr said...

Go back and watch her interview with Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes. She tells a rather different story in both tone and details. Like this (from the CBS transcript):

Stormy Daniels: Ummm (LAUGH) it started off-- all about him just talking about himself. And he's like-- "Have you seen my new magazine?"

Anderson Cooper: He was showing you his own picture on the cover of a magazine.

Stormy Daniels: Right, right. And so I was like, "Does this-- does this normally work for you?" And he looked very taken-- taken back, like, he didn't really understand what I was saying. Like, I was, "does, just, you know, talking about yourself normally work?" And I was like, "Someone should take that magazine and spank you with it." (LAUGH) And I'll never forget the look on his face. He was like--

Anderson Cooper: What-- what was his look?

Stormy Daniels: Just, I don't think anyone's ever spoken to him like that, especially, you know, a young woman who looked like me. And I said, you know, "Give me that," and I just remember him going, "You wouldn't." "Hand it over." And-- so he did, and I was like, "turn around, drop 'em."

Anderson Cooper: You-- you told Donald Trump to turn around and take off his pants.

Stormy Daniels: Yes.


Does that sound even remotely like the tale she just told in court? Further along with Cooper, she described coming out of the bathroom thusly:

Stormy Daniels: ... So I-- I excused myself and I went to the-- the restroom. You know, I was in there for a little bit and came out and he was sitting, you know, on the edge of the bed when I walked out, perched.

In this version, he was sitting on the bed, not standing. So which is it? Did he strip before she went to the bathroom at her request, or while she was in the bathroom without her prompting? Oh, and no mention of him blocking her path with Cooper, either. These are significant inconsistencies. The new details from her testimony today all curiously make Trump look a lot worse. Did the prosecutors coach her to embellish her story to make Trump look like date rapist? That's the most obvious conclusion to draw.

Paul said...

Just a smear campaign in the middle of a trial. A 'he said, she said' with zero proof.

What is more she as changed her story many times... hell she has tried to SELL HER STORY MANY TIMES how could the judge let someone with so low a credibility as a witness testify? And what could she bring forth that was relevant to the case?

Yes it should be a mistrial.. but it won't cause that would hurt the Democrat's campaign to stop Trump.

But there will be a cross examination and I bet a lot of rebuttal witnesses.

The worm will turn.

Paul said...

Just a smear campaign in the middle of a trial. A 'he said, she said' with zero proof.

What is more she as changed her story many times... hell she has tried to SELL HER STORY MANY TIMES how could the judge let someone with so low a credibility as a witness testify? And what could she bring forth that was relevant to the case?

Yes it should be a mistrial.. but it won't cause that would hurt the Democrat's campaign to stop Trump.

But there will be a cross examination and I bet a lot of rebuttal witnesses.

The worm will turn.

Biff said...

Shouting Thomas said..."I commented on Instapundit...The response was hilarious. Not a single person seemed able to grasp the significance Daniels’ testimony failing on a non-Trumper. Go read it for yourself. It’s a litany of commenters denouncing Althouse for one reason or another. A total failure to take your allies on a case by case basis."

I comment occasionally at Instapundit, but the the place has degraded considerably over the years. Aside from a few reliable regulars, Insty's commenters seem overpopulated with bots, trolls (likely paid), and people who seem to model their behavior on the unhinged lefties who populate the WaPo comment section. I wouldn't be surprised if Glenn ends up leaving the site altogether in favor of his Substack.

AZ Bob said...

This line of questionning is gratuitous and meant to humiliate Trump, if that is possible. I'm surprised that she wasn't ask to describe his genitals. Or was she?

Rabel said...

Shouting Thomas said...

"Go read it for yourself."

I did. Doesn't back up your "litany" claim. You just went back and forth with a couple of idiots, plus Evi.

Anyway, I wouldn't put much credit to it. Instapundits' appeal has become more selective since he "associated" with the trash (with one or two exceptions) at PJ Media.

DanTheMan said...

>> Like the Prof, I too think she is lying to avoid perjury.

Lying under oath to avoid perjury??? That's novel.

Given the multiple versions of the story she's told, and the signed document where she says point blank "it never happened", she's left herself open to the "Are you lying now, or were you lying then?" line of questioning.

Unless of course the judge won't allow an effective cross examination.

DanTheMan said...

>>From the little bit quoted, sounds like she is describing a date rape

Nice... convict him for something he's not charged with.

Kangaroos everywhere are ashamed of this court.

Freeman Hunt said...

That's it. The prosecution is toast.

jameswhy said...

I was under the impression that Stormy/Stephanie, after she lost her defamation suit against Trump (in Ohio, represented by Avenati) gave an affidavit to the Court that admitted she had never had sexual relations with that man, Mr. Trump.

So was she lying then, or is she lying now? Probably doesn’t matter since Crackhead Judge will likely suppress any pro-Trump evidence.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

"Reporting on X is that Stormy testified that she had sex with Trump without a condom."

I couldn't find a clip so skip ahead to about 8:10. NSFW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGxLsirjCLc

lonejustice said...

I know I am old and old fashioned. But how many other Presidents has our country had who have had sex with a porn star, and then tried to hush it up with money before an election? Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course.

lonejustice said...

Why in the hell is Trump fucking a Porn Hub whore when he has the most beautiful, sexy, intelligent wife that most men would dream of? Trump is a one sick puppy.

Drago said...

Why didn't Stormy also claim Kavanaugh's buddy held her down during the entire black out period?

Chicks generally dig that kind of layered victimhood.

James K said...

I thought the “blacked out” bit was supposed to insinuate that Trump slipped her a roofy.

Mikey NTH said...

Stormy Daniels blacked out from sex? If she did then Donald Trump is Zeus because she's had more meat run through her than a Hormel packing plant.

chuck said...

It’s a litany of commenters denouncing Althouse for one reason or another.

That's standard. The only commenters more tedious than those commenting on Althouse links are those complaining about Driscoll. It isn't even worth engaging with them, I gave that up long ago.

Ann Althouse said...

“ Ann-I am having trouble understanding your blogged sentence in the paragraph that begins Blacked out! As I'm reading it, you're stating Trump (he) wants to avoid perjuring herself (Stormy?) Can you update as to what you mean here? Thanks.”

I’m sorry and thanks for the heads up. That he was a typo and should’ve been she. I’ve fixed it now.

Mary Beth said...

Daniels claims Trump said, "This is the only way you're getting out of the trailer park."

She was living in a trailer park? I thought she was a star!

What qualifies as a "star" and that they have porn booths at golf tournaments are the two biggest surprises to me so far. At what point do you go from just another actor to star? I think it's when you tell people you slept with a presidential candidate.

The Godfather said...

OK, suppose you're the jury and based on this testimony you conclude that there's no adequate evidence that Trump forked Stormy. But Trump isn't charged with forking Stormy. He's charged with (well, I'm a little unclear about this, but I think he's charged with) recording a payment to his lawyer as legal fees, whereas part of the payment was reimbursement to the lawyer for payments to Stormy.

Now, if I'm on the jury, and the prosecutor argues that Trump committed a felony because the payment to his lawyer included a reimbursement of the the payment the lawyer made to Stormy, and I don't think Trump forked Stormy, I guess I'd think that Trump paid his lawyer to make a problem go away, and Cohen did so, and that's how it's done, and that's how it was recorded on the books. No harm, no foul.

So, I'd think Trump is a sleazeball, but innocent of the crime charged.

Rabel said...

Has Stormy declared her preferred pronouns?

I'm pretty sure she has engaged in almost every type of sex act imaginable and some of that may have rubbed-off on her.

Rabel said...

I apologize in advance.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/05/07/breaking-trump-classified-docs-trial-postponed-indefinitely-n4928842

This one's over. Trump won. Suck it, libs.

Paul said...

rhhardin said...

"Porn stars are not whores. They're actors, and the audience is the camera, not the stud. They're not after his repeat business, in particular. Stuff is shot out of sequence and so forth. That's what fluffers are for."

Hahahaha... no. A whore (or prostitute) is paid to have sex... and these porn stars are paid to have sex... in front of a camera... yes they are whores.. well paid whores but still whores.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Well judge Cannon made an interesting ruling here in Florida this afternoon: the court determined "that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury."

So much for Smith trying to slip evidence in that was “jumbled and provided to defense out of the order listed on the declaration.” Oopsie. Those FBI thugs should have been more careful with the evidence.

Aggie said...

That's funny, I thought there were signed, sworn affidavits available for this moment in history, that attested that no sexual activity occurred between the parties. Is Stormy trying to navigate this with some fresh material?

What do they call that old Soap Opera plot device, where an old story line is suddenly found to have had a different ending - you know: 'Shiela didn't fall off the cliff and drown - she was caught by a branch and has been living secretly as Doris, plotting her revenge.....'

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

LOL every Trump trial is a clown show. Each falling apart in its own special way.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Trump was sitting on the bed, AND he was blocking access to the exit door.

This little pairing completely blew up the story for me. She appears to be visualizing a typical Holiday Inn room, where the bed takes up enough space that it might be possible for a person sitting on the bed to also be blocking movement in the room.

Yes. I, myself, am SURE that when Trump gets a room, it's one of those tiny rooms. Because that would be so in character for the man.

Narayanan said...

she "blacked out"
=================
does anything sear into hyppocampus during balckout?

Big Mike said...

Surprising no one, Judge Merchan denied a motion for a mistrial by Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche following Stormy Daniels’s testimony about his client. According to attorney Blanche “The guardrails for this witness answering questions from the government were just thrown to the side.”

I also understand that Bradley Smith, who as a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post to the effect that the payments made to Daniels and the other woman were unseemly but not illegal under federal election law, has been told by Judge Merchan that he cannot offer expert opinion as to whether Donald Trump broke the relevant election laws.

So the fix is in.

However there was good news on the legal front for Trump today, because his trial date on the Mar-a-Largo documents case has been postponed indefinitely following the revelation that Jack Smith and the FBI do not understand “chain of custody.”

Achilles said...

Hassayamper said...

"Judge" Merchan will probably face bar sanctions and be removed over the fallout from this "trial."

HAHAHA! Sanctions from the New York State Bar? You can't be serious. I'd bet next month's mortgage payment he is more likely to get an award from them for presiding over this circus.

Short term maybe. But Merchan was given a job by the boss. What happens when you fail the boss?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Michael K said...

"Lonejustice" is certain that "Stormy's" story is true. The issue of extortion never crosses his tiny mind. The lawyer's negotiations sound a lot like it.

Narayanan said...

A whore (or prostitute) is paid to have sex... and these porn stars are paid to have sex.
====================
a whore is paid by John; porn actor not paid by John?

also in present instance porn actor paid on behalf of Trump = big difference ???

Bob Boyd said...

The room was spinning, she couldn't feel her hands and feet, she fell into a swoon...all because Trump stood before her in his underwear...and she's a professional!

That Trump's a rascal.

Women are going to read this and they are going to want this. They are going to want The Donald Trump Experience.

Did anyone ask Stormy what she was wearing when she came out of the bathroom?

Bob Boyd said...

Stuff is shot out on sequins and so forth.

Christopher B said...

Greg the Class Traitor said...
She's telling a lie that can't be disproved, to avoid telling a lie that might be disproved.


That's reasonable. I think I somewhat stumbled across that rationale as I was thinking through my comment without realizing it. However, if she's lying about whether or not she can remember the activities in the bed room which I would say isn't likely to be disproved then what lie is she avoiding telling? or is she simply doing a really bad job of avoiding contradicting her previous accounts of the event (which weren't under oath)?

Christopher B said...

onejustice said...
I know I am old and old fashioned. But how many other Presidents has our country had who have had sex with a porn star, and then tried to hush it up with money before an election?


Ok, Rip van Justice, did you sleep through the Presidency of Bill Clinton?

John henry said...


Did anyone ask Stormy what she was wearing when she came out of the bathroom?

CNN was running a live blog that was almost a transcript.

Daniel's said she came out of the bathroom undressed, then took off her bra.

It sounded to me like she took off her clothes in the bathroom and her bra in the bedroom.

But it was not clear. She might have been fully dressed coming out of the bathroom.

What is clear is that she, not djt, is the one who removed her own clothes.

John Henry

Achilles said...

chuck said...

It’s a litany of commenters denouncing Althouse for one reason or another.

That's standard. The only commenters more tedious than those commenting on Althouse links are those complaining about Driscoll. It isn't even worth engaging with them, I gave that up long ago.

Driscoll is a Murdoch plant. I am pretty sure he is part of the deal for Glenn to be able to write a column at the NY Post.

Really PJMedia and Instapundit are a Murdoch property and it is pretty easy to see that skewing of everything posted there. Driscoll is a Biden voter and everyone knows it. Green is a naked neocon warmonger.

They deserve far more ridicule for their Nevertrump/Neocon bullshit than they actually get.

Oligonicella said...

rhhardin:
Porn stars are not whores.

Webster's Unabridged - pg 2171, col 3

whore - noun

1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet
2. to act as a whore
3. to consort with whores

They get paid for fucking. At times with people they've not met until filming. They're whores.

Paddy O said...

"But how many other Presidents has our country had who have had sex with a porn star, and then tried to hush it up with money before an election?"

I'm not a presidential historian, but I did get a history major, and from what I know about our presidents, it's probably a shorter list on who didn't have sex with whatever was the equivalent of a porn star in their era.

JFK, of course, made it part of his regular mission, maybe even daily routine, far surpassing the amateur efforts of Clinton or any of the others.

Trump isn't abnormally immoral for our Presidents. He's probably, sadly, more moral than most, including the present one.

RCOCEAN II said...

Of course she blacked out. Sex was something scary and unusual for her.

She was unsure and frightened. A nine year old girl again. What was Trump after? - The Virgin Daniels.

Big Mike said...

Like, probably, most of the people on this thread I would like to see a floor plan for the room Trump was renting back when this episode is alleged to have happened. I spent a number of years doing a lot of travel on behalf of my corporation. I imagine Trump stayed in suites, versus the sort of rooms I mostly overnighted in, but I have sometimes stayed in suites. However I’ve only stayed in one suite where the bathroom was only accessible from the bedroom, and where the bed also was positioned so that a person could not easily get past the bed and into the outer room. Some suites had the bathroom only accessible from the bedroom, but the door from the bedroom to the outer area was between the bathroom door and the bed. Most of the other suites I’ve stayed in were laid out with the bathroom door outside the bedroom, because it was designed to accommodate a family with the kids using a sleeper sofa in the main area. I did once stay in the honeymoon suite of an upscale hotel because the hotel had screwed up my reservation and they didn’t want me (or the corporation) taking my business elsewhere. I recall the bathroom as being accessible only from the bedroom, but the bedroom was so huge there was no way a person sitting on the bed could block access to the bedroom door.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Christopher B said...
However, if she's lying about whether or not she can remember the activities in the bed room which I would say isn't likely to be disproved then what lie is she avoiding telling? or is she simply doing a really bad job of avoiding contradicting her previous accounts of the event (which weren't under oath)?

She has previously stated in public that she did not have sex with Trump. If she says not that she did have sex with him, they can bring up those previous statements to impeach her testimony.

She's already been burned once by the court system, now owing Trump $600,000. If she's cautious about giving it another shot at her, that's wise of her

Drago said...

Michael K: ""Lonejustice" is certain that "Stormy's" story is true. The issue of extortion never crosses his tiny mind. The lawyer's negotiations sound a lot like it."

LLR-democratical lonejustice, just like LLR-democraticals Chuck and Rich, know perfectly well its all just another New Soviet Democratical hoax being spun into a lawfare attack with no basis in another lefty kangaroo court.

What readers need to internalize is this: that's precisely why they love it so much.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

This happened in 2006.
Why go after Trump now?

oh right - humiliations. galore.

This is corrupt law-fare and most non-hiveminder understand clearly.

Rusty said...

lonejustice said...
"Why in the hell is Trump fucking a Porn Hub whore when he has the most beautiful, sexy, intelligent wife that most men would dream of? Trump is a one sick puppy."

But then there is the very real possibility that she's making the whole thing up. She doesn't exactly have a reputation of veracity. But if you want to believe that she's a whore with a heart of gold then be my guest.

Mary Beth said...

Trump was sitting on the bed, AND he was blocking access to the exit door.

He's very nimble.

MacMacConnell said...

So women Trump has sex with either forget what year it was or black out right after he makes them see God.

Craig Mc said...

"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. "

"Hey, if E Jean Carroll can get a payday for that steaming load, why not me?"

Iman said...

Blogger Gusty Winds said...
In the South they raise you to submit to sex from old men?

“I thought that was the Mormons???”

I suspect you took candy from strangers once too often. That’s what can happen in a cheese-based economy.

Iman said...

Snapper Daniels, of all mattress actresses, was leery of Trump’s 38” Jack Cravelle.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

“Nine-year-old girl”? Well if she was it’d be Biden in that room with her, and the shower, etc.

Rusty said...

What most likely happened. Daniels for whatever reason found herself in Trumps hotel room. Offered to have sex with him for a rediculous amount of money. He refused.

walter said...

Blogger Mary Beth said...
Trump was sitting on the bed, AND he was blocking access to the exit door.
He's very nimble.
--
To wit, the famous headlock of SS from the backseat.

Hey..
If Stormy was suddenly 9 yrs old, that opens up the full bodily exam a la Michael Jackson. Chuck! gettin hot now.