From "Stormy Daniels, Once Paid to Keep Quiet, Could Testify Against Trump/Ms. Daniels could take the stand this week, allowing jurors to see and hear from the person at the center of the criminal case against the former president" (NYT).
Ms. Daniels was ordered to pay Mr. Trump more than $600,000 in legal fees following a failed defamation suit that her former and now jailed lawyer, Michael Avenatti, filed against him on her behalf in 2018, and subsequent appeals....
She says they met at the booth for her porn label, Wicked Pictures, at a golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. There is a picture of them together there. He invited her to his hotel suite, she says, and they had sex — after he offered to bring her on “The Apprentice.” He never did. She does not claim they had sex again....
While Ms. Daniels has insisted she has been telling the truth, she has also at times seemed worn down by what she has said has been a brutal and exhausting period....
I'd like to know more about how "Apprentice" contestants were selected. Are there other stories out there like hers? Was the competition corrupt? You'd think we'd have heard more about that if so.
The extortion version of the story is too believable not to give rise to reasonable doubt, but is Stormy's story even part of what the prosecutor needs to prove? Why risk bringing her out?
Is it just the idea that the jury — bored by weeks of unpretty people yammering about documents and where to file them — is hankering after the porn star? Appease them or they'll jump at whatever inferences the defense lawyers will derive from her absence?
UPDATE: "Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the heart of Trump’s hush money trial is in the courthouse and is expected to testify today" (NYT). I think this is a mistake for the prosecution. Maybe a sign of desperation.
MORE: The NYT live reporting continues:
It is not clear what Stormy Daniels will testify about. Though the hush-money payment to her is at the center of the case, she was not directly involved in what prosecutors say were Trump’s efforts to cover up her account. Today, on the stand, she could tell her story from the beginning — meaning the story of having had sex with Trump in 2006, which he has always denied — or just stick to talking about how she received the $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen.
So two major questions as we await her arrival are: 1. Why is she here? and 2. Is it worth it for the prosecution? That second question is will be [sic] particularly interesting once defense lawyers begin to question Daniels.
Sounds like the NYT reporter agrees with me — this is a mistake for the prosecution and maybe a sign of desperation.
Is it possible that the prosecution thinks this works as a way to humiliate Trump?
পোস্টগুলি
৮০টি মন্তব্য:
The Yammering and the Hankering
That's the title of one of my unwritten books.
I'd like to know more about how "Apprentice" contestants were selected. Are there other stories out there like hers?
I'd imagine Geraldo Rivera and Piers Morgan would have blown Trump to get on the show.
"I'd like to know more about how "Apprentice" contestants were selected."
Probably much the same way parts are given out for Hollywood movies and HBO series, promotions are given out in the corporate world, and ascendancy in politics happens for bowls of lettuce like our Vice President. By sleeping with someone.
She had tried to ship this story five years before no takers
Is it just the idea that the jury — bored by weeks of unpretty people yammering about documents and where to file them — is hankering after the porn star?
The jury isn’t wrong- it’s boring. A porn star is bloggable…
I think this is a mistake for the prosecution.
So far Bragg and Colangelo do not come across as the sharpest tacks in the bulletin board. If Trump really does have a signed affidavit from Daniels, as is rumored, that they really did not have sex, then Trump will win this case in the court of public opinion, regardless of what the judge and jury have to say.
Maybe a sign of desperation.
You don’t say!
No hankering here for a worn out, tatted up sex worker. Limp, as opposed to hard - pass.
I'm no lawyer, but Stormy Daniels really seems easily impeachable to me. Her own "To Whom It May Concern" open letter from 2018, denying the "reports of an alleged sexual relationship" -- and her many other similar denials -- are incompatible with her present claims. It doesn't even matter whether she was lying then but telling the truth now, or vice versa; her proven willingness to lie whenever it would benefit her makes any testimony from her worthless.
After all of this palaver for an accused-but-unverified (and then, denied) sex act, and subsequent amateurish lawfare, I would have thought it's be more like The Hammering and the Wankering
The two star witnesses in this case against Trump are a porn star and an admitted perjurer. You have to admit when the Commie-Pinkos go after Trump, they bring out the big guns.
Big Fani is waiting in the the on deck circle, with evidence manipulator Jack Smith waiting in the wings.
The indictment is an accounting crime.
Stormy Daniels is not going to testify to any accounting related activities.
Harvey Weinstein had his NY convictions of sexual assault overturned because the trial Judge allowed testimony from 3 witnesses that offered testimony that never advanced the legal charges of the State.
How is this Judge going to keep his job with such a flagrant mismanagement of the trial?
Trump wasn't bragging of groping women. He was commenting on women going after celebrities.
When does the crime bit start
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns
Well, maybe next year...
Was the competition corrupt? You'd think we'd have heard more about that if so.
How could Celebrity Apprentice be corrupt? It wasn't a quiz show like the $64,000 Question. The winner was ultimately determined by Donald Trump. He could do what he wanted.
My favorite Celebrity Apprentice contestant was IL Gov Rod Blagojevich while he was under indictment. They guy was a disaster. He played stupid. I think part of it was an act.
Who knew "porn labels" had booths at golf tournaments?
Was the competition corrupt?
It wasn't a competition, it was a reality show. Of course it was rigged.
Stormy's Entrance Music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP_TmSqwXps
Tasty Phone
This oughta be good.
I think this is a mistake for the prosecution. Maybe a sign of desperation.
Depends on what you think the goals of this prosecution are.
It certainly has nothing to do with enforcing any actual written Law or Justice.
You have to determine the goals before you can determine if it is successful or not.
rhhardin said...
Trump wasn't bragging of groping women. He was commenting on women going after celebrities.
The NYT's and really female democrat voters cannot deal with the truth of Trump's comment.
They all act like harem girls.
But remember that this misreading of the comment was enough to convince even Ann to vote for Hillary in 2016 and before that Bill Clinton who was a known rapist.
Pure gaslighting for the NYT readers. Hillary and her RINO posse had spent months running around the country talking about Trump's supposed misogyny. He'd been divorced once already and his other relationships were tabloid press fodder for years. The Access Hollywood tape didn't move the needle an millimeter.
As iowan2 points out, Daniel's testimony is likely unrelated to any of the issues at trial. It may even be, like Hope Hicks' appearance, a net detriment by showing Daniels, Avenatti, and crew realized they could scam Trump and his campaign had nothing to do with the NDA.
Ann Althouse said...
"The Yammering and the Hankering
That's the title of one of my unwritten books."
Made me think this up:
'The Yammering Sound and the Hankering Fury.'
Why does anyone take this strategically-distracting show trial seriously?
Take it for what it is: Partisan political prostitutes going through the motions of a "trial" because they are paid to do so. It follows dozens of other partisan prostitutes who went through dubious legal processes to "get Trump." It's no accident that they've focus on an aging prostitute who once tried to dig gold from deep-pocketed golfer long, long, long ago.
Birds of a feather flock together.
In ancient Rome, there was a concept of infamia, which was applied on an annual basis by the censors to those among the population who had - either by their own actions or in rarer circumstances by choice - lost all social and legal standing within the Roman legal system.
The primary reason this existed was to prevent unreliable, socially outcast, and degraded persons from having any standing against a reliable, socially integrated, honorable person in court. They could not give testimony. Could not make oaths. Could not represent the plebs. In essence, they had zero voice for Roman political purposes because of the jobs they did (like prostitution) or because of crimes they'd committed.
At base it was because the Romans and even civilizations before them realized that certain types of people, certain professions, and certain actions designated a person as totally untrustworthy. A person that would say or do anything, had no scruples, zero principles, zero honor, and would damage irrevocably the Roman legal system if they were allowed to participate in it.
Daniels is such a person. She's a hooker. Infamia.
Well, there is her statement vehemently denying having sex with Trump.
Ann - Will your book garner the unhinged?
(sorry)
They gonna ask her to describe Trumps dick.
Guaranteed.
Iowan: "How is this Judge going to keep his job with such a flagrant mismanagement of the trial?"
It's New York City and he's a political hack. Otherwise this case would have been thrown out long ago. He may get an award.
@ iowan2
Reminds me of Judge Ito trying to make the most of his 15 minutes.
"STOP THE YAMMERING!!!"
Is it possible that the prosecution thinks this works as a way to humiliate Trump?
Yes. This is driven in large part by a long-standing rage over the Clinton impeachment, and the Dem desire for revenge. They couldn't go after W because 9/11 made him untouchable, so their anger festered for sixteen years until Trump came along. T
"The Yammering and the Hankering"
They're unwritten because Althouse isn't thinking like a bankable best-selling author. Those are two books, not one -- both supernatural thrillers in the Stephen King mold.
The Yammering by Augustina Altacasa (Althouse's non de plume)
Synopsis:
Wall Street living legend and international man of action, Lance Clearcut finds himself haunted by the vengeful ghost of his first wife during his epic third bid for political glory. The evil spirit saps his energy and ambition by loudly and incessantly complaining about the carpets in the Clearcut's palatial Bel Aire mansion.
The Hankering
Synopsis:
The sequel to Ms. Altacasa's wildly popular first novel (39 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller List) tells a harrowing tale of unrequited love. The exorcism of the demonic spirit posing as the ghost of the late Aimee Clemenseau-Clearcut has finally granted Lance a good night's sleep, but he awakens the next morning with an uncontrollable appetite for White Castle Sliders. Can Father Michael Patrick Eamon O'Shea rescue Lance before he eats himself into the Guinness Book of World Records?
I expect her to testify that she had sex with Trump, and later was paid to keep it quiet. I expect her to testify that she was pressured and paid to make false denials of the sexual affair afterward. I expect her to confirm lots of the prosecution's other witnesses.
I also expect Ms. Clifford a/k/a Stormy Daniels to willingly discuss sexual details inasmuch as it is what she has to sell these days, but that the trial court will limit that testimony.
I expect that the defense will attack her credibility in lots of the standard ways and that the trial court will allow that.
In the end, I think it is striking that Donald Trump is still claiming that he never had any involvement with her. Trump didn't follow a defensive path of saying, "Yes, we had a one-time sexual encounter but that was all, and afterwards she extorted me." And really; if that is Trump's claim, does it not open the testimonial door to having "Stormy" describe in detail Trump's genitalia as proof that she is being truthful about the sexual affair and Trump is lying about it?
It's the Trial of the century!
I hanker for yams with my Thanksgiving dinner.
I see turkeys everywhere lately. Especially on the news.
Jeffrey Toobin: This prosecution is "collapsing."
Ann Althouse: This prosecution is showing signs of "desperation."
Andrew McCarthy: This prosecution is "mostly theater."
Alan Dershowitz: This prosecution is "the weakest criminal case I've seen in 60 years of practicing law."
We won't have to wait long -- by Memorial Day I expect -- to find out if these appraisals were accurate or not.
My recommendation to Althouse would be to expand her intake of information about the case before the jury reaches a verdict so that she will better understand a guilty verdict of the case if that is the result. In most broadcast days, MSNBC is featuring about a dozen very experienced writers and reporters who are there in the courtroom and in the press overflow room. You can discount those sources as politically motivated, but at least you'd know what is being reported about the prosecution.
To establish her credibility, I hope the prosecution enters into evidence some movies from her body of work. Looking at her IMDB page, I see that she starred in a porn movie called "Stormy Trumps All". It's a sensitive portrayal about one woman's efforts to gang bang the RNC in order to raise their awareness of women's issues. Seeing such a movie will add gravitas not just to her persona but to the judicial proceedings themselves.
"It wasn't a competition, it was a reality show."
Competition is one type of reality. Whether it's rigged is a separate question.
Of course, "The Apprentice" was a competition. How could you possibly argue that it's not. The idea that it could be rigged pretty much necessitates that there was a competition.
"It wasn't a competition, it was a reality show. Of course it was rigged."
So, Mr. Cynic, what's your view on whether American elections are rigged?
@Quaestor
Very funny.
I liked my 2 word format (like "The Red and the Black" and "The Naked and the Dead") but separated, I can see that it's like "The Haunting."
I think this is a mistake for the prosecution. Maybe a sign of desperation.
No, the same people who want to normalize pedophilia and allow 8 year olds to make decisions about life altering medical treatment want their chance to LARP as 17th Century Puritans for a while. They want to clutch their pearls over Trump having an affair with a porn actress. I've already seen the usual suspects on CNN going on and on about how Trump violated his marriage vows and the toll it must have taken on Melania. Funny though, I don't remember that being the case when Bill Clinton was playing hide the Cohiba in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky.
Who knew "porn labels" had booths at golf tournaments?
When I was a younger man, I played in one or two golf tournaments a month.
These are all small town rural IA courses. (at the Time Iowa had more golf courses per capita, that any state in the union) One of the tournaments, a stag tournament, the beverage carts, and the 3 bars on selected Tee boxes, were staffed by Strippers. I had no idea we were in the same tony atmosphere as Trump.
Or, maybe this
Stormy Daniels entry music, version 2
OK Chuck
In most broadcast days, MSNBC is featuring about a dozen very experienced writers and reporters who are there in the courtroom
Monday around midday I heard both CNN and MSNBC, legal experts say they had not seen any testimony, or presented evidence to support the charges listed in the indictment.
Note that these were the midday shows. NOT the evening shows that have been lying since the indictment landed.
Chuck, Esq,
Please point us idiots to the evidence of fraud, required to turn an accounting entry, labeling fees paid to a lawyer, as legal expenses.
Please give the persons testimony or the presented evidence of that fraud.
"she was not directly involved"
Who cares? This is lawfare by dart-throwing. As are the cases themselves.
The witness for the prosecution yesterday technically destroyed the prosecution's case. The simple fact is, and I pointed this out months ago, the labeling of the payments to Cohen was never under Trump's control- in an organization as large of Trump Inc. such details are handled by the accounting department, not Trump. The witness yesterday confirmed that- he and the software the firm uses is the reason the payments were labeled "legal expenses". It doesn't matter if Trump even signed the checks- he wasn't the one who labeled the expenses in the firm's accounting software. Not that it was even a crime to begin with, but if the prosecution's own witness confessed to be the one who applied the label, then Trump can't be legally convicted of this particular misdemeanor, and without that the entire case is moot.
Now, I don't think it will matter to the jury that the prosecution proved in their ineptness that Trump was innocent- they will convict because they know criminal guilt isn't the point- like Chuck above, they are only interested in delivering a political blow by misusing the criminal justice system in this grotesque manner. These are all people without any ethics whatsoever. Chuck above is the commentary face of corruption.
I have no idea if this is desperation or not. Any competent judge would have thrown the case out immediately, and no competent D.A. would waste time on this. The testimony so far has not been helpful to the prosecution and at times is amateurish and embarrassing. Keep in mind that even if the underlying charges are found guilty, which is highly dubious given nothing involved is illegal, those are only misdemeanors of no particular consequence. To be felonies they have to be found to be in the furtherance of another crime, which at the moment is not established and is only hinted at in vague terms.
The prosecution is looking for jury nullification. It is utterly corrupt, but utterly corrupt can often be very effective, at least in the short term.
the disclosure of a recording on the set of Access Hollywood in which he bragged of groping women
Liars.
What he said was "they'll let you do anything", to which Billy Bush agreed.
What he did NOT say was"I've done all these things to them."
IOW, what Trump said in that tape was that "the casting couch" is real. Which we also learned from exposures about Weinstein.
But with Weinstein we got numbers women credibly coming forward saying "he raped me" or "he destroyed my career because I refused to let him rape me".
For Trump, all we have is a lying hag who claims Trump raped her, but wont' even tell us what year the event is supposed to have taken place, and a porn actress who says he talked her into having sex with him with promises, not threats.
I've never lied to a woman to get sex from her. But I'm aware that if "I'll love you in the morning" is a crime, most men belong in jail.
So all these attacks against Trump are clear BS
Iowan2,
I have repeatedly asked Chuck to defend the charges in detail- he refuses because even he doesn't think these charges are legitimate- Chuck only supports the trial for its Stalinist nature, but Chuck doesn't have the courage to admit this fact openly. Chuck is a cunt.
FullMoon said...
They gonna ask her to describe Trumps dick.
Guaranteed.
And it would be too much to expect for Trump to whip it out...
And really; if that is Trump's claim, does it not open the testimonial door to having "Stormy" describe in detail Trump's genitalia as proof that she is being truthful about the sexual affair and Trump is lying about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3dkZi1S18I&ab_channel=SwizzleStick
Chuck said...
And really; if that is Trump's claim, does it not open the testimonial door to having "Stormy" describe in detail Trump's genitalia as proof that she is being truthful about the sexual affair and Trump is lying about it?
The obvious point here is that Daniels is just a liar making things up.
By the end of the trial Chuck is going to be demanding Trump be stripped naked and forced to hold an erection for the jury to compare Daniel's description to the truth.
"I liked my 2-word format..."
So did I, but Hollywood loves built-in sequels. Your title reminded me of Irving Stone's novel about Michelangelo, The Agony and the Ecstacy, and the Carol Reed film derived from it. Mad magazine satirized it as The Agony and the Agony. However, any book with "yammering" in the title must be satire from the get-go.
Chuck expects a lot from Stormy Daniel's testimony. I don't think he will get what he expects. But then maybe he can get some gratification from watching Stormy in "Dirty Cowgirls".
Ann Althouse said...
The Yammering and the Hankering
That's the title of one of my unwritten books.
I'd garner a copy and grapple with the ideas. The Garnering and the Grappling.
iowan2 said...
“When I was a younger man, I played in one or two golf tournaments a month. These are all small town rural IA courses. (at the Time Iowa had more golf courses per capita, that any state in the union) One of the tournaments, a stag tournament, the beverage carts, and the 3 bars on selected Tee boxes, were staffed by Strippers. I had no idea we were in the same tony atmosphere as Trump.”
Around 3 decades ago, I went with a bunch of guys to the Detroit Auto Show. Someone had the idea to go to a big strip club across the river in Windsor the night before. When we went to the auto Show the next day, we recognized almost all of the girls from the stage at the strip club.
Freder Frederson said...
Was the competition corrupt?
It wasn't a competition, it was a reality show. Of course it was rigged.
5/7/24, 8:27 AM
Just like the reality show of our elections now.
Chuck sez -
"I expect her to testify that she had sex with Trump, and later was paid to keep it quiet."
You and your leftist Soviet pals do not realize -that is not illegal.
"Who knew "porn labels" had booths at golf tournaments?"
Where do you think they get the 18 holes?
As for Trump, I've always read that he is a raging germaphobe.
He must have been really horny to fuck a walking petri dish...
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/05/06/the-one-guy-who-could-stop-the-nyc-trump-case-isnt-allowed-to-testify-why-n4928777
From the article:
So if you're Trump's attorneys, you might say "Hey, let's get that attorney guy, the former Federal Elections Commission Chairman, who wrote that op-ed back in 2018 about how these payments aren't federal elections violations."
[So corrupt "judge" Marchan ruled on his possible testimony]
This was the ruling before the trial.
He can come and say what the law is but may not offer his expert opinion on whether he thinks Trump broke it.
From me: the correct action for Trump's attorneys is to get the guy on the stand, ask all the allowed questions, then ask "So, did Trump break that law?" And get a "No" from the witness before the judge can interfere.
What's the judge going to do? Declare a mistrial? Try to throw Trump's lawyers in jail? Try to throw Trump in jail?
When, like "judge" Marchan, you're clearly established you're corrupt, you remove from everyone else any requirement to respect your demands
By the end of the trial Chuck is going to be demanding Trump be stripped naked and forced to hold an erection for the jury to compare Daniel's description to the truth.
I thunk you stumbled upon Chuck's hatred/jealousy of Trump.
Skeptical Voter said...
Chuck expects a lot from Stormy Daniel's testimony. I don't think he will get what he expects. But then maybe he can get some gratification from watching Stormy in "Dirty Cowgirls".
Read his comment again. He's looking forward to her description of Trump's d!ck.
"The decision to call Daniels, who acted in adult films..." - ABC NEWS
A brief sampling:
"Nymphos"
"Blow"
"Porking with Pride 2" (Original not listed)
"The Witches of Breastwick"
And, coincidently:
"Stormy Trumps All" and "Grab Her By the Pussy"
All money-makers followed by recent entries
"Axe to Grind" and "Vendetta"
Presumably after the trial:
"Here Comes the Judge"
"Counselor, Your Titness"
"The Hole Truth"
He's looking forward to her description of Trump's d!ck.
Unless he's got a very distinctive birthmark, or a case of Peyronie's disease like (allegedly) Bill Clinton, what could this possibly prove?
"In most broadcast days, MSNBC is featuring about a dozen very experienced writers and reporters who are there in the courtroom and in the press overflow room. You can discount those sources as politically motivated, but at least you'd know what is being reported about the prosecution."
If I want to be informed about the case, I'm not going to waste my time listening to the windbags on the networks (MSNBC or otherwise). There are people in the courtroom live-tweeting the proceedings, and NYT has been publishing transcripts. I don't much care what's being opined "about the prosecution." I'd rather form my own opinion about what the prosecution actually did, plus I can read faster than I can listen. Tone of voice and body language are missing from those resources, but it's still better than MSNBC.
Chuck probably has a well-used blow-up Trump doll in his bedroom.
'Chuck probably has a well-used blow-up Trump doll in his bedroom.'
Don't think so.
Low-IQ, low-T beta males like Chuck are always bottoms...
Achilles said... By the end of the trial Chuck is going to be demanding Trump be stripped naked and forced to hold an erection for the jury to compare Daniel's description to the truth.
--
She could demonstrate where he put it on a doll.
To be fair, it would be the only way to uphold the dignity of the proceedings.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Chuck probably has a well-used blow-up Trump doll in his bedroom.
--
Nah. It's a Rachel Maddow.
No matter how bad the prosecution, no matter how weak (non-existent) the case against Trump, he'll be convicted. Do you recall the Mann v Steyn case?Even though Mann's case was destroyed the jury awarded damages against Steyn. Of $1 and $1 million in punitive damages. That was a DC jury. Do you think a Manhattan jury will be different?
Trump did not brag of groping women. He commented that women would let rich men, celebrities, grope them. The difference is like that of him shooting someone in the middle of 5th Avenue at high noon, and noting that supporters wouldn't desert him if....
This misquoting, along with "drinking bleach" and "asking Russians for Hillary's emails", will be one of a list in a footnote item in a history book one day about weaponized media.
Some lies are so much fun to tell again and again and again that they never grow stale, just old. Trump is also being prosecuted for verbalizing the wish of every losing candidate in an election ever, saying he needs to find more votes. Some lies are so much fun they turn into lawfare.
Oh, for a mere plastic turkey of the GWBush years to journalism over!
Hassayamper said...
Unless he's got a very distinctive birthmark, or a case of Peyronie's disease like (allegedly) Bill Clinton, what could this possibly prove?
Proof has nothing to do with his interest.
‘Jeffrey Toobin: ‘This prosecution is "collapsing."‘
The chicken choker’s career collapsed as quickly as his pecker went flaccid.
It's rather obvious that the prosecution has concluded its case is in deep trouble, even with this jury. Calling Stephanie Clifford to testify and to make her now vague allegation of sexual assault is designed to shift the narrative away from the prosecution's failures.
I have an idea, an Althouse/Quaestor collaboration. Picture this, music drama, yeah! Full scale, like Bayreuth. We'll call it Götteryämmerung. Siegfried contemplates suicide because Brünnhilde won't STFU about her unresolved daddy issues. Whaddya think, ma'am?
Lololololololol!!!
If ever I deserved to get royally slagged on this blog it was for this:
Iman said...
‘Jeffrey Toobin: ‘This prosecution is "collapsing."‘
The chicken choker’s career collapsed as quickly as his pecker went flaccid.
Commenter "Iman" quoted me (in part) accurately. But Jeffery Toobin didn't say that; Jonathan Turley said it. And it was my 100% error in having carelessly typed Toobin's full name instead of Turley's name. Althouse did a blog post on from Turley from the time that Turley was calling the prosecution a "collapsing" one which is why I used it.
My bad; my apologies to the readers. To Toobin; sorry for misquoting you, bud. Have a good life; I hope no one else confuses you with Turley. To Turley; it's your quote, dude. You live with it.
For some reason, Toobin was top of Chuck!'s mind.
I would more expect that of "lonejustice".
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন