
IN THE COMMENTS: I write:
What detail could there be in the Stormy Daniels story that isn't already out and about?A Reasonable Man immediately says:
If it's something that wasn't in the original story that already came out, but something new AND damaging, it will raise the question why is she just putting this detail in now.
Either it's unimportant or it's going to hurt her credibility.
Or, she now feels that she is protected from any consequences associated with the NDA.My response:
Seems to me she gave an interview to In Touch Weekly 6 years ago, and it wasn't published. That was long before there was an NDA. So what does the NDA have to do with the details she gave in that old interview? How could she have felt threatened by something that didn't exist.
I'm sorry, your idea just doesn't make sense to me. I'm assuming she told her story 6 years ago and it wasn't considered worth publishing. Later, it seemed worth publishing (and it did come out and an NDA was done). It might be interesting to see her tell the story now with 60-Minutes level probing and the aura of courage in standing up to the President of the United States, but what new details might there be? I stand by my original question: either the new details are not important or she will seem less credible to be telling a story that is inconsistent with her earlier story.
