6.41 am. I'm feeling a little stressed because I'm running late. It's the fourth week of Downjay Trump's criminal trial. It's a white collar trial. Most of the witnesses we've heard from have been, I think, typical white collar witnesses in terms of their professions. We've got a former publisher, a lawyer, a counten's, a witness today, a little less typical. Stormy Daniels, porn star in a New York criminal courtroom, in front of a jury, more accustomed
to the types of witnesses they've already seen. There's a lot that could go wrong. From New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily. Today. What happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of Downjay Trump? As before, my colleague, Jonah Bromwich, was inside the courtroom. It's Friday, May 10.
So it's now day 14 of this trial. I think it's worth having you briefly and in broad strokes, catch listeners up on the biggest developments that have occurred since your last on, which was the day that opening arguments were made by both the defense and the prosecution. So just give us that brief recap. Sure. It's all been the prosecution's case so far. And prosecutors have a saying, which
is that the evidence is coming in great. And I think for this prosecution, which is trying to show that Trump falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal to ease his way into the White House in 2016, the evidence has been coming in pretty well. It's coming well through David Pecker, former publisher of the National Inquirer, who testified that he entered into a secret plot with Trump and Michael Cohen, his fixer at the time to
suppress negative stories about Trump, the candidate. It came in pretty well through Keith Davidson, who was a lawyer to Stormy Daniels in 2016 and negotiated the Hush Money Payment. And we've seen all these little bits and pieces of evidence that tell the story that prosecutors want to tell. And the case makes sense so far. We can't tell what the jury's thinking, as we always say. But we can tell that there's a narrative that's coherent
and that matches up with the prosecution's opening statement. Then we come to Tuesday. And that day really marks the first time that the prosecution's strategy seems a little bit risky because that's the day that Stormy Daniels gets called to the witness stand. Okay. Well, just explain why the prosecution putting Stormy Daniels on the stand would be so risky. And I guess it makes sense to answer that in the context of why the prosecution
is calling her as a witness at all. Well, you can see why it makes sense to have her. The Hush Money Payment was to her the cover up of the Hush Money Payment in some ways concerns her. And so she's this character who's very much at the center of the story. But according to prosecutors, she's not at the center of the crime. The prosecution is telling a story and they hope a compelling one. And arguably that story starts with Stormy Daniels.
It starts in 2006 when Stormy Daniels says that she and Trump had sex, which is something that Trump is always denied. So if prosecutors were to not call Stormy Daniels to the stand, you would have this big hole in the case. It would be like effect, effect, effect. But where is the cause? Where is the person who set off this chain reaction? But Stormy Daniels is a porn star. She's there to testify about sex. Sex and pornography are things that
the jurors were not asked about during jury selection. And those are subjects that bring up all kinds of different complex reactions in people. And so when the prosecutors bring Stormy Daniels to the courtroom, it's very difficult to know how the jurors will take it, particularly given that she's about to describe a sexual episode that she says she had with the former president. Will the jurors think that makes sense as they sit here and try to
decide a falsifying business records case? Or will they ask themselves, why are we hearing this? So the reason why this is the first time that the prosecution strategy is for journalists like you a little bit confusing is because it's the first time that the prosecution seems to be taking a genuine risk in what they're putting before these jurors. Everything else has been kind of cut and dry and a little bit more mechanical. This is just a wild card.
This is like live ammunition to some extent. Everything else is settled and controlled and they know what's going to happen. With Stormy Daniels, that's not the case. Okay, so walk us through the testimony when the prosecution brings her to the stand, what actually happens. It starts as every witness does with what's called direct examination, which is fancy word for saying prosecutors question Stormy Daniels and they have her tell
her story. First, they have her tell the jury about her education and where she grew up and her professional experience. Because of Stormy Daniels' biography, that quickly goes into stripping and then goes into making adult films. I thought the prosecutor who questioned her, Susan Hoffinger, had this nice touch in talking about that because not only did she ask Daniels about acting in adult films, but she asked her about writing and directing
them too, emphasizing the more professional aspects of that work and giving a little more credit to the witness as if to say, well, you may think this or you may think that, but this is a person with dignity who took what she did seriously. Got it. What's your first impression of Daniels as a witness? It's very clear that she's nervous. She's speaking fast. She's laughing to herself and making small jokes, but the tension in the room is so serious from the beginning, from
the moment she enters that those jokes aren't landing. So it just feels like really heavy and still and almost oppressive in there. So Daniels talking quickly, seeming nervous, giving more answers than are being asked of her by the prosecution even before we get to the sexual encounter that she's about to describe. All of that presents a really disconfidding impression, I would say. And how does this move towards the encounter that Daniels ultimately has?
It starts at a golf tournament in 2006 in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Daniels meets Trump there. There are other celebrities there too. They chatted very briefly. And then she received a dinner invitation from him. She thought it over, she says, and she goes to have dinner with Trump, not at a restaurant, by the way, but she's invited to join him in the hotel suite. So she gets to the hotel suite and his bodyguard is there and the hotel door
is cracked open and the bodyguard greets her and says she looks nice, this and that. And she goes in and there's Donald Trump just as expected. But what's not expected, she says, is that he's not wearing what you would wear to a dinner with a stranger. But instead, she says silk or satin pajamas. She asked him to change. She says, and he obliges. He goes and he puts on a dress shirt and dress pants and they sit down at the hotel suite's
dining room table. And they have a kind of bizarre dinner. Trump is asking her very personal questions about pornography and safe sex. And she testifies that she teased him about kind of vein and pompous. He is. And then at some point, she goes to the bathroom and she sees that he has got his toiletries in there, his old spice, his gold tweezers.
Very specific details. Yeah, we're getting a ton of detail in this scene. And the reason we're getting those is because prosecutors are trying to elicit those details to establish that this is a credible person that this thing did happen, despite what Donald Trump and his lawyers say. And the reason you can know what happened, prosecutors seem to be saying, is because look at all these details, she can still summon up. Right. She comes out
of the bathroom and she says that Donald Trump is on the hotel bed. And what stands out to me there is what she describes as a very intense physical reaction. She says that she blacked out and she quickly clarifies she doesn't mean from drugs or alcohol. She means that she says that the intensity of this experience was such that suddenly she can't remember every detail. The prosecution asks a question that cuts directly to the sex.
Essentially, did you start having sex with him? And Daniel says that she did and she continues to provide more details than even I think the prosecution wanted. And I think we don't want to go chapter in verse through this claims sexual encounter. But I wonder what the details stand out and which details feel important given the prosecution strategy
here. All the details stand out because it's a story about having had sex with the former president and the more salacious and more private the details feel the more you're going to remember them. So we'll remember that stormy Daniel said what position they had sex in. We'll remember that she said he didn't use a condom. Whether that's important to the prosecution's case. Now that's a much harder question to answer as we've been saying.
Now what I can tell you is as she's describing having had sex with Donald Trump and Donald Trump is sitting right there and Eric Trump his son is sitting behind him seem to turn like a different color as he hears this embarrassment of his father being described to a courtroom full of reporters at this trial. It's hard to even describe the energy in that room.
It was like nothing I had ever experienced when it was just Daniel's testimony and seemingly the former president emotions and you almost felt like you were trapped in there with both of them as this description was happening. Well I think it's important to try to understand why the prosecution is getting these details, these salacious carnal pick your word graphic details about sex with Donald Trump. So what is the value if other details are clearly
making the point that she's recollecting something? Well I think at this point we can only speculate but one thing we can say is this was uncomfortable this felt bad and remember prosecutor's story is not about the sex it's about trying to hide this sex. So if you're trying to show a jury why it might be worthwhile to hide a story it might be worth providing lots of salacious details that a person would want to expose them to how bad that story
feels and reminding them that if they had been voters and they had heard that story and in fact they asked Daniel this very question if you hadn't accepted hush money if you hadn't signed that NDA is this the story you would have told and she said yes and so where I think they're going with this but we can't really be sure yet is that they're going to tell the jurors hey that story you can see why he wanted to cover that up can't you.
You mentioned the hush money payments what testimony does Daniels offer about that and how does it advance the prosecution's case of business fraud related to the hush money
payments. So little evidence that it's almost laughable she says that she received the hush money but we actually already heard another witness her lawyer at the time Keith Davidson testified that he had received the hush money payment on her behalf and she testified about feeling as if she had to sell this story because the election was fast approaching almost as if her leverage was slipping away because she knew this would be bad for Trump.
That feels important but just tell me understand why it's important well what the prosecution has been arguing is that Trump covered up this hush money payment in order to conceal a different crime and that crime they say was to promote his election to the presidency by a legal means right we talked about this the past so when Daniels ties her side of the payment into the election it just reminds the jurors maybe oh right this is what they're arguing.
So how does the prosecution end this very dramatic and from everything you're saying very tense questioning of stormy Daniels about this encounter well before they can even ends the defense lawyers go and they consult among themselves and then with the jury out of the room one
of them stands up and he says that the defense is moving for a mistrial on what terms he says that the testimony offered by Daniels that morning is so prejudicial so damning to Trump in the eyes of the jury that the trial can no longer be fair like how could these
jurors have heard these details and still be fair when they render their verdict and he he says a memorable expression he says you can't unring that bell meaning they heard it they can't unhear it it's over throughout this trial it should be done wow and what
is the response from the judge so the judge one were Sean here's the mouth I mean he really hears them out but at the end of their arguments he says I do think she went a little too far he says that he said there were things that were better left unsaid by stormy Daniels
by stormy Daniels and he acknowledges that she's a difficult witness but he says the remedy for that is not a mistrial is not stopping the whole thing right now the remedy for that is cross examination if the defense feels that there are issues with her story
issues with her credibility they can ask her whatever they want they can try to win the jury back over if they think this jury has been poisoned by this witness well this is their time to provide the antidote the antidote is cross examination and soon enough cross
examination starts and it is exactly as intense and combative as we expected we'll be right back so Jonah how would you characterize the defense's overall strategy in this intense cross examination of stormy Daniels people know the word impeach from
presidential impeachments but has a meaning in law to you have been peach a witness and specifically their credibility and that's what the defense is going for here they are going to try to make stormy Daniels look like a liar a fraud an extortionist a money
grubbing opportunist who wanted to take advantage of Trump and sought to do so my any means and what did that impeachment strategy look like in the courtroom the defense lawyer who questions stormy Daniels is a woman named Susan necklace she's defended Trump before
and she's a bit of a cross examination specialist we even saw her during jury selection bring up these past details to kind of confront jurors who had said nasty things about Trump on social media with and she wants to do the same thing with Daniels he wants to bring
up old interviews and old tweets and things that Daniels has said in the past that don't match what Daniels is saying from the stand specific example and do they land some of them land and some of them don't one specific example is that necklace confronts Daniels
with this old tweet where Daniel says that she's going to dance down the street if Trump goes to jail and what she's trying to show there is that Daniels is out for revenge that she hates Trump and that she wants to see him go to jail and that's why she's testifying
against them got it and Daniels is very interesting during the cross examination it's almost as if she's a different person she kind of squares her shoulders and she sits up a little straighter and she leans forward Daniels is ready to fight but it doesn't quite land
the tweet actually says all dance down the street when he selected to go to jail and Daniels goes off on this digression about how she knows that people don't get selected to go to jail that's not how it works but you can't really unseat this argument that
she's a political enemy of Donald Trump so that one kind of sticks I would say but there are other moves that necklace tries to pull that don't stick like what so unlike the prosecution which typically used words like adult adult film necklace seems to be taking every chance
she can get to say porn or pornography or porn star to make it sound base or dirty and so when she starts to ask Daniels of actually being in pornography writing acting and directing sex films she tries to land a punchline necklace does she says so you have a lot of experience
making funny stories about sex appear to be real right as if to say perhaps this story you have told about entering Trump's suite in Lake Tahoe and having sex with them was made up just another one of your fictional stories about sex but Daniels comes back and says
the sex in the films it's very much real just like what happened to me in that room and so when you have this kind of combat of lawyer cross examining very aggressively and the witness fighting back you can feel the energy in the room shift as one lands
a blow or the other does but here Daniels lands one back and the other issue that I think Susan necklace runs into is she tries to draw out disparities from interviews that Daniels gave particularly to in touch very early on once the story was out kind of like a tabloid
magazine but some of the disparities don't seem to be landing quite like necklace would want so she tries to do this complicated thing about where the bodyguard was in the room when Daniels walked into the room as described in an interview in a magazine but in that magazine
interview as it turns out Daniels mentioned that Trump was wearing pajamas and so if I'm a juror I don't care where the bodyguard is I'm thinking about oh yeah I remember that stormy Daniels said now in 2024 that Trump was wearing pajamas I'm curious if as somebody
in the room you felt that the defense was effective in undermining stormy Daniels credibility because what I took from the earlier part of our conversation was that stormy Daniels is in this courtroom on behalf of the prosecution tell a story that's uncomfortable and has the
kind of details that Donald Trump would be motivated to try to hide and therefore this defense strategy is to say those details about what Trump might want to hide you can't trust them so does this back and forth effectively hurt stormy Daniels credibility in your estimation?
I don't think that stormy Daniels came off as perfectly credible about everything she testified about and there are incidents that were unclear or confusing there were things she talked about that I found hard to believe when she for instance denied that she had
attacked Trump in a tweet or talked about her motivations but about what prosecutors need that central story the story of having had sex with him we can't know whether it happened but there weren't that many disparities in these accounts over the years in terms of things
that would make me doubt the story that Daniels was telling details that don't add up those weren't present and you don't have to take my word for that nor should you but the judges in the room and he says something very very similar what did he say and why does he say?
well he does it when the defense again at the end of the day on Thursday calls for a mistrial with a similar argument as before not only with a similar argument as before but like almost the exact same argument and I would say that I was astonished to see
them do this but I wasn't because I've covered other trials where Trump is the client and in those trials the lawyers again and again called for a mistrial and what does Judge Morshan say in response to this second effort to seek a mistrial let me say to this one
he seems a little less patient he says that after the first mistrial ruling two days before he went into his chambers and he read every decision he had made about the case he took this moment to reflect on the first decision and he found that he had in his
own estimation which is all he has been fair and not allowed evidence that was prejudicial to Trump into this trial it could continue and so he said that again and then he really almost turned on the defense and he said that the things that the defense was objecting to were things that the defense had made happen.
How so he says that in their opening statement the defense could have taken issue with many elements of the case about whether they were falsified business records about any of the other things that prosecutors are saying happens but instead he says they focused their
energy on denying that Trump ever had sex with Daniels and so that was essentially an invitation to the prosecution to call stormy Daniels as a witness and have her say from the stand yes I had this sexual encounter the upshot of it is that the judge not only takes the defense to task but he also just says that he finds stormy Daniels is narrative credible he doesn't see it as having changed so much from year to year.
Interesting so in thinking back to our original question here Jonah about the idea that putting stormy Daniels on the stand was risky I wonder if by the end of this entire journey you're reevaluating that idea because it doesn't sound like it ended up being super risky it sounded like it ended up working reasonably well for the prosecution.
Well let me just assert that it doesn't really matter what I think I'm sure he is going to decide this there's 12 people and we can't know what they're thinking but my impression was that while she was being questioned by the prosecution for the prosecution's case
stormy Daniels was a real liability she was a difficult witness for them and the judge said as much right but when the defense cross examined her stormy Daniels became a better witness in part because their struggles to discredit her may have actually ended up making
her story look more credible and stronger and the reason that matters is because remember we said that prosecutors trying to fill this hole in their case well now they have that jury has met stormy Daniels they've heard her account they've made of it what they will and now the sequence of events that prosecutors are trying to line up as they seek prison time for the former president really makes a lot of sense.
It starts with what stormy Daniel says with sex in a hotel suite in 2006 it picks up years later as Donald Trump is trying to win an election and prosecutors say suppressing negative stories including stormy Daniels is very negative story and the story that prosecutors are telling ends with Donald Trump orchestrating the falsification of business records to keep that story concealed. Well Jonah thank you very much we appreciate it. Of course thanks for having me.
The prosecution's next major witness will be Michael Cohen the former Trump fixer who were ranged for the hush money payment to stormy Daniels. Cohen is expected to take the stand on Monday. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to never day. On Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Enyao issued a defiant response to warnings from the United States that it would stop supplying weapons to Israel if Israel invades the southern Gaza city of Rafa.
So far Israel has carried out a limited incursion into the city where a million civilians are sheltering but has threatened a full invasion. In a statement Netanyahu said quote if we need to stand alone we will stand alone. Meanwhile high level ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas have been put on hold in part because of anger over Israel's incursion into Rafa. A reminder tomorrow we'll be sharing the latest episode of our colleague's new show the interview.
This week on the interview Lulu Garcia Navarro talks with Radio host Charlemagne the God about his frustrations with how Americans talk about politics. If me as a black man if I criticize Democrats then I'm supporting Maga but if I criticize Donald Trump and Republicans then I'm a Democratic shill. Why can't I just be a person who deals in nuance? Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat and Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Lexi Diao with help from PageCowd.
Contains original music by Will Reed and Mary Ann Luzano and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lanzberg of Wonderly. That's If the Daily. I'm Mickabobaro. See you on Monday.