166 Comments

I cannot help wondering what the female jurors’ feelings were about the testimony? Many women have found ourselves in Daniels’ position, misjudging a situation until we find ourselves too boxed in to fix it. The girl was 27. It wouldn’t happen now.

The men in the overflow room laughed at her testimony. The women did not. In the courtroom the jury betrayed no reaction (as is appropriate) but a woman sitting next to the judge (a clerk?) spent much of the direct with her hand over her mouth, apparently horrified.

I’ve heard a lot of male lawyers say she shouldn’t have been called because she’s an unholy mess as a witness.

I’d have called her. She’s the person at the center of all of this, the human face. She’s the reason for the lengths Trump went to commit these crimes. The jury expected her to be called. Leaving the jury with unexplained holes in evidence is dumb.

Sure, she ran on, but that’s the defense’s fault. I’m sure Trump was over the moon to hear that from the judge in his mistrial decision.

I’d have made sure a man did the cross, a non-pugnacious guy who could be sympathetic and regretful and walk her right into the gaps and inconsistencies in her testimony. Instead the defense fielded a homely virago who yelled at her with the equivalent of “when did you stop beating your wife?”

Nobody in that courtroom believes that Trump didn’t have sex with Stormy Daniels. He’s an unrepentant cock hound.

Once they believe that, nothing else in her testimony matters, not what she’s said or done. She got paid because she had sex with Trump.

And from that his world of troubles began.

Expand full comment

This is a great point. Regardless of Ms. Clifford's profession, she was a young woman pressured into doing something she did not want to do by a man in a position of power. I admire her courage.

Expand full comment

How disheartening to hear that the men in the overflow room laughed.

Expand full comment

I know. Sigh.

Expand full comment

I want to believe men are better than this. But stuff like this makes it hard.

Expand full comment

Some are. My husband was, but he was police. He knew what pigs men could be. His belief was that if a woman said she was attacked, she was attacked.

One of my sons is a Joe Rogan fanboy. He’d have laughed.

Expand full comment

Sorry about your son.

Expand full comment

Thanks. He’s about to be 31. I do believe he will outgrow it but he’s basically unbearable to me and his three siblings right now. Just a total bro🙄

Expand full comment

Men are largely useless

Expand full comment

I hope some of it wasn't appreciation but rather nervous & embarassed - some people do react that way when they are surprised?

Expand full comment

Personally, I'd like to think the "overflow room laughter" was the result of them laughing at TFG's clumsy actions. The visual would be both comical and horrifying.

Expand full comment

Also this, via Jeff Tiedrich:

"DANIELS: Basically, Trump tried to say If you’re serious about this, if you ever want to get out of that trailer park….”

Not only a sleazy, horny predator, but a patronizing shite as well...no limit to this guy's shithouse behaviour.

Expand full comment

Shitzinpants was and is always a liar. And, the correct word is RAPE to describe what he did to Stormy. He intimidated her into sex and wouldn't let her leave. Sex by extortion and intimidation is rape.

Expand full comment

Hard agree... Women too frequently find/have found themselves in situations they only recognise later. And we also need to recognise that as an "adult firm star" SD was used to the ultimate in "consensual" sex (real or simulated I don't care) wherein her activities are scripted, choreographed, and contractually agreed to. Stormy might avoid calling it rape, but I don't!

Expand full comment

Gross indeed.

On another subject, Jay, are you going to write about Injustice Cannon and her indefinite delay of the classified documents case?

Thanks for your work!

Expand full comment

Sadly there’s not much to say except that Cannon is doing what we expected her to do all along, which is to use her power over the calendar to push the trial off until after the election. She was always going to do this, which is very frustrating but also without much possibility of remedy.

Expand full comment

But now the documents trial is off the court calendar it opens the way for the January 6th trial to possibly start before the election. IF the Supreme Court will let it.

"Trump judge postpones documents case 'indefinitely,' but new legal calendar could backfire on Trump'

https://youtu.be/3d8Jkrt8yF8

Expand full comment

Is it at all possible that the Justice Department could request a change of venue to Washington, DC where the crime took place?

Expand full comment

The documents were stored and then withheld in Florida, so that's where the crime was committed. Unfortunately they're stuck there

Expand full comment

I refuse to worry. We will defeat him in Nov. After that, Repugs and money are gone. Cases will conclude quickly!

Expand full comment

It all hangs on the results of the election of course, but I like to imagine that in the wake of a Biden victory in November that the machinations of the Trump legal team, Justice Cannon, and Justices Thomas and Alito will come home to roost. Maybe it is just me, but if I were overseeing a case in which the defendant had so blatantly and egregiously tried to evade justice and traduced the legal system in the process, I would assign maximum penalties up and down the line.

Expand full comment

Is it possible for Willis to assign the RICO case to another prosecutor and step away so it doesn’t get further delayed? I hate to see her do that but that case needs to move forward so we the people can see all these attempted coup crimes by this posse of Putin’s puppets

Expand full comment

I’m hoping he does - how does Jack Smith respond here? Is there a future for this case?

Expand full comment

Jay's the expert here but my understanding is that judges have a lot of discretion over scheduling. But she's exposing herself with all these rulings she wants to make, I hope. I guess in the age of Trump, I should use the word "exposing herself" with more discretion.

Expand full comment

Magic 8 Ball says not likely! (I’m sick over this).

Expand full comment
May 8Edited

The fact that Daniels' testimony resulted in being 'highly prejudicial' to the jury (according to the defense) was kind of the point, wasn't it? If it's prejudicial to the jury, surely it would also have been prejudicial to the electorate. Why cover it up otherwise? Seems to me the defense just admitted to the reason for the charges and won the case for the prosecution.

Expand full comment

Precisely, inculpatory evidence is always prejudicial against the defendent.

The question is how much? The judge already ruled what could and couldn't be introduced. The prosecution did say they would exclude salacious details from Clifford's testimony and I believe they did , no mention of specific details of Trump's anatomy or endurance, thank goodness. (The last thing humanity needs is the nitty on dumpy pants).

It's the docs that are relevant.

And getting the controller to say they never gross up for legal fees is <chefs kiss>.

That should be the most damning statement there. There wouldn't be a need to gross up if it wasn't a reimbursement.

Expand full comment

The whole term of art is “more prejudicial than probative,” something so salacious that the jury will turn against the defendant without the need to prove anything. It’s just not fair.

Ms. Clifford certainly shot that all to hell.

Expand full comment

And, of course, the thing that pissed Trump off the most was everyone finding out that he and Melania haven't shared a bedroom since Barron was born.

Expand full comment

I woukd not assume he was telling the truth [about anything] to Stormy about the bedroom arrangements. It is common for philandering husbands to say something similar to other women they are trying to have sex with.

Expand full comment

Correct.

Expand full comment

When all this pay-off stuff was first emerging, Karen McDougal wrote that when she was involved in a nine-month affair with Trump, he took her up to the suite where he lived with Melania and showed her Melania's bedroom/suite. I believe she wrote that was a turning point for her in deciding the affair wasn't for her. As someone else said here, so many have been in the same position as Ms. Daniels. It bothers me that her name is almost always referenced as "porn star." How many young women, mired in low-paid hourly-wage jobs, believed some guy who told them "You could be a model! I could make you a star!" And the pay was so much better than waitressing or mucking stables...or so it seemed until she - as so many of us - found herself trapped in a room.

Expand full comment

Exactly. Also porn star is her work. That doesn't mean she's ready and willing to have sex with anyone outside of work. I imagine it's like working behind an ice cream counter. When you are off work, the last thing you want is ice cream!

Expand full comment

Yes, I thought that too.

Expand full comment

She didn't have to anymore. She already had her future guaranteed.

Expand full comment

Yes, “my wife and I lead separate lives. We’re together for the children” has never been uttered by a man in order to get laid.

Expand full comment

The point is NOT just that DJT had sex with a porn star.

The point is that her story is consistent with and confirms DJT's attitude revealed in the Access Hollywood Tape- that DJT is a manipulative misogynistic predator.

THAT is the story he fears most will get out in the public and was willing to go to great lengths to hide from the voters.

The E. Jean Carroll case is another example of his predatory nature that he tried to hide.

Expand full comment

Well put. That is exactly the reason Trump did not want this story to come out in 2016. There may be a number of misogynistic male voters out there who shrug off the Stormy Daniels testimony, but Donald Trump just became a lot more toxic to female voters around the country.

Expand full comment

Also saw an interview from someone to whom she told the same "story" (can't remember the timing, but it was BEFORE the "catch&kill" in 2016) and the journalist said she hasn't changed anything she told him about how it happened & where etc. What he heard about the testimony was consistent with what Stormy told him.

Expand full comment

Grossing Up and Grossing Out. Such a clever and perfect title. Thank you for your stellar wit, Jay! I am so very grossed out. How do you get a sh*t stain out of silk? And how do we best prevent a sh*t stained, unqualified a-hole from taking over our Capitol. We the people have much work to do!

Expand full comment

How anyone can still support him is totally outside my ability to understand. An adjudicated rapist, and a serial sexual predator.

Expand full comment

On a sports thread someone posted some of the lurid details of this and a reply was (Trump supporter denialism is now standard operating procedure in some circles): "I'm not a Trump guy, but Biden likes to sniff the hair of little girls. At least Trump's not a pedo."

This is what we're up against.

Expand full comment

I've found that as soon as someone says "I'm not a trump guy," it actually means he is a trump guy.

Expand full comment

It’s like, “I’m a Christian, but [fill in horrible statement here].”

Expand full comment

Yes, exactly.

Expand full comment

Yep, I'm seeing that everywhere.

Expand full comment

Wait, sniffing a girl's hair is > wanting to bang your teenage daughter on the Pedo-scale?

Wow the world is topsy turvy for sure!

Expand full comment

Like I said, this is what we're up against. I didn't even bother engaging this guy. What do you even say to that?

Expand full comment

Sigh....

Expand full comment

I think brain-eating worms are a lot more common than we thought!

Expand full comment

Those that can still support him do not read The Status Kuo or any media other than Fox Schnooz and right-wing sources.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your reporting once again.

The most delicious irony for me in all of this is that Trump has been relying heavily on influencing the "court of public opinion" in his going off the rails outside of the courtroom. All of a sudden some really sleazy and MUCH more interesting testimony than Trump's own rants has oozed out from under the courthouse door, and Trump can't contain it. It is a story that, while technically irrelevant to the case in many ways, finally has the full attention of the MAGA base. At least some of them are going to react in the manner the jury did - with disgust and discomfort.

Expand full comment

Nah. He is a cult leader who cannot be questioned. For them, the answer is simply that she is a lying scumbag like everyone else who turns on Trump.

Expand full comment

Some of them, certainly. I already do personally know of two women, who were Trump supporters, who will write in Nikki Haley in November.

Expand full comment

Which is a vote for trump, sadly.

Expand full comment

I don't follow your logic. It is not a vote for Joe Biden, but it is still one less for Trump. Am I missing something?

Expand full comment

It is my humble opinion that any vote not for Biden ends up being a vote for trump. Any wasted vote ( which is what, in our present system, a write-in vote is ) ends up being a vote for trump. Again, in my opinion, it is imperative we stress the importance of THIS election, and do all we can to convince our circles that there is only ONE choice. Only one.

Expand full comment

My concerns echo your own, certainly. Democratic voter turnout is absolutely critical to this election, since that failure in 2016 put Trump in office.

I see a Nikki Haley write-in vote by a former Trump supporter as a GOP voter turnout problem. Those voters were never going to vote for Biden, but if they don't vote for Trump they have effectively not shown up. If that's all I can get, I'll take it. If Stormy Daniels and a conviction for election fraud softens MAGA resolve in any way, shape, or form, a reduction in GOP turnout just might make the difference.

Expand full comment

Wow! And who doesn't remember the uproar when Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday" to Kennedy in her clingy white dress? At the time, was THAT not a bit UN-president like? How times have changed!

Expand full comment

The Kennedys have gone a long way since those days. These days, that fine family runs a candidate who says in formal depositions: "A worm ate my brain!" Sad!

Expand full comment

That family is *NOT* running a candidate. He happens to share a name with the real inheritors of "Camelot".

Expand full comment

I know. I needed to make a joke. If I don't laugh, these days, I cry. It was fun that the family all spoke out against him.

Expand full comment

Now that he is claiming that he had a worm in his head, the jokes are going to become much more pointed.

Expand full comment

Exactly! The fact that 25+ members of the Kennedy family have very *actively* been working against RFK Jr., and supporting Biden by taking a family portrait with Biden at the White House, says all you need to know about what the Kennedy family *truly* thinks of him…

Now, whether the low-information voters or those that haven’t “tuned in” yet get this remains to be seen. Any left-leaning voter that actually *reads* what RFK Jr thinks will very quickly drop him from consideration. I’m hoping that his anti-vaxx and conspiracy theory beliefs will lead more MAGA-lite voters to find him attractive and skew the election away from Trump….

Yes, I have been known to be a “glass half full” kinda guy at certain moments in time… 😉

Expand full comment

I mean, is there any OG Kennedy Democrat demographic left that believes his tripe and whose voting numbers matter?

Expand full comment

True. That said, I’m always concerned that the “older demographic” that can fondly remember the days of Camelot (at almost 70, that’s sadly my *own* demographic, though I am clear on what the alternative to “growing old” is…) may just be tired of the Biden-Trump rematch and look for different way to spend their vote.

If they don’t look closely at policy ideas, and just see the “Kennedy” name, they might blunder into a catastrophic decision for our nation, ie letting Trump win at the margins…

Expand full comment

Yes. My 86 year old mother popped up brightly with "what about Kennedy???", all excited. I had to shut that down very quickly.

Expand full comment

As an "older generation" voter myself, I would like to throw a "historical perspective" log on the fire.

There is a wound in this country that was sustained during the Vietnam war that has never healed. A LOT of young men were drafted or volunteered and served in Vietnam who were vilified and spat upon when they returned home (if they returned home at all) by members of their own generation; members who did not serve. Some of the returning veterans joined the anti-war movement themselves in the wake of their service, but many of them still hold a deep and abiding sense of resentment and grievance that is manifesting in our current political polarization. It may seem like ancient history to many younger people, but for that demographic it is only yesterday.

Expand full comment

I’m glad that the family doesn’t support him but we romanticize Camelot. JFK had a thousand days; we don’t know what sort of POTUS he’d have been. He was, like his brothers and his father, an unrepentant womanizer. He was responsible for the Bay of Pigs. He lied about his health to the nation.

He was also a rhapsodic speaker, young, vigorous, and a war hero, smart and handsome, with a beautiful family.

But we were in Vietnam. Who knows what he’d have made of that?

He appointed his brother as AG, ffs. That was terrible judgment, even though Bobby was a fine lawyer.

I’m a lifelong Dem and my heart was crushed with the losses of both brothers and MLK, Jr.

I loved the Kennedys. But they were all damaged and damaging goods and it’s important not to mythologize them. Bobby Jr. would be nobody but for that myth.

Expand full comment

Half the battle is just saying the opposite of what Tffg does. Things like: “ask what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you”

Words matter a lot!!

Expand full comment

Well, but doesn't his behaviour and beliefs in conspiracy theories galore, kinda prove RFK, Jr.'s own admission?

Expand full comment

Well, it was certainly a slap in the face to Jackie. If memory serves nobody was mad at Jack, just Marilyn.

Expand full comment

Is he a predator, sexual and otherwise? YES. But I am slowly losing hope that he will be hels accountable for it all.

Expand full comment

I understand what you're saying but I think the embarrassment from having his personal details get out like that is a step toward that. (We have to take what we can get at every point along the way.)

Expand full comment

I think once he loses the election you will see his legal issues heat up considerably. Everyone is kind of holding back because he's the Republican candidate. To the eternal shame of the Republicans!

Expand full comment

Why? The trial is going very well. And he has to sit there and shut up.

Expand full comment

This demonstrates the two tiered Justice system. One for the rich and politically powerful and then another for the rank and file ordinary people.

Any of us would have faced jail years ago . But Trump gets away with everything he does and lies about and cheats about. There are always lawyers that will take any case for lots of money and always find a loop hole to “defend” anything anybody does even if they are breaking the law with impunity. How can we ordinary “Joes” respect the laws in this country? We can’t!

Expand full comment

Lawyers always fall back on “everyone has a right to a vigorous defense”. That allows these lawyers to defend the indefensible and become multimillionaires.

Expand full comment

I heard her tell the story of being approached, with that thinly veiled threat, in the parking lot before. Considering the threats received by anyone who may pose a problem for him, it's highly believable, even though it may not have been done at his direction.

Expand full comment

He’s like a mob boss. His underlings don’t have to be told what to do.

Expand full comment

That was what Michael Cohen said. Trump says something thinly veiled, and they understand what hecwants done.

Expand full comment

Shouldn’t the last sentence read that Daniels returns to the stand Thursday? Wednesday is the day off.

Expand full comment

Yes it’s been corrrcted.

Expand full comment

Yes, and despite his loud complaints that the Judge and this trial are keeping him off the campaign trail, he has flown to his country club in Florida.

Expand full comment

And I doubt he’ll be going to Barron’s graduation.

Expand full comment

Trump denies that his encounter with Stormy Daniels ever took place. I read elsewhere yesterday that she testified that the dinner invitation in his hotel suite came through his “Bodyguards“. At that point it wouldn’t have been the Secret Service so they wouldn’t be prohibited from testifying. While the trial isn’t meant to focus on their encounter but rather the election manipulation by covering it up, it would still be interesting to hear from them. Have the security people in question ever been interviewed on this?

Expand full comment

It likely doesn't matter. They aren't there to prove they had an encounter or that she was paid. They are there to prove that business records were manipulated to hide a campaign contribution.

Expand full comment

I only know what the lawyer pundits say and they say to keep it as short and to the point as possible. Don’t put him on the stand if you don’t need him. Clifford’s testimony was very convincing that she was in the room when it happened. Anyone that believes the orange turd at this point truly deserves him

Expand full comment

This is likely Keith Schiller, his personal bodyguard. I don't know if he is on the witness list.

Expand full comment

One would hope it was his personal bodyguard and not the Secret Service. As much scandal as the Secret Service has had to deal with in the past few years, adding 'pimp' to the list would be one toke over the line.

Expand full comment

This night took place in 2006; there was no Secret Service protection for him at that time.

Expand full comment

Didn’t she testify that it was Keith Schiller who approached her?

Expand full comment

She could not remember Keith's last name, so she entered his name on her contacts list as "Keith Trump."

Expand full comment

From testimony today, Schiller was outside tffg’s hotel room while Ms. Cliffords was in the room. Makes you wonder why the defense doesn’t want him to take the stand. Maybe despite being a loyal bodyguard, Schiller is not about to lie in a court room under oath for the Boss!

Expand full comment

If he was signing checks in the White House, wasn’t that a breach of whatever was supposed to prevent him from running a business while President?

Expand full comment

He could not have cared less about those rules. Or any rules or laws. He theoretically went arms-length from his businesses, giving control to his idiot sons. It is to laugh - he would never, ever give up control of anything that he ever thought was his.

Expand full comment

Somewhere along the line it was said it was his personal account and it was paid to his personal lawyer 🤷🏻‍♀️

Expand full comment

If true, and it was stated in testimony it was Trump’s personal bank account, then if the latter is true (personal lawyer) it should never have been a Trump Org business expense with Cohen submitting invoices and Trump Org issuing a 1099. Lots of commingling of funds and expenses.

Expand full comment

There are any number of people that are sure tffg is skilled in white collar crimes and getting away with them.

“2022

March 23: The New York Times reveals that Pomerantz, who stepped down the month before, wrote in his resignation letter to Bragg that he believes Trump is "guilty of numerous felony violations."

Pomerantz expressed frustration with the new district attorney's handling of the case, writing: "I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest. I therefore cannot continue in my current position."

Pomerantz wrote that "the team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did."

"I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury," he said.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

Expand full comment

Like I said I only know what I read. Not a lawyer. 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

“Paperwork showed that after $105,000 was paid by The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the bean counters back in Manhattan realized it would be easier to run the next $315,000 in payments through Trump’s PERSONAL* accounts for the rest of the year.

Matt Colangelo, a prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, meticulously went through each of Cohen’s 12 invoices. Every month in 2017, Cohen would email Allen Weisselberg, a disgraced accountant who was then the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer but has since been convicted of tax fraud and spent three months at New York’s dreaded Rikers Island jail. Cohen would deliver a curt greeting—mentioning some summer fun, a hurricane hitting Weisselberg’s Florida home, Thanksgiving, the winter holidays—then get right down to business.

“Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered,” Cohen would email Weisselberg, each time proudly signing his emails: “Michael D. Cohen, Esq. PERSONAL* Attorney to President Donald J. Trump.””

* capitalization is mine

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-accountant-jeffrey-s-mcconney-on-his-stormy-daniels-coverup-notes-i-made-a-boo-boo

Expand full comment

Imagine if VSP (Von Sh........) was given a mistrial. Judge Merchan could start it next week. VSP would already have 10 counts of contempt against him and he would have to listen to the same testimony again. The prosecution might even be able to sharpen their questioning a bit. It would essentially extend the trial for about 4 weeks. I doubt Trump could handle 4 more weeks of showing up, on time, 4 days/week and sitting there all day.

Expand full comment