Whethering the Storm

Yesterday, Stephanie Clifford (who works as ‘Stormy Daniels’) took the stand in the Manhattan election fraud trial against Trump.  She’ll continue testifying again tomorrow.  A lot of legal media analysts seemed to say that it was risky testimony for being so lurid, and if the jury doesn’t like her (or believe her) that could impact the trial. 

I’m not a lawyer, as the expression goes.  Nor was I in court.  And I trust what lawyers say here, being very experienced at this sort of thing.  But I also have additional thoughts – which may be valid or not, whether or not what these lawyers say is valid.

For starters, “impact the trial” doesn’t mean result in a hung jury.  After all, many lawyers were saying that it wasn’t absolutely necessary she even testify.  That the trial isn’t a sex case, but one about election fraud.  And so, whether jurors like or believe her, the charge is that Trump still paid to silence her in order to illegally affect the election.  Keep in mind that when a woman claimed that President Biden sexually assaulted her, he and his team took her on directly and publicly, showed the inconsistencies and ultimately falseness in her story, and it disappeared.

As for her testimony, it would seem that the problem for Trump is that she’s the only one testifying about what occurred.  His lawyers can cross-examine her, of course, and try to break down her story.  But if Trump doesn’t testify (and it’s likely that he won’t), then her testimony is the only one the jury can hear under oath.  And if he does insist on testifying, the prosecution is most certainly prepared and likely anxious for that.

The other problem for Trump is that, even if jurors don’t like Ms. Clifford, at issue is Trump relentlessly insisting he never had sex with her.  And her detailed testimony (even if jurors don’t like her) shows that Trump did have an involvement with her, and made efforts to illegally hide it to impact the election, as AMI publisher David Pecker testified -- which is the very point of the trial.

Further, even if (for whatever reason) they don’t even believe her, Trump still made that $130,000 payment to silence her claims…which again is the whole point of the trial.  The checks exist.  The documentation about it exists.  Whatever the surface reason those checks exist, the foundational reason was to silence her so as to illegally not hurt his election chances. 

And I suspect that jurors are likely to think, especially given earlier testimony, that Trump is not someone to pay $130,000 to silence something that didn’t happen.  Especially given he has been relentlessly been shouting out loud for years that he did not rape “that woman” and didn’t even know E. Jean Carroll – a cry for which he has been twice found guilty of defamation.  So, if he has no problem defaming a woman by insisting he didn’t do something two juries found he did – why on earth would he pay $130,000 to hide something he claims he didn’t do??!

Again, I have no idea how the jury will see it all.  And those lawyers who note the risk, make good, valid points.  I just think, whether or not these lawyers are right, there are these additional points.  And also, as the experts note, as well, the trial is about far more than this, and much of that is on paper and has been corroborated.