“I nearly did a spit take” Stormy Daniels Turns the Tables on Trump’s Attorney in Hush Money Trial
Logan Cyrus / AFP via Getty Images; Phillip Faraone/Getty Images)
During the hush money trial of former President Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels, an adult film star, faced cross-examination by Trump’s attorney, Susan Necheles, in the Manhattan criminal courtroom. Necheles’s questioning aimed to discredit Daniels’s credibility, but one legal expert described her approach as “dumb, dumb, dumb,” leading to an exchange that quickly turned against the defense.
Necheles began by peppering Daniels with numerous questions regarding the falsification of business records, which is at the heart of the trial. Trump is accused of mislabeling payments to Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence her about an alleged affair. Necheles asked Daniels directly, “You understand that in this case, Trump is charged with a crime for how a payment was labeled?”, reported Raw Story.
When Daniels replied that she didn’t understand the specific nature of the charges, Necheles snapped back, “Even though you’ve tweeted about him being indicted, you don’t understand?”
Daniels remained composed and responded, “There are a lot of indictments.”
Her quick-witted reply elicited laughter from a courtroom down the hall, where reporters and the public watched the proceedings on a television monitor. The trial, being one of four criminal cases Trump faces, has drawn significant attention from the media and the public. Besides the hush money case in New York, Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges related to election interference in Georgia and Washington, D.C., as well as Espionage Act violations in Florida.
In response to the laughter, Necheles objected and demanded that Daniels’s response be stricken from the record. However, Justice Juan Merchan overruled her objection, allowing the exchange to stand.
The exchange quickly caught the attention of national security attorney and MSNBC commentator Bradley Moss, who took to social media to criticize Necheles’s approach. Moss described her questioning as “dumb, dumb, dumb” and argued that it failed to cover any meaningful ground while exposing weaknesses in the defense’s strategy.
Necheles’s line of questioning appeared to focus on portraying Daniels as an unreliable witness by highlighting inconsistencies in her previous statements. She tried to catch Daniels off guard by referencing past tweets and interviews, but Daniels remained steadfast in her testimony. Necheles’s inability to trap Daniels in a contradiction was noted by several legal experts.
Legal analyst Andrew Weissmann criticized Necheles’s strategy, suggesting that her cross-examination lacked substance and failed to undermine Daniels’s credibility. Conservative lawyer George Conway also weighed in, stating that the defense seemed to have little more than this minor point to rely on.
Daniels’s testimony is a crucial component of the trial, as prosecutors argue that the hush money paid to her was part of a scheme to suppress damaging information before the 2016 election. Trump has denied the affair and pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Despite Necheles’s efforts to challenge Daniels’s credibility, the cross-examination appeared to solidify her testimony. Daniels maintained that she was paid to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump and was resolute in her belief that the former president orchestrated a cover-up through falsified business records.
“Dumb dumb dumb question,” he wrote.
His followers agreed.
“I nearly did a spit take,” replied X user Kat Packer. Added X user Clayfoot, “Is it too late for Ms Daniels to pursue a career in law?”
This trial remains under the public microscope due to Trump’s high-profile status and the implications it may have on his future political ambitions. With multiple legal battles ahead, including election interference and Espionage Act violations, Trump’s legal team faces mounting pressure as they try to defend against an array of charges across several jurisdictions.
