Almost seven decades have passed since Frank Sinatra’s rendition of ‘Stormy Weather’, a song that seems apt as the trial between New York and Donald Trump recommenced last Thursday in Manhattan. The first day of the trial had been matched in terms of public interest as spectators lined up for courtroom admission hours before the doors opened to observe the second day of Stormy Daniels, the ex-adult entertainer, testifying.
Daniels took up the prosecutor’s offer on Tuesday to guide the courtroom back to an alleged incident in 2006 where she met and had a sexual encounter with Trump at a celebrity golf tournament at Lake Tahoe.
What makes this trial especially unique is its constant oscillation between scandalous tabloid-style revelations and nuanced examinations of invoice details and accounting procedures.
Daniels’ testimony bolstered the prosecution’s allegations that Trump’s campaign staff knowingly plotted to suppress the details of the incident to avoid harm to his reputation just weeks ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Detailing everything from the dinner invitation to the satin pyjama attire of Trump, Daniels recounted asking him if Hugh Hefner was aware that he was wearing his pyjamas and requested him to change his clothes.
She mentioned how they engaged in a conversation before dinner during which Trump inquired about the measures she took against sexually transmitted diseases in the adult entertainment field. Daniels substantiated by stating that she was regularly examined.
Daniels remembered Trump comparing her to his daughter, Ivanka, and disclosing that he and Melania, his wife, had separate bedrooms.
The prosecution would surely argue that the explicit details were necessary to establish why Trump’s team would have wanted to keep this narrative under wraps.
After returning from the bathroom, she was startled to find Trump in a t-shirt and boxers on the bed, a change of scene that left her disoriented and the room seemingly spinning.
Though she was clear that the sexual incident was consensual, it was so impactful that it felt like she had blacked out. Despite not being drunk or under the influence of drugs, she found herself staring at the ceiling, unable to recall how she got there.
Proclaiming “let’s meet again, darling” as she exited, Trump’s remark had left her stunned. At 60 years of age and amid their first encounter, Trump, who had yet to experience presidential victory and defeat, would have likely never foreseen that their future encounters included a 2024 courtroom in Manhattan. This was while he was vying for another term as president.
Journalists present noted that Trump was heard discrediting Stormy Daniels’s testimony by quietly interjecting an expletive-laden comment. This led Todd Blanche, Trump’s principal attorney, to demand a mistrial, citing that the explicit details from Daniels’s account produced an unforgettable impression.
These striking testimonies certainly left an indelible mark on both jurors and the public, imprinting on them images which could not be erased. In their closing argument, the prosecution is expected to contend that such explicit descriptions were required to illustrate why Trump’s campaign sought to conceal this account. They’ll likely claim that Trump’s comment about his wife suggests that the goal of Daniels’s “silencing” payment wasn’t about saving his marriage, as the defence insists. Instead, it aimed to ensure voters remained unaware of it.
In contrast, Trump’s defence will contend that the alleged incident, which Trump vehemently denies, happened a decade prior to his run for presidency. Therefore, linking the motivations behind the ‘silencing’ payment to the specific details Daniels recounted from that evening is, at most, dubious.
Whilst the public were engrossed in the salacious gossip, late-night comedy shows had a field day. However, the impact it will have on the prosecution’s overall case remains uncertain.
Daniels demonstrated unwavering courage as a witness. Trump’s team, represented by Susan Necheles, attempted to paint Daniels as someone who aimed to exploit a tycoon now running for the highest political position in the country. When questioned if she despises the businessman, Daniels simply affirmed, and firmly denied allegations of attempted extortion. This interaction aimed to further obfuscate the already convoluted case, straying far from the week’s commencement with mundane invoice and accounting details. The uniqueness of this case was underscored, emphasising the potential for jurors to lose sight of the defendent’s identity and accusations against them.
It’s crucial for the prosecution to establish Donald Trump’s direct involvement in paying $130,000 to Daniels and his subsequent role in falsifying documents to mask these payments. This is yet to be proven conclusively. The burden of proof is likely to land on Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, who has since distanced himself from Trump, and he would need to present this evidence for the prosecution.
The high tension brought about by Daniel’s testimony was followed by the summoning of the next witness, Madeleine Westerhout. She used to oversee operations of the Oval Office for Trump, a position she relinquished in 2019 following revelations that she had divulged information about the Trump family during an unpublicised dinner with journalists.
In her testimony, she recalled arranging a White House meeting between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump in February 2017. However, during her crossexamination on Friday, she conceded that Trump may have signed hundreds of documents daily in the White House, oftentimes endorsing cheques without inspecting them, even while holding phone conversations or meeting individuals.
Cohen is set to provide his testimony on Monday, representing the last piece of evidence presented by the prosecution. Ultimately, the responsibilities fall on the shoulders of the jury to distinguish the truth, navigating through the complex narratives put forth by the legal teams on both sides. They will need to untangle a flurry of forgetfulness, avoidance, and the numerous facets of a perpetually flipping coin.