Judge Just Dropped The Hammer On Stormy Daniels
Amidst the ongoing trial involving the presumptive GOP nominee's alleged hush money payments, a former judge has commended former President Donald Trump's defense attorney, Susan Necheles, for her rigorous cross-examination of adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Following Necheles's preceding day's testimony, marked by what was described as "salacious" remarks in support of District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution, a tense cross-examination unfolded between Necheles and opposing counsel.
While some of Necheles's statements were deemed outrageous and prompted objections from defense attorneys, Judge Juan Merchan overruled Trump lawyer Todd Blanche's call for a mistrial.
As a pivotal witness for the prosecution, Stormy Daniels's testimony potentially implicates Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney. Necheles seized the opportunity to scrutinize inconsistencies in Daniels's prior statements, notably in a 2011 interview with a gossip magazine. She highlighted disparities in Daniels's recollection of an alleged encounter at Trump's apartment that year.
Former Queens County Supreme Court judge George Grasso commended Necheles's adept questioning. Speaking to CNN, Grasso remarked, "What stood out to me is that Susan Necheles, Donald Trump’s defense attorney cross-examining Stormy Daniels, really did her homework." Necheles meticulously probed Daniels's earlier assertions, exposing disparities.
One such contradiction pertained to whether Daniels had met Trump over dinner. According to Grasso, Daniels testified during direct examination that there was no meal despite lengthy conversation, a detail Necheles aimed to exploit to sway the jury's perceptions.
By juxtaposing Daniels's trial testimony with her previous statements, Necheles sought to cast doubt on Daniels's credibility. Grasso questioned, "If you can’t trust her on that kind of detail, what about the other details?"
Necheles sought to highlight incongruities by questioning Daniels's account of feeling dizzy and experiencing numb hands due to Trump's alleged advances in a hotel room. Daniels clarified that encountering an older man in his boxers on a bed, who wasn't her spouse, was unexpected and shocking. Necheles referenced Daniels's book, where she boasted of her assertiveness towards Trump, contrasting it with the vulnerability Daniels conveyed in her testimony.
Necheles further underscored Daniels's failure to rebuff Trump's advances, a point Daniels conceded, noting it wasn't the first time she had encountered such advances. However, Daniels did emphasize that it was the first time a bodyguard was stationed outside the room.
“You told In Touch a completely different story,” Necheles said according to Fox News. Daniels disagreed, stating, “No,” and that “there were parts in the middle I didn’t remember.” The adult film star defended herself by saying she wasn’t trying to profit in 2011 and that the In Touch article was a condensed version that “left out a lot because they couldn’t fact-check it.”
"You made it up," Necheles persisted. "No," Daniels rebutted.