Judge Just Dropped The Hammer On Stormy Daniels

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

In the midst of the likely GOP nominee’s hush money trial this week, a former judge is praising a former president Donald Trump for her cross-examination of adult film star Stormy Daniels.

After Susan Necheles made “salacious” remarks the day before while testifying on behalf of District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution, there was a heated cross-examination between the two attorneys. In some instances, her statements were so outrageous that Judge Juan Merchan upheld defense attorneys’ objections, but he rejected Trump lawyer Todd Blanche’s request for a mistrial.

A crucial witness for the prosecution, Stormy Daniels supports allegations that could result in testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer. Necheles took advantage of the chance to draw attention to contradictions in Daniels’ previous comments made during cross-examination, particularly an interview with a gossip magazine in 2011. She drew attention to inconsistencies in Daniels’ account of an alleged supper at Trump’s apartment that year.

Necheles’s deft questioning style was commended by former Queens County Supreme Court judge George Grasso. In an interview with CNN, Grasso stated, “Well, what stood out to me is that Susan Necheles, Donald Trump’s defense attorney cross-examining Stormy Daniels, really did her homework.” She carried out her duties as a competent defense lawyer to the letter. She examined earlier assertions and sought for discrepancies, finding some.

One discrepancy concerned whether Daniels’ purported meeting with Trump took place over dinner. According to Grasso, the woman testified under direct examination on Tuesday and made it quite evident that there was no meal despite hours of conversation. You are aware that the goal of a defense lawyer is to draw attention to such discrepancies so that the jury will be forced to consider their options.

By comparing Daniels’ trial testimony with earlier utterances, Necheles sought to cast doubt on Daniels’ integrity. “If you can’t trust her on that kind of detail, what about the other details?” Grasso questioned.

In an attempt to highlight inconsistencies, the Trump attorney questioned how the woman, who had testified earlier, could have felt dizzy and had her hands go numb due to Trump’s purported advances in the hotel room. Daniels clarified that it was unexpected and shocking to find an older man, who was not her spouse, sleeping on a bed in his boxers. Necheles cited Daniels’ book, in which the adult film actress asserted that she was fearless enough to “make [Trump] my b*tch,” drawing a contrast between that assertion and the purported weakness Daniels expressed in her testimony.

She further emphasized that Daniels did not reject Trump’s approaches, something that Daniels acknowledged, adding that this was not the first time someone had made a pass at her. She did draw attention to the fact that this was the first time a bodyguard had been posted 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 pressed. “No,” Daniels claimed in response.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend