The crucial question in former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan hush money trial isn’t whether or not he is guilty; instead, it’s something far more essential. Is Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney’s case a joke? A farce? A prank?
Thursday, the answer became clear. It’s all of the above. Porn star Stormy Daniels, the prosecution’s star witness, proved it. However, it’s a horrible abuse of the justice system and an assault on the rule of law.
One can’t imagine a prosecution witness worse than Daniels. Her testimony under brutal cross-examination was a glaring example of self-destruction. When she left the stand, her already questionable narrative lay shredded on the courtroom floor.
Prosecutors must have questioned themselves, “Why did we call her a witness?” Of course, their objective was to smear and humiliate Trump with a lurid tale of sex that had no relation to the criminal charges at issue. It was a juvenile gamble that spectacularly backfired.
Daniels insisted she always told the truth. However, she admitted the two statements she signed that denied an affair with Trump weren’t true. But she demanded cash. She claimed she wanted her narrative about Trump to be known to the public. This is after eagerly selling herself to remain silent.
The porn star is only vaguely acquainted with the concept of telling the truth. She uses it infrequently and only when it suits her. Her motto could be, “Honesty is for suckers.”
Her numerous out-of-court statements came back to haunt her. Daniels’ story seemed to drastically change depending on her motives and/or audience for personal gain. That’s the issue with lying on the witness stand. Her tainted testimony rubs off on the prosecution, as they are the ones who called her.
Stormy Daniels’ seething hatred of the former president was on display Thursday as the defense chipped away at her reliability as a witness. Having already admitted she “despises Trump,” she attempted to walk back her personal feelings. But it didn’t work. Her own previous words destroyed her responses.
Daniels was confronted with her social media posts where she bragged she would be critical in putting Trump in jail and described herself as “the best person to flush the orange turd down” a toilet. When Trump was indicted, she popped some corks, adding, “I don’t want to spill my champagne.”
Does this sound like the actions of a credible or objective witness? Maybe an unstable person. Case in point: She informed the court she posed as a medium who talks to dead people. I’m not joking. Her stint as a television psychic with paranormal powers proved profitable. Couldn’t her whole testimony also be a giant farce?
Daniels’ greed isn’t new. It has defined her every move. The defense introduced trial evidence that demonstrated she was a shakedown pro. While Trump was running in 2016, she cashed in on her alleged brief encounter with him ten years prior by squeezing him for money under increasing threats.
Is that extortion? Yep. A compelling criminal case could be made against Daniels. However, that hasn’t happened, mostly because prosecutors saw an irresistible opportunity to exploit Daniels for political purposes. Trump’s error, if he made one, was taking the advice of his then-lawyer, the crooked Michael Cohen, and giving in to Daniels’ blackmail scheme.
Daniels was an irrelevant, unnecessary, and lewd witness. There was no reason to call her to the stand. She wasn’t privy to any of the decisions regarding bookkeeping that are central to the heart of Trump’s 34 charges. She even scoffed at the idea that she did not know about the actual indictment or what laws may have been broken.
However, once prosecutors decided to put Daniels in the witness box, the damage to their case was unavoidable. At one point, Daniels reinforced Trump’s central defense.
While being questioned, Daniels acknowledged that the agreement she signed was a legal contract being handled legally. That statement supports Trump’s defense argument that the contract negotiated with Daniels was labeled properly as “legal expenses” because that is what they were. The accountant who entered the payment that way in the Trump Organization’s ledger corroborated this previously.
Almost every witness called by the prosecution so far has helped Trump out much more than it has harmed him. Thursday’s testimony ended with Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s personal White House secretary. She confirmed Trump signed checks, which didn’t help the prosecution’s case. But she then put forward a zinger. She told the jury twice that she believes her former boss isn’t being treated fairly. Of course, that is an understatement.
Each day brings additional testimony that only reinforces the contention by Trump that this case is a politically-motivated partisan “witch hunt” — a trial searching for a non-existent crime. You cannot influence an election following the election; concealing a legal act isn’t a criminal offense. The prosecution’s theory doesn’t only make no sense, but it also didn’t happen.
The case against former President Trump has been sputtering since District Attorney Alvin Bragg invented the indictment. A competent judge would have ordered the DA to withdraw the case long ago.
However, since Donald Trump is the accused defendant, Bragg and his prosecutor cronies are determined to keep it going — hoping a biased jury will wrongly convict Trump.
