Stormy Daniels’ Testimony in Trump Trial Clashes With Previous Statements Forcing Defense Team To Call For a Mistrial

As Stormy Daniels testified in the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in New York on Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers asked for a new trial.

It was last year that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) charged Trump with 34 felonies for making false business records about payments he made to Michael Cohen, his former lawyer. He said that he gave Daniels $130,000 in so-called “hush money” to keep quiet about the affair she allegedly had with the former president.

Todd Blanche, Trump’s lawyer, said that Daniels’ claims during the prosecution’s direct questioning were different from what she had said in public before.

“We move for a mistrial based on the testimony of this witness,” Blanche told acting Justice Juan Merchan on Tuesday, saying that Daniels had crossed the “guardrails” set by the court.

“A lot of the testimony that this witness talked about today is way different than the story she was peddling in 2016,” she said.

Daniels said in court that she “blacked out” during the claimed sexual encounter she had with Trump. In addition, she said they didn’t use a condom and that Trump was bigger than her, which she said made a power difference.

“I just think I blacked out. I was not drugged. I was not drunk. I just don’t remember,”. Daniels said to the jury. “I told very few people that we had actually had sex, because I felt ashamed that I didn’t stop it.”

When Daniels talked about seeing Trump after the claimed encounter, Blanche said, “She qualified that it was in an open place, a public place.”

“She talked about a consensual encounter with President Trump that she was trying to sell … and that’s not the story she told today,” he said. “But now we’ve heard it. And it is an issue. How can you unring the bell?”

Attorneys for the prosecution said Daniels’ detailed account of the alleged sexual encounter was “highly probative of defendant’s intent” and his “motive for paying this off.” In addition, they said Daniels’ story was “not a new account.”

Blanche told us, “This is the kind of testimony that makes it impossible to come back from — not even talking about the fact that we’re talking about somebody is going to go out and campaign this afternoon.”

“This has nothing to do with the reason why we’re here, your honor,” he said. “She testified today about consent, about danger, and that’s not the story she was peddling. Sorry, that’s not the story she was selling.”

“I don’t think anybody, anybody, can listen to what that witness said, think that has anything to do with the charges, and the entire testimony is so prejudicial that you run the very high risk of the jury not being able to focus on the evidence that actually does matter,” Blanche said.

Blanche asked for a new trial, but Merchan turned it down. He partly blamed the defense for not objecting more when the prosecution questioned Daniels.

“As a threshold matter, I agree, Mr. Blanche, that there were some things that probably would’ve been better left unsaid,” Merchan said to Trump’s lawyer. “Having said that, I don’t believe we’re at a point where a mistrial is warranted.”

Wow, that really helped, didn’t it? #eyeroll So the judge admitted that some of the things that Stormy Daniels said should not have been said. Yet there was no remedy for him allowing her to say those things that would harm Trump. It’s just another example of the lawlessness of this judge and the prosecutors in this case.

Here are three facts about this case that I can guarantee you the jury will not hear from the judge’s instructions:

1. NDA’s are legal.
2. Paying for silence is legal.
3. Reimbursing a lawyer is legal and considered a legal expense.

If you are on that jury and you heard all the nonsense that this judge has allowed to be said during this trial and you didn’t know those three facts, you would vote guilty. And that’s exactly why this judge is doing the things he’s doing. His job is to keep Trump away from campaigning as long as he can and to make sure he is found guilty.

The National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media, Inc. (AMI), paid $30,000 to a former doorman at one of Donald Trump’s real estate NYC properties for a salacious story about Trump.

The doorman, Dino Sajudin, received $30,000 in exchange for turning over the rights, “in perpetuity,” to a story about Trump’s sex life, mainly that the president fathered a child with a staffer at Trump World Tower, a skyscraper he owns near the United Nations.

This happened right before the 2016 election and Democrats even then tried to get the DOJ to investigate if Trump violated campaign finance laws.

RadarOnline, an Enquirer sister publication, reported on the money and the rumor that Sajudin was selling. According to the website, the Enquirer spent four weeks reporting on the claim before concluding it was false. The corporation only removed Sajudin from his contract after the 2016 election, following an inquiry from the Journal regarding the payment. According to the website, the Associated Press was one of several publications looking into the ex-doorman’s tip.

Why did Sajudin go to the media with this story when it was false? Because he wanted a quick payday, knowing that a billionaire who was running for president would probably pay the money to keep the story out of the headlines even though it was a complete fabrication. Can you imagine if that fake news story was actually published? They would have trashed Trump, claiming he knocked up an employee, and so how could he be trusted as president? It would be endless, and it would have destroyed a hard-fought campaign, all based on a lie.

When asked about the payment last summer, Dylan Howard, the Enquirer’s senior editor and an AMI executive, said he paid to ensure the former Trump doorman’s exclusive participation because the tip, if genuine, would have sold “hundreds of thousands” of magazines. Ultimately, he stated that the information “lacked any credibility,” so he spiked the story on those grounds.

Doesn’t it now make a lot more sense with the other story of a porn star, right before the election, demanding hush money for a story that she fabricated about Trump having sex with her?

#stormydanielstestimony #trumptrial #hushmoneyscandal