Naturally, the prosecution ignored my advice and put Daniels on the stand in their case-in-chief. If I were a juror, here is how I would respond to her testimony:
- She proved the existence of the sexual encounter beyond a reasonable doubt. That is based on the detail of her testimony and the behavior of the parties for a few years after the event.
- Whether the encounter took place precisely in the manner she described is an open question. I would have to hear Trump’s version before I draw any conclusions. Of course, Trump is likely to deny the whole thing, which would be unhelpful to both him and me.
- Daniels says she just wanted the story to get out; she wasn’t much interested in money. The defense says she was blackmailing Trump. Neither narrative is correct. Daniels was in it for the money, not the impact on Trump; as it happened, the National Enquirer wouldn’t pay her, so the Trump Organization did.
Why did the prosecution put her on? I have to think they are trying to bait Trump into testifying. For a variety of reasons, they really want to destroy him on cross.
I can’t think of a more plausible explanation.