PLOT TWIST: Prosecutors Call Stormy Daniels to the Stand, and Trump Is Not Happy About It

In a move that left Donald Trump fuming, DA Alvin Bragg has called Stormy Daniels to the stand on Tuesday. That came as a surprise for many given the NDA Daniels signed is not in question and she appears to have nothing material to offer the case. 

Expectedly, Trump wasn’t too pleased with the revelation. The former president slammed the judge overseeing the case in a now-deleted post, possibly because his lawyers felt it violated the gag order.

As Trump entered the courtroom later in the morning, he was much more careful with his words, though just as defiant. 

I think there’s some evidence to back his bluster. This case is incredibly weak, and amidst all the constant shouting about how unfair it is, it’s a very winnable affair. All you need is one juror to call nonsense Bragg’s machinations, and perfectly within the realm of possibility. If that happens, it’ll be the biggest campaign contribution Trump has ever received. 

SEE: The Question No One Is Asking About Trump’s New York Criminal Trial

Here’s what I wrote on the matter back in March.

But there’s one question no one seems to be asking: What happens if he’s acquitted? 
Admittedly, it’s hard to imagine how a trial held in one of the most far-left parts of the country could end in anything but a conviction of Trump. No one hates the former president more than the types of people who populate Manhattan. It’s easy to assume the facts won’t matter and that a negative outcome is assured. 
Perhaps that’s true, but what if it’s not? It only takes one juror to blow up any possible conviction of Trump, and Bragg’s case is objectively ludicrous. It relies on the notion that state prosecutors can make felonies of misdemeanors as a way to punish alleged federal crimes that even the DOJ rejected as valid. That is one of the dumbest and most abusive legal theories to ever grace an indictment. What if one or more jurors simply don’t buy it? It’s at least possible, right? 
The repercussions of an acquittal are hard to overstate for Democrats. Lawfare is their plan to defeat Trump, and if he manages to secure victory over their first attempt (and possibly the only one that happens before election day), it could take him from a tight polling lead in March to an electoral college blowout in November. That’s the risk Democrats took in pursuing this third-world, banana republic-esque strategy. 

Regardless, as Jonathan Turley notes, calling Daniels seems to be nothing but a political exercise in trying to embarrass Trump, who has long denied the alleged affair. No doubt, prosecutors want his team to admit in no uncertain terms what the NDA resulted from.

What does that have to do with how the payment was categorized, though? 

The only argument I could see for calling Daniels is if she specifically testifies that she was told the NDA was to mitigate damage to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. That would at least be arguable as relevant to how the payment was logged (which is the basis of the charges, i.e. that this was campaign activity illegally categorized as a private transaction). I doubt she was ever told that directly, though. So what does she have to offer? 

It just seems like a political play. Get Daniels up there to talk about the affair so CNN, MSNBC, and the various left-wing newspapers can write a million stories about it. It’s all so transparent as a way to help Joe Biden win re-election. But again, if Trump’s defense puts on a clinic and secures an acquittal or hung jury, it could completely backfire. That’s the massive risk Bragg and the broader left-wing coalition pushing this are taking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ABC Crime Drama Stigmatizes Legal Gun Ownership

Harvard’s Pro-Palestinian Camp Tried to Sleep Last Night, but One Patriot Wouldn’t Let Them