On Tuesday, May 7, Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress at the center of a hush money trial against former President Donald Trump, provided a detailed account of her alleged 2006 encounter with Trump and the subsequent years of anxious negotiations over a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
Daniels’ testimony offered a glimpse into the high-stakes world surrounding a powerful celebrity and the attempts to control the narrative during a heated presidential election.
A Parking Lot Threat and a Magazine Deal
Taking the stand in a Lower Manhattan courtroom, Daniels recounted meeting Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada in 2006. She described a brief sexual encounter and said Trump continued to pursue her afterward, dangling the possibility of an appearance on his reality TV show, “The Apprentice.”
Even with Trump’s legal team continuously raising objections, Daniels provided her in-depth account of the sexual incident that she says took place in 2006. Her narrative occasionally suggested that the encounter might be perceived as lacking consent.
Throughout the hearing, Trump was overheard whispering curses under his breath.
Daniels, visibly anxious and speaking at a rapid pace, provided a highly detailed recounting of the night she visited Trump in his suite, sharing that they engaged in sexual relations.
Upon her arrival, anticipating only a dinner, Daniels recounted how she found Trump clad in silk or satin pajamas. Following a light-hearted comment from her, he opted to change into a suit. As they took their seats at the dinner table, Trump inquired about her career in the adult film industry, including questions regarding STD testing, according to Daniels. She also mentioned a moment when she playfully spanked him with a magazine.
Daniels described her surprise when, after exiting the bathroom, she discovered Trump on the bed dressed only in a T-shirt and boxers, indicating her lack of desire for the ensuing sexual encounter.
Daniels expressed her shock: “I just thought, oh, my God, how could I have misinterpreted things to end up here? It’s pretty obvious what the expectation was when someone’s lying on the bed in their underwear.”
Despite not feeling physically or verbally coerced by Trump, Daniels highlighted the evident imbalance of power, noting Trump’s physical stature greater than hers and the presence of a bodyguard outside the room.
Daniels recounted, “Before I knew it, I found myself on the bed, a distance away from where we initially stood. My clothing and shoes were removed.”
In her narrative, Daniels also shared how she disengaged mentally during the act, fixating on the ceiling to distract herself from the reality of the situation, a detail confirmed though the judge dismissed it during the testimony. She noted Trump’s lack of condom use and described the sexual position they adopted. Following the incident, Daniels maintained her silence as she collected her belongings.
Daniels: “My hands were shaking so hard. I was having a hard time getting dressed.” He said, “Oh, great. Let’s get together again honey bunch. We were great together.” I just wanted to leave.
Trump, refuting claims of any sexual encounter with Daniels, has asserted his innocence in response to accusations of manipulating business documents to hide payments made to silence Daniels during the 2016 electoral campaign.
Years later, in 2011, Daniels said she agreed to be interviewed by In Touch magazine about the alleged affair for $15,000. “The money didn’t matter to me,” Daniels testified, according to a report by New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane-Newman. “I just wanted to get the story out.”
However, the interview was never published. Daniels testified that just weeks after speaking to the magazine, she was approached by a threatening stranger in a Las Vegas parking lot. The man allegedly accosted her, referencing her conversation with the magazine and mentioning her daughter.
“He threatened me not to continue to tell my story,” Daniels said, according to Crane-Newman’s report.
Fearful, Daniels said she spoke to a lawyer about the parking lot incident and documented the threat.
Hush Money Negotiations and a Race Against Time
In 2016, with Trump in the midst of a contentious presidential campaign, Daniels reconnected with her manager and discussed the possibility of selling her story again. This time, the urgency was heightened by the potential impact on the election.
“I was afraid that if it wasn’t done before the nominations and things, then I wouldn’t be safe,” Daniels testified.
Through her manager, Daniels connected with Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer. Negotiations for a non-disclosure agreement began, with Cohen offering Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about the alleged affair.
Daniels testified that she was not motivated by money but by a desire to get the story out before the election and ensure her safety. She ultimately signed the NDA in October 2016, just weeks before Election Day.
A Media Firestorm and Legal Battles
Despite the NDA, the story of the hush money payment became public in January 2018 when The Wall Street Journal reported on the deal. Daniels’ life became a media whirlwind, and she said her daughter was ostracized by other children.
She later sued Trump, claiming the NDA was invalid because Cohen, who negotiated the agreement, was no longer working for Trump at the time. Daniels also faced a defamation lawsuit from Trump after her then-lawyer released a sketch of the man who allegedly threatened her in the parking lot. Daniels testified that she did not authorize the sketch.
Taking the Stand: Credibility and Motive
During cross-examination, Trump’s defense team focused on discrediting Daniels’ motives and the timeline of events. Lawyers pressed Daniels on her varying reasons for wanting to tell the story and suggested she was attempting to extort money from Trump. Daniels denied these claims.
The defense also highlighted Daniels’ past public criticisms of Trump and suggested her accusations were politically motivated. Daniels acknowledged disliking Trump but maintained that her testimony was truthful.
The trial is expected to continue, with witness testimony and closing arguments from both sides. The jury will ultimately decide whether Trump violated campaign finance laws by arranging the hush money payment.
This case hinges on witness credibility, with Daniels’ account a central piece of the prosecution’s argument. The outcome could have significant implications for Trump’s legacy and potentially set new legal precedents regarding campaign finance violations.