So they pay her for the story.

Still not seeing the crime.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

After the "Access Hollywood" tape came out, Stormy Daniels says she had conversations with her then-publicist Gina Rodriguez about selling her story.

She started to describe the conversations but Judge Juan Merchan sustained an objection to that answer.

---

Quote:

---

Stormy Daniels is testifying that in 2016, her then-publicist Gina Rodriguez' focus was to sell her story to news outlets.
Asked if she thought about approaching Trump himself or Michael Cohen to have them pay for the story, Daniels says "no."
"My motivation wasn't money. It was to get the story out," she says.

---

Suuuuure it was.

Quote:

---

Stormy Daniels said she learned from Gina Rodriguez that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen were interested in buying her story.
She learned of this in October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape, Daniels says.
"They were interested in paying for the story," Daniels says of Cohen and Trump.
"Which was the best thing that could've happened... "because then I'd be safe and the story wouldn't come out," she testified.

---

---

These two comments are conflicting. She wants to get the story out, but then later says she doesn't want it out for her safety.

Why the defense isn't raising hell over the failure to invoke the Molineux rule of New York State I have no clue. And even if this quack judge wants to overrule Molineux under state law If irrelevant and or prejudicial evidence is admitted, the court still has to give instructions to the jury, relating to the specific purpose of the evidence and recognizing it's irrelevancy. See F.R.E. rule 404(b).

Wasn't there some testimony earlier about how much she wanted and the price kept going up?

Quote:

---

Stormy Daniels said she was not paid on October 14, 2016, like she was supposed to.
"I didn't know why it was late, he just kept making excuses," Daniels testified.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked who was making excuses.
"Trump to Cohen to Davidson," Daniels said.
"It wasn't a financial delay, so it made me more concerned that something bad was going to happen. And if wasn't done before the election, it was never going to happen," Daniels said.

---

But you never cared about the money, riiiight.

Two hours and counting for Stormy and now on lunch break, while she is still on direct examination.

TexAg1987 said:

---

Wasn't there some testimony earlier about how much she wanted and the price kept going up?

---

IIRC, that was Karen McDougal.

ETA: To clarify, McDougal was negotiating with AMI publisher of the National Enquirer.

I think all of this, "I didn't want the money" hurts the prosecution. I am sure the media will buy it, but everyone else knows who she is. She's a porn star. Everyone knows she wanted money. It hurts her credibility.

Also, her comment about "misreading signals" when she went up to Trump Tower also really kills her credibility. She would have been better off just saying, "I saw a rich dude and I wanted to use him to better my career." It's much more believable.

AustinAg2K said:

---

I think all of this, "I didn't want the money" hurts the prosecution. I am sure the media will buy it, but everyone else knows who she is. She's a porn star. Everyone knows she wanted money. It hurts her credibility.

Also, her comment about "misreading signals" when she went up to Trump Tower also really kills her credibility. She would have been better off just saying, "I saw a rich dude and I wanted to use him to better my career." It's much more believable.

---

I didn't want the money, I wanted to get the story out. But I took the money so the story wouldn't get out.

I really don't understand this, "I didn't want the money and I didn't want the story out" line. Fine, then just don't say anything. It's really not that hard.

Tramp96 said:

---

So they pay her for the story.

Still not seeing the crime.

---

The payment isn't the alleged crime.

Quote:

---

I think all of this, "I didn't want the money" hurts the prosecution.

---

100% agree.

It is a very strange strategy!

Tramp96 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

I think all of this, "I didn't want the money" hurts the prosecution. I am sure the media will buy it, but everyone else knows who she is. She's a porn star. Everyone knows she wanted money. It hurts her credibility.

Also, her comment about "misreading signals" when she went up to Trump Tower also really kills her credibility. She would have been better off just saying, "I saw a rich dude and I wanted to use him to better my career." It's much more believable.

---

I didn't want the money, I wanted to get the story out. But I took the money so the story wouldn't get out.

---

And she had to get the money before the election or the deal wouldn't have gone through. Makes zero sense.

Tramp96 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

I think all of this, "I didn't want the money" hurts the prosecution. I am sure the media will buy it, but everyone else knows who she is. She's a porn star. Everyone knows she wanted money. It hurts her credibility.

Also, her comment about "misreading signals" when she went up to Trump Tower also really kills her credibility. She would have been better off just saying, "I saw a rich dude and I wanted to use him to better my career." It's much more believable.

---

I didn't want the money, I wanted to get the story out. But I took the money so the story wouldn't get out.

---

I mean, she couldn't even remember how her clothes magically came off after looking at his shampoo and gold manicure set...can't expect her to remember what she just testified to and then not contradict it just a moment later.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Why the defense isn't raising hell over the failure to invoke the Molineux rule of New York State I have no clue. And even if this quack judge wants to overrule Molineux under state law If irrelevant and or prejudicial evidence is admitted, the court still has to give instructions to the jury, relating to the specific purpose of the evidence and recognizing it's irrelevancy. See F.R.E. rule 404(b).

---

Federal Rules of Evidence?

Quote:

---

And she had to get the money before the election or the deal wouldn't have gone through. Makes zero sense.

---

This part does make sense.

If Trump won, they no longer had incentive to pay her.

The part that make no sense is the "I had to take the money because I didn't want the story to get out"

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

And she had to get the money before the election or the deal wouldn't have gone through. Makes zero sense.

---

This part does make sense.

If Trump won, they no longer had incentive to pay her.

The part that make no sense is the "I had to take the money because I didn't want the story to get out"

---

I'd say the other way around. They expected him to lose to Hillary. After an electoral loss, the motivation to pay her would be back to protecting Melania and his family.

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

And she had to get the money before the election or the deal wouldn't have gone through. Makes zero sense.

---

This part does make sense.

If Trump won, they no longer had incentive to pay her.

The part that make no sense is the "I had to take the money because I didn't want the story to get out"

---

I'd say the other way around. They expected him to lose to Hillary. After an electoral loss, the motivation to pay her would be back to protecting Melania and his family.

---

I could equally see it argued either way which makes it pretty irrelevant, with focus just going back on She didn't want the story out for her safety....Then said she just wanted it out....It wasn't about money....then had to take the money so it wouldn't get out.

I'd love for her to reexplain that...

If he paid it to keep it from further getting out to protect his family from the lies…it's again not 'election fraud.'

Quote:

---

I'd say the other way around. They expected him to lose to Hillary

---

I doubt we hear any evidence of that, but long way to go!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd say the other way around. They expected him to lose to Hillary

---

I doubt we hear any evidence of that, but long way to go!

---

Remember they don't think he beat hillary, Russia did.

nortex97 said:

---

If he paid it to keep it from further getting out to protect his family from the lies…it's again not 'election fraud.'

---

I believe that even if he did it just in part to protect his family, its not an election law violation. Going on memory, but I think it has to be solely for the election.

Quote:

---

she couldn't even remember how her clothes magically came off

---

'It just happened' okay.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd say the other way around. They expected him to lose to Hillary

---

I doubt we hear any evidence of that, but long way to go!

---

Already heard it from Stormy's lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson. He said that when he was pressuring Cohen for the payment before the election.

Ah! Gotcha! I thought "they" meant the Trump people.

Im Gipper said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

If he paid it to keep it from further getting out to protect his family from the lies…it's again not 'election fraud.'

---

I believe that even if he did it just in part to protect his family, its not an election law violation. Going on memory, but I think it has to be solely for the election.

---

So if a candidate goes out and buys a new suit for a campaign event but plans of course to wear the suit more than once in the future at non campaign related events/work days....is that a campaign expenditure? In other words how clear are the lines or are they pretty blurry. In my example could it be classified either way and be fine?

It means she took them off. She would be more than happy to say Trump ripped them off of her. We are basing this all on her account. For all we know, she showed up and got naked in the entry way. Trump was in a suit and tie.

These stories always seem to favor the Harvey Weinstein accounts of his methods.

Not exactly this situation but anytime a celeb is accused we always get a bunch of other accusations that are very similar.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

If he paid it to keep it from further getting out to protect his family from the lies…it's again not 'election fraud.'

---

I believe that even if he did it just in part to protect his family, its not an election law violation. Going on memory, but I think it has to be solely for the election.

---

So if a candidate goes out and buys a new suit for a campaign event but plans of course to wear the suit more than once in the future at non campaign related events/work days....is that a campaign expenditure? In other words how clear are the lines or are they pretty blurry. In my example could it be classified either way and be fine?

---

Need more info: Can you clarify if your hypothetical politician has an (R) or (D) after their name?

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

If he paid it to keep it from further getting out to protect his family from the lies…it's again not 'election fraud.'

---

I believe that even if he did it just in part to protect his family, its not an election law violation. Going on memory, but I think it has to be solely for the election.

---

So if a candidate goes out and buys a new suit for a campaign event but plans of course to wear the suit more than once in the future at non campaign related events/work days....is that a campaign expenditure? In other words how clear are the lines or are they pretty blurry. In my example could it be classified either way and be fine?

---

Democrats and most Republicans view everything as a campaign expense so it gets confusing when someone doesn't want to expense it.

The only exception is Air Force one. They will find a reason to make it a government expense.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

she couldn't even remember how her clothes magically came off

---

'It just happened' okay.

---

After 499 porn films it's easy to say it was just an involuntary reflex I guess

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

I think all of this, "I didn't want the money" hurts the prosecution. I am sure the media will buy it, but everyone else knows who she is. She's a porn star. Everyone knows she wanted money. It hurts her credibility.

Also, her comment about "misreading signals" when she went up to Trump Tower also really kills her credibility. She would have been better off just saying, "I saw a rich dude and I wanted to use him to better my career." It's much more believable.

---

I didn't want the money, I wanted to get the story out. But I took the money so the story wouldn't get out.

---

I mean, she couldn't even remember how her clothes magically came off after looking at his shampoo and gold manicure set...can't expect her to remember what she just testified to and then not contradict it just a moment later.

---

I actually will give her the benefit of the doubt on this one, seeing as it must have been hundreds, if not thousands of times that her clothes have magically come off with scores of men.

I'm sure it's hard to keep them all straight.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Tldr on Stormy testimony so far.

• Stormy ***** Trump to get a spot on the Apprentice. It didn't work out for her and she's mad about it.

• Trump uses Old Spice and Pert Plus.

---

That Trump uses a 2-in-1 product on his world famous hair has to be the most damaging aspect of this testimony.

Reading through her testimony, I'm finding it more and more likely that Stormy is STILL getting paid.

How much do you think it would be worth to some people to bring down an opposition candidate? "Tell the right story, convince the jury and get the man convicted, and you'll never have to worry about anything financially ever again."

If you keeping score at home, the State of New York has prosecuted the leading presidential candidate on the testimony of two *****s and a some bankers that say they were not the victim of fraud.

'Protecting democracy one case at a time.'

More to come ...

jrdaustin said:

---

Reading through her testimony, I'm finding it more and more likely that Stormy is STILL getting paid.

How much do you think it would be worth to some people to bring down an opposition candidate? "Tell the right story, convince the jury and get the man convicted, and you'll never have to worry about anything financially ever again."

---

If this trial was purely about the actual charges, the only story she could tell that SHOULD have any effect on the outcome would be if she said "Mr. Trump told me he was buying my story to interfere with the election and wanted to keep it under wraps that he paid her so would record it fraudulently in his financial records"

Otherwise what she did or didn't do with Trump in a hotel is meaningless to the case.

Her tale of Trump wearing silk pajamas sounds like a bunch of garbage. Trump just does not come across as a kind of person who would dress like Hefner. There are literally hundreds of pictures of Trump at the Playboy Mansion at different times where everyone is wearing pajamas and he's in a suit and tie or a tux.