Former President Donald Trump’s legal team grilled adult film star Stormy Daniels on Thursday in a tense cross-examination that showcased attorney Susan Necheles’s diligent preparation. Despite the defense’s objections to Daniels’ earlier testimony, Judge Juan Merchan denied their request for a trial delay and permitted Daniels to continue her statements.
Daniels stands as a central witness for the prosecution, supporting the claims that could eventually lead to testimony from Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen. Necheles seized the opportunity to find inconsistencies in Daniels’ previous accounts, particularly during an interview with a gossip magazine in 2011. She highlighted a discrepancy in Daniels’ portrayal of an alleged dinner in Trump’s penthouse that year.
George Grasso, a former Queens County Supreme Court judge, analyzed the cross-examination and praised Necheles’ strategic approach. “Well, what stood out to me is that Donald Trump’s defense attorney cross-examining Stormy Daniels, Susan Necheles, really did her homework,” Grasso said in an interview with CNN. “She did exactly what a good defense attorney is supposed to do. She looked at prior statements, she searched for inconsistencies, and she had some.”
One inconsistency in particular revolved around Daniels’ account of whether dinner took place during her alleged encounter with Trump. According to Grasso, “She testified very clearly Tuesday, on direct examination, that there was no dinner, there were hours of conversation and no dinner. So you know a defense attorney’s job is to try and expose inconsistencies like that to get the juries to start to think or possibly doubt.”
WATCH:
Necheles sought to leverage this discrepancy in order to challenge Daniels’ credibility. By contrasting her trial testimony with prior statements, the defense aimed to raise doubts about her reliability. Grasso explained, “If you can’t trust her on that kind of a detail, what about the other details?”
The Trump lawyer aimed to highlight discrepancies by asking how Trump’s supposed hotel room propositions left her feeling faint and made her hands go numb, as she’d testified earlier. Daniels responded that encountering an older man lying on a bed in his boxers, when unexpected and not a husband, is startling. Necheles referred to Daniels’ book, where the adult film actress had claimed she was assertive enough to “make [Trump] my b*tch.”
She also pointed out that Daniels didn’t refuse sex with Trump, which Daniels confirmed, adding that this wasn’t the first time someone had made a pass at her. However, she noted it was the first time a bodyguard was stationed outside.
“You told In Touch a completely different story,” Necheles said according to Fox News. Daniels disagreed, stating, “No,” and that “there were parts in the middle I didn’t remember.” The adult film star defended herself by saying she wasn’t trying to profit in 2011 and that the In Touch article was a condensed version that “left out a lot because they couldn’t fact-check it.”
“You made it up,” Necheles pressed.
“No,” Daniels claimed.
In the coming days, attention will pivot to Michael Cohen’s testimony. Once Trump’s trusted attorney, Cohen’s statements could prove pivotal in shaping the jury’s perception of the case. Whether Necheles and Trump’s legal team can replicate their cross-examination success remains to be seen, as the defense continues to press its case that Daniels’ testimony should not be taken at face value.