“This line of cross accomplishes nothing” Stormy Daniels Gains Advantage in Trump Hush Money Trial as Legal Experts Criticize Defense
Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty
Adult film star Stormy Daniels may have gained a significant advantage in former President Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial as Trump’s attorney pursued a line of questioning that legal experts criticized as achieving “nothing.”
The questioning came from Trump’s attorney Susan Necheles, who tried to disprove a minor detail in Daniels’ account of her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006: that she never ate dinner. Necheles repeatedly pressed Daniels on this point, but legal experts found the cross-examination unproductive.
Necheles posed at least a dozen questions, referencing past interviews and statements to challenge Daniels’ claim that she hadn’t been served dinner. “You said you had dinner but you didn’t,” Necheles asserted. “Your words don’t mean what you say, do they?”
Daniels maintained her stance, reiterating that she went to Trump’s hotel room expecting dinner but never received a meal. “I needed dinner, I didn’t get dinner,” Daniels responded. “I maintain I never saw any food”, told NBC News.
Daniels’ testimony defended her statements made earlier in the week in Manhattan criminal court during Trump’s ongoing trial over charges of falsifying business records related to hush money paid ahead of the 2016 presidential election. She claimed she had been paid to keep quiet about an affair that Trump denies. The former president has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Necheles then highlighted an interview Daniels gave to CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, where she allegedly described being fed. Daniels demanded to see the interview, and after reviewing it, she remembered having a long conversation with Cooper. “You’re showing one sentence in an entire conversation,” Daniels remarked, defending her previous account.
The moment captured the attention of legal experts like former federal prosecutor Harry Litman. He shared his analysis on X, formerly known as Twitter, writing, “Stormy suggesting elsewhere in interview w/ Anderson Cooper she says didn’t have dinner. If that’s accurate and it comes out on redirect, it’s very bad for Necheles. This is the best point she’s scored to date.”
Legal analyst Andrew Weissmann also criticized Necheles’ approach, stating, “This is not a particularly good line of the cross.” Conservative lawyer George Conway echoed these sentiments, saying, “This line of cross accomplishes nothing.”
As the cross-examination continued, Conway further chimed in, expressing disbelief at the defense’s approach: “This is ludicrous. That’s all the defense has?”
Necheles’ line of questioning seemed focused on undermining Daniels’ credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements. However, her emphasis on the minor details of a meal appeared to have little impact on the core allegations. Instead, the strategy may have backfired, inadvertently strengthening Daniels’ position and bolstering her credibility in the trial.
Daniels’ testimony remains crucial in the case, as prosecutors argue that the hush money paid to her was part of a broader effort to conceal damaging information ahead of the 2016 election. The trial continues to attract significant public attention, not only due to its implications for Trump but also because of the high-profile nature of the individuals involved.
