Advertisement

Former Judge Offers Praise For Trump Attorney Who Cross-Examined Stormy Daniels

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


A former judge is offering words of praise for one of former President Donald Trump for her cross-examination of adult film star Stormy Daniels this week during the likely GOP nominee’s hush money trial.

Attorney Susan Necheles engaged in a tense cross of Daniels after she had made “salacious” claims the previous day while providing testimony for District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecutors. Her remarks were so over-the-top in many cases that Judge Juan Merchan sustained several objections from defense lawyers but he denied Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s motion for a mistrial.

Stormy Daniels is a pivotal witness for the prosecution, bolstering claims that might lead to testimony from Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen. During cross-examination, Necheles capitalized on the opportunity to highlight inconsistencies in Daniels’ prior statements, especially an interview with a gossip magazine in 2011. She pointed out discrepancies in Daniels’ description of a supposed dinner at Trump’s penthouse that year.

George Grasso, a former Queens County Supreme Court judge, praised Necheles’ strategic approach during her line of questioning. “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.”

Advertisement

One inconsistency revolved around whether dinner occurred during Daniels’ alleged encounter with Trump. Grasso said: “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.”

Necheles aimed to challenge Daniels’ credibility by contrasting her trial testimony with prior statements, raising doubts about her reliability. Grasso said, “If you can’t trust her on that kind of a detail, what about the other details?”

The Trump lawyer sought to expose discrepancies by questioning how Trump’s alleged hotel room advances could have made her feel faint and caused her hands to go numb, as she had previously testified. Daniels explained that it was startling to encounter an older man lying on a bed in his boxers when it was unexpected and the man was not her husband. Necheles brought up Daniels’ book, where the adult film actress claimed she was assertive enough to “make [Trump] my b*tch,” contrasting that claim with the alleged vulnerability Daniels described in her testimony.

She also highlighted that Daniels did not refuse Trump’s advances, a point Daniels confirmed, noting that this wasn’t her first experience of someone making a pass at her. However, she pointed out that it was the first time a bodyguard was stationed outside the room.

“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 response.

Daniels’ former attorney, Michael Avennati, issued a scathing response to her testimony this week

Advertisement

Avenatti said that Daniels essentially committed the same infraction Trump is charged with, The Blaze reported. He mentioned that last year, a producer developing a documentary about Daniels had reached out to him.

Initially, he contemplated participating, but he decided against it upon discovering that Daniels was being paid for her involvement. He saw this as a blatant indication that Daniels would control, be biased, and lack integrity in the project.

Also, Avenatti claimed that the producer told him that Daniels was going to be “secretly paid” to hide the money because “she owed Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars” following a defamation suit he won against her.

Trending Sponsored Stories