6:41 AM. Feeling a little stressed because I'm running late. It's the fourth week of Donald J. Trump's criminal trial. It's a white-collar trial. Most of the witnesses we've heard from have been, I think, typical white-collar witnesses in terms of their professions. Got a former publisher, a lawyer, accountants. The witness today, a little less typical. Stormy Daniels. Porn star in a New York criminal courtroom. In front of a jury, more accustomed to the types of witnesses they've already seen. There's a lot that could go wrong.

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is the Daily. Today, what happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of Donald J. Trump. As before, my colleague, Jona Bromwich, was inside the courtroom. It's Friday, May 10th. So it's now Now, day 14 of this trial, and I think it's worth having you briefly and in broad strokes, catch listeners up on the biggest developments that have occurred since you were last on, which was the day that opening arguments were made by both the defense and the prosecution. Just give us that brief recap. Sure.

It's all been the prosecution's case so far. And prosecutors have a saying, which is that the evidence is coming in great. I think for this prosecution, which is trying to show that Trump falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal, to ease his way into the White House in 2016, the evidence has been coming in pretty well. It's coming well through David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquiry, who testified that he entered into a secret plot with Trump and Michael Cohen, his fixer at the time, to suppress negative stories about Trump, the candidate. It came in pretty well through Keith Davidson, who was a lawyer to Stormy Daniels in 2016 and negotiated the Hush Money payment. We've seen all these little bits bits and pieces of evidence that tell the story that prosecutors want to tell, and the case makes sense so far. We can't tell what the jury's thinking, as we always say, but we can tell that there's a narrative that's coherent and that matches up with the prosecution's opening statement. Then we come to Tuesday, and that day really marks the first time that the prosecution's strategy seems a little bit risky because that's the day that Stormy Daniels gets called to the witness stand.

Okay, well, just explain why the prosecution putting Stormy on the stand would be so risky? I guess it makes sense to answer that in the context of why the prosecution is calling her as a witness at all.

Well, you can see why it makes sense to have her. The hush money payment was to her. The cover up of the hush money payment in some ways concerns her. She's this character who's very much at the center of the story. But according to prosecutors, she's not at the center of the crime. The prosecution is telling a story, and they hope a compelling one. And arguably, that story starts with Stormy Daniels. It starts in 2006 when Stormy Daniels says that she and Trump had sex, which is something that Trump has always denied. So if prosecutors were to not call Stormy Daniels to the stand, You would have this big hole in the case. It would be like, effect, effect, effect. But where is the cause? Where is the person who set off this chain reaction? But Stormy Daniels is a porn star. She's there to testify about sex. Sex and pornography are things that the jurors were not asked about during jury selection. Those are subjects that bring up all kinds of different complex reactions in people. When the prosecutors bring Stormy Daniels to the courtroom, it's very difficult to know how the jurors will take it, particularly given that she's about to describe a sexual episode that she says she had with the former president.

Will the jurors think that makes sense as they sit here and try to decide a falsifying business records case? Or will they ask themselves, Why are we hearing this?

The reason why this is the first time that the prosecution strategy is, for journalists like you, a little bit confusing is because it's the first time that the prosecution seems to be taking a genuine risk in what they're putting before these jurors. Everything else has been cut and dry and a little bit more mechanical. This is just a wild card.

This is like live ammunition to some extent. Everything The house is settled and controlled, and they know what's going to happen. With Stormy Daniels, that's not the case.

Okay, so walk us through the testimony. When the prosecution brings her to the stand, what actually happens?

It starts as every witness does with what's called direct examination, which is a fancy word for saying prosecutors question Stormy Daniels, and they have her tell her story. First, they have her tell the jury about her education and where she grew up and her professional experience experience. Because of Stormy Daniels' biography, that quickly goes into stripping and then goes into making adult films. I thought the prosecutor who questioned her, Susan Hoffinger, had this nice touch in talking about that because not only did she ask Daniels about acting in adult films, but she asked her about writing and directing them, too, emphasizing the more professional aspects of that work and giving a little more credit to the witness as if to say, Well, you may think this or you may think that, but this is a person with dignity who took what she did seriously.

Got What's your first impression of Daniels as a witness?

It's very clear that she's nervous. She's speaking fast. She's laughing to herself and making small jokes. But the tension in the room is so serious from the beginning, from the moment she enters that those jokes aren't landing. It just feels really heavy and still and almost oppressive in there. Daniels talking quickly, seeming nervous, giving more answers than are being asked of her by the prosecution, even before we get to the sexual encounter that she's about to describe. All of that presents a really discomforting impression, I would say.

How does this move towards the encounter that Daniels ultimately has?

It starts at a golf tournament in 2006 in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Daniels meets Trump there. There are other celebrities there, too. They chatted very briefly. Then she received a dinner invitation from him. She thought it over, she says, and she goes to have dinner with Trump, not at a restaurant, by the way, but she's invited to join him in the hotel suite. She gets to the hotel suite, and his bodyguard is there, and the hotel door is cracked open, and the bodyguard greets her and says she looks nice, this and that. She goes in and there's Donald Trump, just as expected. But what's not expected, she says, is that he's not wearing what you would wear to a dinner with a stranger, but instead, she says silk or satin pajamas. She asked him to change, she says, and he obliges. He goes and he puts on a dress shirt and dress pants, and they sit down at the hotel suite's dining room table, and they have a bizarre dinner. Trump is asking her very personal questions about pornography and safe sex. She testifies that she teased him about how vain and pompous he is. Then at some point, she goes to the bathroom and she sees that he has got his toiletries in there, his Old Spice, his gold tweezers.

Very Very specific details.

Yeah, we're getting a ton of detail in this scene. The reason we're getting those is because prosecutors are trying to elicit those details to establish that this is a credible person, that this thing did happen despite what Donald Trump and his lawyers say. The reason you can know it happened, prosecutors seem to be saying, is because look at all these details she can still sum in up. She comes out of the bathroom and she says that Donald Trump is on the hotel bed. What stands out to me there is what she describes as a very intense physical reaction. She says that she blacked out, and she quickly clarifies she doesn't mean from drugs or alcohol. She means, she says, that the intensity of this experience was such that suddenly she can't remember every detail. The prosecution asks a question that cuts directly to the sex. Essentially, did you start having sex with him? And Daniel says that she did, and she continues to provide more details than even I think the prosecution wanted.

I think we don't want to go chapter and verse through this claimed sexual encounter. But I wonder what details stand out and which details feel important given the prosecution strategy here.

All the details stand out because it's a story about having had sex with a former president, and the more salacious and more private the details feel, the more you're going to remember them. We'll remember that Stormy Daniels said what position they had sex in. We'll remember that she said he didn't use a condom. Whether that's important to the prosecution's case, now that's a much harder question to answer, as we've been saying. But what I can tell you is as she's describing having had sex with Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is sitting right there, and Eric Trump, his son, is sitting behind him, seem to turn a different color as he hears this embarrassment of his father being described to a courtroom full of reporters at this trial, it's hard to even describe the energy in that room. It was like nothing I had ever experienced. It was just Daniels' testimony and seemingly the former president's emotions, and you almost felt like you were trapped in with both of them as this description was happening.

Well, I think it's important to try to understand why the prosecution is getting these details, these salacious, carnal, pick your word, graphic details about sex with Dolores? What is the value if other details are clearly making the point that she's recollecting something?

Well, I think at this point, we can only speculate. But one thing we can say is this was uncomfortable. This felt bad. Remember, prosecutor's story is not about the sex. It's about trying to hide this sex. If you're trying to show a jury why it might be worthwhile to hide a story, it might It's really worth providing lots of salacious details that a person would want to hide. Exposing them to how bad that story feels and reminding them that if they had been voters and they had heard that story, and in fact, they asked Daniels this very question, if you hadn't accepted hush money, if you hadn't signed that NDA, is this the story you would have told? And she said, yes. Where I think they're going with this, but we can't really be sure yet, is that they're going to tell the jurors, Hey, that story, you can see why he wanted to cover that up, can't you?

You mentioned the hush money payments. What testimony does Daniels offer about that? And how does it advance the prosecution's case of business fraud related to the hush money payment?

So little evidence that it's almost laughable. She says that she the hush money, but we actually already heard another witness, her lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson, testify that he had received the hush money payment on her behalf. She testified about feeling as if she had to sell this story because the election was fast approaching, almost as if her leverage was slipping away because she knew this would be bad for Trump.

That feels important, but just tell me to understand why it's important.

Well, what the prosecution has been arguing is that Trump covered up this hush money payment in order to conceal a different crime. That crime, they say, was to promote his election to the presidency by illegal means. We've talked about this in the past. When Daniels ties her side of the payment into the election, it just reminds the jurors maybe, Oh, right. This is what they're arguing.

How does the prosecution end this very dramatic, and from everything you're saying, very tense questioning of Stormy Daniels about this encounter?

Well, before they can even end, the defense lawyers go and they consult among themselves, and then with the jury out of the room, one of them stands up and he says that the defense is moving for a mistrial.

On what terms?

He says that the testimony offered by Daniels that morning is so prejudicial, so damning to Trump in the eyes of the jury, that the trial can no longer be fair. How could these jurors have heard these details and still be fair when they render their verdict? He says a memorable expression. He says, You can't unring that bell, meaning they heard it, they can't unhear it. It's over. Throw out this trial. It should be done.

Wow. What is the response from the judge?

The judge, Juan Marshawn, he hears them out. He really hears them out. But at the end of their arguments, he says, I do think she went a little too far. He says that. He said there were things that were better left unsaid.

By Stormy Daniels.

By Stormy Daniels. He acknowledges that she's a difficult witness. But he says the remedy for that is not a mistrial, is not stopping the whole thing right now. The remedy for that is cross-examination. If the defense feels that there are issues with her story, issues with her credibility, they can ask her whatever they want. They can try to win the jury back over. If they think this jury has been poisoned by this witness, well, this is their time to provide the antidote. The antidote is cross-examination, and soon enough, cross-examination starts. It is exactly as intense and combative as we expected.

We'll be right back.

This is Sue Craig, investigative reporter for the New York Times. People keep secrets. We all do. But it gets tricky when it's a person with significant power, and the secret is big, say a conflict of interest, government corruption, or covering up abuse. When it comes to violations of the public trust, unethical or illegal activity, and people's lives are affected, we believe you deserve to know. But people with a lot of power also have the means to make sure their secrets stay hidden. So you need organizations like the New York Times to say, Let's investigate this. Let's put resources behind uncovering the truth. And that's what I do. It's a 24/7 commitment, and it means that sometimes I can't publish until I spent months or even years following every lead and checking every fact. All those resources, they're available to us because of New York Times subscribers. If you'd like to support this work, you can subscribe at nytimes. Com/subscribe.

So, Jonah, how would you characterize the defense's overall strategy in this intense cross-examination of Stormy Daniels?

People know the word impeach from President potential impeachments, but has a meaning in law, too. You impeach a witness and specifically their credibility. And that's what the defense is going for here. They are going to try to make Stormy Daniels look like a liar, a fraud, an extortionist, a money grubbing opportunist who wanted to take advantage of Trump and sought to do so by any means necessary.

What did that impeachment strategy look like in the courtroom?

The defense lawyer who questions Stormy Daniels is a woman named Susan Necklist. She's defended Trump before, and she's a bit of a cross-examination specialist. We even saw her during jury selection bring up these past details to confront jurors who had said nasty things about Trump on social media with. She wants to do the same thing with Daniel. She wants to bring up old interviews and old tweets and things that Daniel has said in the past that don't match what Daniel is saying from the stance.

What's a specific example and do they land?

Some of them land and some of them don't. One specific example is that Necklace confronts Daniels with this old tweet where Daniels says that she's going to dance down the street if Trump goes to jail. What she's trying to show there is that Daniels is out for revenge, that she hates Trump, and that she wants to see him go to jail, and that's why she's testifying against him.

Got it.

Daniels is very interesting during the cross-examination. It's almost as if she's a different person. She squares her shoulders, and she sits up a little straighter, and she leans forward. Daniels is ready to fight, but it doesn't quite land. The tweet actually says, I'll dance down the street when he's selected to go to jail. Daniels goes off on this digression about how she knows that people don't get selected to go to jail. That's not how it works. But she can't really unseat this argument that she's a political enemy of Donald Trump. That one sticks, I would say. But there are other moves that necklace tries to pull that don't stick.

What?

Unlike the prosecution, which typically used words like adult, adult film, necklace seems be taking every chance she can get to say, Porn or pornography or porn star to make it sound base or dirty. When she starts to ask Daniels about actually being in pornography, writing, acting, and directing sex films, she tries to land a finish line. Necklace does. She says, So you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real, right?

As if to say, perhaps this story you have told about entering Trump's suite in Lake Tahoe and having sex with him was made up.

Just Just another one of your fictional stories about sex. But Daniels comes back and says, The sex in the films, it's very much real, just like what happened to me in that room. And so when you have this combat of lawyer cross-examining very aggressively and the witness fighting back, you can feel the energy in the room shift as one lands a blow or the other does. But here, Daniels lands one back. The other issue that I think Susan Necklace runs into is she tries to draw out disparities disparities from interviews that Daniels gave, particularly to in touch, very early on once the story was out.

It's like a tablet magazine.

But some of the disparities don't seem to be landing quite like Necklace would want. She tries to do this complicated thing about where the bodyguard was in the room when Daniels walked into the room as described in an interview in a magazine. But in that magazine interview, as it turns out, Daniels mentioned that Trump was wearing pajamas. And so if I'm a juror, I don't care where the bodyguard is. I'm thinking about, oh, yeah, I remember that Stormy Daniels said now in 2024 that Trump was wearing pajamas.

I'm curious if, as somebody in the room, you felt that the defense was effective in undermining Stormy Daniels' credibility. Because what I took from The earlier part of our conversation was that Stormy Daniels is in this courtroom on behalf of the prosecution to tell a story that's uncomfortable and has the details that Donald Trump would be motivated to try to hide. Therefore, this defense strategy is to say those details about what Trump might want to hide, you can't trust them. So does this back and forth effectively hurt Stormy Daniels' credibility in your estimation?

I don't think that Stormy Daniels came off as perfectly credible about everything she testified about. There are incidents that were unclear or confusing. There were things she talked about that I found hard to believe when she, for instance, denied that she had attacked Trump a tweet or talked about her motivations, but about what prosecutors need, that central story, the story of having had sex with him. We can't know whether it happened, but there weren't that many disparities in these accounts over the years. In terms of things that would make me doubt the story that Daniels was telling, details that don't add up, those weren't present. You don't have to take my word for that, nor should you. But the judge is in the room and he says something very, very What does he say?

And why does he say it?

Well, he does it when the defense, again, at the end of the day on Thursday, calls for a mistrial.

With a similar argument as before?

Not only with a similar argument as before, but almost the exact same argument. I would say that I was astonished to see them do this, but I wasn't because I've covered other trials where Trump is the client. In those trials, the lawyers, again and again, called for a mistrial.

What does Judge Marshawn say in response to this second to seek a mistrial.

Let me say to this one, he seems a little less patient. He says that after the first mistrial ruling, two days before, he went into his chambers and he read every decision he had made about the case. He took this moment to reflect on the first decision, and he found that he had, in his own estimation, which is all he has, been fair and not allowed evidence that was prejudicial to Trump into this trial. It could continue. So He said that again, and then he really almost turned on the defense, and he said that the things that the defense was objecting to were things that the defense had made happen.

How so?

He says that in their opening statement, the defense could have taken issue with many elements of the case, about whether there were falsified business records, about any of the other things that prosecutors are saying happened. But instead, he says, they focused their energy on denying that Trump ever had sex with Daniels. And so that was essentially an invitation to the prosecution to call Stormy Daniels as a witness and have her say from the stand, yes, I had this sexual encounter. The upshot of it is that the judge not only takes the defense to task, but he also just says that he finds Stormy Daniels' narrative credible. He doesn't see it as having changed so much from year to year.

Interesting. So in thinking back to our original question here, Jona, about the idea that putting Stormy Daniels on the stand was risky. I wonder if by the end of this entire journey, you're reevaluating that idea because it doesn't sound like it ended up being super risky. It sounded like it ended up working reasonably well for the prosecution.

Well, let me just assert that it doesn't really matter what I think. The jury is going to decide this. There's 12 people, and we can't know what they're thinking. But my impression was that while she was being questioned by the prosecution for the prosecution's case, Stormy Daniels was a real liability. She was a difficult witness for them, and the judge said as much. But when the defense cross-examined her, Stormy Daniels became a better witness, in part because their struggles to discredit her may have actually ended up making her story look more credible and stronger. The reason that matters is because remember, we said that prosecutors are trying to fill this hole in their case. Well, now they have. The jury has met Stormy Daniels. They've heard her account. They've made of it what they will. Now the sequence of events that prosecutors are trying to line up as they seek prison time for the former president really makes a lot of sense. It starts with what Stormy Daniels says with sex in a hotel suite in 2006. It picks up years later as Donald Trump is trying to win an election, and prosecutors say suppressing negative stories, including Stormy Daniels' very negative story.

The story that prosecutors are telling ends with Donald Trump orchestrating the falsification of business records to keep that story concealed.

Well, Jonah, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Of course. Thanks for having me.

The prosecution's next major witness will be Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer who arranged for the Hush Money payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen is expected to take the stand on Monday. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a defiant response to warnings from the United States that it would stop supplying weapons to Israel if Israel invades the Southern Gaza City of Rafeh. So far, Israel has carried out a limited incursion into the city where a million civilians are sheltering but has threatened a full invasion. In a statement, Netanyahu said, If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone. Meanwhile, high-level ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas have been put on hold, in part because of anger over Israel's incursion into Rafeh. A reminder, tomorrow we'll be sharing the latest episode of our colleagues' new show, The Interview. This week on The Interview, Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with radio host, Charlemagne the God, about his frustrations with how Americans talk about politics.

If me, as a black man, if I criticize Democrats, then I'm supporting MAGA. But if I criticize Donald Trump and Republicans, then I'm a Democratic shell. Why can't I just be a person who deals in nuance?

Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat and Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Lexie Diao, with help from Paige Cowet. Contains original music by Will Reid and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Runberg and Ben Lantzberg of Wunderly. That's it for the Daily. I'm Michael Wawarro. See you on Monday.