NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s attorneys on Thursday tore into Stormy Daniels as a creative profit seeker who used Mr. Trump’s 2016 candidacy and legal troubles to extort money from him, sell merchandise and launch a “Make America Horny Again” tour.
They said her work in the pornographic industry helped her craft explicit tales, including her central story about having sex with Mr. Trump at a Lake Tahoe golf tournament in 2006.
“You have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear to be real,” defense attorney Susan Necheles said in a colorful cross-examination that sparked gasps and laughs in the Manhattan courtroom.
“That’s not how I would put it. The sex in those films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room,” Ms. Daniels said.
About Mr. Trump, she added: “I would have written it to be a lot better.”
Mr. Trump’s attorneys hope to convince the jury that Ms. Daniels is an unreliable narrator and that she strong-armed the presidential candidate for profit in 2016.
Mr. Trump’s attorney at the time, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 hush payment at the center of the trial. The charges pivot on whether Mr. Trump was part of a criminal scheme to conceal the payment.
The cross-examination focused heavily on Ms. Daniels’ effort to spin a profit from her alleged encounter with Mr. Trump and his legal issues, even beyond the nondisclosure agreement.
Ms. Daniels wrote a book, appeared on reality television programs and sold merchandise when Mr. Trump was indicted. One item was a “Stormy Saint of Indictments” candle.
“Not unlike Mr. Trump,” said Ms. Daniels, arguing it was how she makes a living.
Ms. Necheles pointed to a national tour that some clubs advertised as “Make America Horny Again” with a picture of her with Mr. Trump in golf clothes.
“I have no control over how the club advertises,” Ms. Daniels said. “I never used that tagline. I hate it.”
Mr. Trump sat quietly and looked straight ahead, possibly at monitors that showed close-ups of the action. At times, he conferred with his attorneys at the defense table.
Sen. Rick Scott, Florida Republican, sat in the courtroom’s front row to show support for Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican Party nominee who will take on President Biden in November.
Ms. Daniels’ testimony sometimes tipped into absurdity, sparking gasps and stifled laughs from the gallery.
The defense highlighted Ms. Daniels’ animus for Mr. Trump by displaying a tweet in which Ms. Daniels described Mr. Trump as an “orange turd” because another user called her a “human toilet.”
Some jurors seemed to be suppressing smiles during the testimony.
Mr. Trump denied the sexual encounter and pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Although Ms. Daniels’ steamy story is gaining much of the public attention, the heart of the case centers on alleged efforts to cover up the payment and whether those efforts showed intent to commit election and financial crimes.
Defense attorneys say Mr. Trump paid Mr. Cohen, his attorney turned accuser, legal fees in 2017 and was busy with presidential duties during the time of the alleged criminal activity.
They say Mr. Trump was worried about his family and personal brand when people were shopping salacious stories about him.
“You have no personal knowledge about [Mr. Trump’s] involvement in that transaction or what he did or didn’t do?” Ms. Necheles said.
“Not directly, no,” Ms. Daniels said. “I know nothing about his business records.”
The jury also heard from Rebecca Manochio, a junior bookkeeper at the Trump Organization, who tracked checks sent to Washington so Mr. Trump could review them and sign them to handle personal expenses.
Prosecutors submitted some of the checks as evidence of a plot to conceal the Daniels payment in a series of reimbursements to Mr. Cohen.
Former Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout described being the “greeter girl” for presidential transition meetings at Trump Tower before heading to the White House to handle traffic and calls in and out of the Oval Office.
She handled the checks in question and conferred with Trump Organization officials about certain expenses, including picture frames from Tiffany’s for family photos at the White House.
Ms. Westerhout cried as she described how she was ousted from the White House for commenting on Mr. Trump’s family during what she thought was an off-the-record dinner. She said she regretted the episode but grew from it.
She is the second former Trump aide to break down emotionally on the witness stand. Hope Hicks had a similar experience.
Mr. Cohen is expected to be the prosecution’s main witness.
Ms. Daniels has been the showcase witness. She said she concluded in 2016 that taking a nondisclosure agreement would be the best way to document her Trump story without it becoming public and affecting her family.
“We’re all happy to take money. It was just a bonus,” she said of the payment. She later said that disclosing her story about Mr. Trump was a “net negative” on her life.
Ms. Daniels tried to distance herself from a recording of her attorney, Keith Davidson, playing hardball with Mr. Cohen over payments related to the election.
Ms. Daniels testified on Tuesday that she didn’t expect to have sex with Mr. Trump after a dinner in his hotel suite in 2006. She said Mr. Trump was “bigger and blocking the way, but I was not threatened either verbally or physically.”
Her testimony was so detailed that it made state Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan uneasy. He urged prosecutors to move forward.
The defense says Ms. Daniels’ explicit testimony should be grounds for a mistrial. If Mr. Trump is convicted, his team will likely raise the issue on appeal.
Ms. Daniels testified Thursday about a 2018 statement in which she seemed to squarely deny having a sexual affair with Mr. Trump or receiving money.
She said she did not author the statement but signed it because she felt she had no choice as various parties tried to preserve the nondisclosure agreement.
Mr. Davidson has testified that the statement was craftily worded and could be interpreted as accurately portraying Ms. Daniels’ claims about the Lake Tahoe encounter.
The defense on Thursday suggested that much of the encounter was fabricated. Attorneys pointed to inconsistencies in Ms. Daniels’ description of the hotel, Mr. Trump’s physical positioning and other details.
Ms. Necheles said it was odd that Ms. Daniels would be shocked by an undressed man, given her professional background in nearly “200 sex films.”
Ms. Daniels said context is key.
“I saw an older man in his underwear,” she said, “that I wasn’t expecting seeing there.”
• Tom Howell Jr. can be reached at thowell@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.