by 
This morning it was announced that in the trial for an incorrect entry into the company’s books, Steffanie Clifford (AKA Stormy Daniels) would enter the courtroom to give testimony.
The only argument I could see for calling Daniels is if she specifically testifies that she was told the NDA was to mitigate damage to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. That would at least be arguable as relevant to how the payment was logged (which is the basis of the charges, i.e. that this was campaign activity illegally categorized as a private transaction). I doubt she was ever told that directly, though. So what does she have to offer?
PLOT TWIST: Prosecutors Call Stormy Daniels to the Stand, and Trump Is Not Happy About It
No one could understand why this was done, and it seems like just a desperate ploy:
It is not clear what Stormy Daniels will testify about. Though the hush-money payment to her is at the center of the case, she was not directly involved in what prosecutors say were Trump’s efforts to cover up her account. Today, on the stand, she could tell her story from the beginning — meaning the story of having had sex with Trump in 2006, which he has always denied — or just stick to talking about how she received the $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen.
So two major questions as we await her arrival are: 1. Why is she here? and 2. Is it worth it for the prosecution? That second question is will be [sic] particularly interesting once defense lawyers begin to question Daniels.
“The dramatic decision to call Ms. Daniels to the stand would carry both possible benefits and definite risks for prosecutors….”
And after the testimony this morning– where even the judge had to remind the prosecution that the details about what Clifford alleged were not relevant and didn’t need to be addressed, and many objections from the defense were sustained– the inevitable happened:
Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said the defense team moves for a mistrial based on the testimony from Daniels this morning.
Blanche argued that the guardrails were thrown aside and the testimony was unduly prejudicial to Trump and the charges in the case. He said her testimony about her encounter with Trump in 2006 is much different from the stories she was telling in 2016.
He said that her testimony has nothing to do with the case and argued that the only reason prosecutors asked about the encounter aside from embarrassing Trump was to inflame the jury.
“What’s the jury to do with that?” he said. “It’s still extraordinarily prejudicial to insert safety — safety concerns into a trial about business records.”
“There’s no way to unring the bell in our view,” he said.
Trump trial live updates: Stormy Daniels takes the stand to testify about alleged ‘sexual acts’ in hush money case
One has to wonder if Bragg knew this would happen, and wanted the trial to stop because he knew he would lose? Of course, the motion was denied– Trump must be found guilty for something– but this part was interesting:
Merchan has denied the motion for a mistrial that was brought by Trump’s defense team.
“As a threshold matter, Mr. Blanche, I agree that there were things that would have been better left unsaid,” the judge said. “I think the witness was a little difficult to control.”
“I don’t believe we’re at the point where a mistrial is warranted,” he added. “I’m also surprised that there were not more objections.”
And the trial continues towards the end that it was always headed…
