Stormy Daniels Attorney Pushes Back on ‘Hush-money’ Claim

So far, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is having little luck with his star witnesses.

For the second time in a row, a witness did not spoon-feed prosecutors the answers they wanted to hear.

This time, it was Keith Davidson, who shattered the narrative that the payments made to Stormy Daniels were to be considered hush-money payments.

Strike Two

The first witness for the prosecution that was a problem was David Pecker, former CEO of American Media, which reportedly killed a negative story regarding Trump and his alleged affairs.

Pecker admitted that they had arranged this, but then he dropped a bombshell that this was standard practice in order to hold leverage over the subject according to the report.

While he did this for Trump, he also admitted that his company had also purchased stories about other sports stars, political figures, and movie stars.

One of the most critical aspects of being a successful prosecutor and defense attorney is to never ask a question of which you do not know the answer.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass missed that day in law school, asking Davidson, “Would you use the phrase hush money to describe the money that was paid to your client by Donald Trump?”

Davidson responded, “I would never use that word,” instead saying that he considered the money to be a “civil settlement.”

Davidson also downplayed the nature of the relationship between Daniels and Trump, later adding, “I don’t think anyone has ever alleged that any interaction between she and Mr. Trump was romantic.”

Now, legally speaking, the difference between those terms may not mean that much, as I am sure pundits are already explaining on TV.

However, in the eyes of the jury, this could start to plant the seed of doubt in regard to how the prosecution is framing the categorization of the payments in Trump’s books.

Overall, the day was pretty close to a wash, but I have to give a small edge to Trump here.