Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress embroiled in a hush money trial against former President Donald Trump, testified on Tuesday, May 7. She gave a detailed account of her alleged 2006 encounter with Trump and the ensuing years of tense negotiations over a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

The testimony provided an insight into the high-profile world surrounding a notable celebrity and the efforts to manage the narrative during a contentious presidential campaign.

A Threat in a Parking Lot and a Magazine Agreement

Daniels took the stand in a Lower Manhattan, New York courtroom, retelling her meeting with Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada in 2006. She narrated a short-lived sexual encounter, and said Trump continued to woo her afterward, hinting at a possible appearance on his reality TV show, “The Apprentice.”

Despite objections from Trump’s legal team, Daniels gave a thorough account of the alleged sexual incident in 2006. Her narration sometimes suggested that the encounter might be seen as non-consensual.

Throughout the trial, Trump was reportedly heard muttering curses under his breath, which was addressed privately to his lawyers by the judge.

Daniels, noticeably nervous and speaking quickly, provided a comprehensive retelling of the night she visited Trump in his suite, stating that they engaged in sexual relations.

Upon her arrival, expecting only a dinner, Daniels recollected finding Trump in silk or satin pajamas. After teasing from her, he decided to change into a suit. As they sat down for dinner, Trump asked about her career in the adult film industry, including queries about STD testing, according to Daniels. She also recalled a moment when she jokingly spanked him with a magazine.

Daniels detailed her surprise when, upon leaving the bathroom, she found Trump on the bed wearing only a T-shirt and boxers, indicating her lack of interest in the impending sexual encounter.

Daniels voiced her shock: “I just thought, oh, my God, how could I have misinterpreted things to end up here? It’s pretty obvious what the expectation was when someone’s lying on the bed in their underwear.”

While not feeling physically or verbally forced by Trump, Daniels underscored the clear power imbalance, pointing to Trump’s larger physical stature and the bodyguard standing outside the room.

Daniels narrated, “Before I knew it, I found myself on the bed, a distance away from where we initially stood. My clothing and shoes were removed.”

In her narration, Daniels also detailed how she mentally disconnected during the act, focusing on the ceiling to divert herself from the reality of the situation, a detail confirmed though the judge dismissed it during the testimony. She mentioned Trump’s decision not to use a condom and described the sexual position they assumed. After the incident, Daniels maintained silence as she gathered her belongings.

Daniels: “My hands were shaking so hard. I was having a hard time getting dressed.” He said, “Oh, great. Let’s get together again honey bunch. We were great together.” I just wanted to leave.

Trump, denying any sexual encounter with Daniels, has maintained his innocence in response to allegations of tampering with business documents to conceal payments made to silence her during the 2016 electoral campaign.

Years later, in 2011, Daniels said she agreed to be interviewed by In Touch magazine about the alleged affair for $15,000. “The money didn’t matter to me,” Daniels testified. “I just wanted to get the story out.”

But, the interview was never published. Daniels testified that just weeks after talking to the magazine, she was confronted by a menacing stranger in a Las Vegas, Nevada parking lot. The man allegedly confronted her, referencing her interview with the magazine and mentioning her daughter.

“He threatened me not to continue to tell my story,” Daniels said.

Scared, Daniels said she consulted a lawyer about the parking lot incident and recorded the threat.

Hush Money Negotiations and a Race Against Time

In 2016, amidst Trump’s contentious presidential campaign, Daniels reconnected with her manager and talked about the possibility of selling her story again. This time, the urgency was increased by the potential impact on the election.

“I was afraid that if it wasn’t done before the nominations and things, then I wouldn’t be safe,” Daniels testified.

Through her manager, Daniels got in touch with Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer. Negotiations for a non-disclosure agreement started, with Cohen offering Daniels $130,000 to stay quiet about the alleged affair.

Daniels testified that her motivation was not money, but a desire to publicize the story before the election and ensure her safety. She eventually signed the NDA in October 2016, just weeks before Election Day.

A Media Storm and Legal Disputes

Despite the NDA, the news of the hush money payment became public in January 2018 when The Wall Street Journal reported on the agreement. Daniels’ life turned into a media storm, and she said her daughter was shunned by other children.

She later sued Trump, alleging the NDA was invalid because Cohen, who brokered the agreement, was no longer employed by Trump at the time. Daniels also faced a defamation lawsuit from Trump after her then-lawyer released a sketch of the man who allegedly threatened her in the parking lot. Daniels testified that she did not authorize the sketch.

Testifying: Credibility and Motive

During cross-examination, Trump’s defense team focused on discrediting Daniels’ motives and the sequence of events. Lawyers questioned Daniels on her varying reasons for wanting to tell the story and suggested she was trying to extort money from Trump. Daniels denied these claims.

The defense also emphasized Daniels’ past public criticisms of Trump and suggested her accusations were politically motivated. Daniels admitted to disliking Trump but insisted that her testimony was honest.

The trial is set to continue, with witness testimony and closing statements from both sides. The jury will ultimately decide whether Trump violated campaign finance laws by arranging the hush money payment.

This case depends on witness credibility, with Daniels’ account being a crucial part of the prosecution’s argument. The verdict could have significant repercussions for Trump’s legacy and may potentially establish new legal precedents regarding campaign finance violations.