Via/ABC
If Donald Trump’s attorney hadn’t paid alleged hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, American voters would have been left ‘gagging’ the first time itself, according to MSNBC’s legal analyst.
Among other things, Daniels described in graphic detail a 2006 sex encounter she had with Trump. She claimed he compared her to his daughter, offered for her to be on his reality TV show, The Apprentice, and stripped down to his underwear on the bed before she even entered the room, per Raw Story.
Kristy Greenberg, a former federal prosecutor, stated on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the prosecution’s case depended heavily on her testimony, which would explain why the hush money was important. “I thought the cringe was kind of the point,” Greenberg said. “This was the story that Donald Trump did not want America to hear and this is why he was willing to pay the money to her,” Greenberg explained.
“A guy who we have heard is very frugal was willing to make sure this [$130,000] payment was made so that America didn’t hear about him showing up, you know, in his Hugh Hefner satin pajamas and [that he] didn’t sleep in the same bed with his wife and a woman he wanted to sleep with who reminded him of his daughter,” Greenberg noted from Daniels’ testimony. “You had all of these things that portrayed Donald Trump as really this kind of lame, desperate, creepy old man, and that is a story he wouldn’t have wanted to get out.”
Explaining how the graphic detail was important, Greenberg noted, “If that had gotten out, it would have been making America gag again because that is how it felt in the overflow room there [at the courthouse]. People were having visceral reactions to what she was saying, so I think, again, it just drove home the prosecution’s point this was the story he did not want to get out and that is why he made the payment.”
Katie Phang, in a column for MSNBC, wrote that the testimony is what explains the motive of the defendant. “I would submit, as well, that the so-called ‘ick factor’ of this information can be universally agreed upon. And none of it is good for Trump,” she penned. “There may be disagreement as to whether any of this testimony is relevant. In my opinion, it is relevant,” Phang explained in the detailed piece.
“Because this evidence provides the necessary context for why Trump was so desperate to hide it from the public eye — and thus the reason why he pushed for Daniels to sign the non-disclosure agreement and why he ultimately paid her $130,000 for her silence,” she explained. “Trump never wanted these embarrassing details to see the light of day, especially on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.”
