Stormy Daniels: Before having sex, Donald Trump said I reminded him of Ivanka

Stormy Daniels took the stand in a New York court on Tuesday, Day 13 of the criminal trial against Donald Trump. Stormy Daniels is the linchpin of the whole case, even though she’s already told her story many times, to many people, over the course of many years. Therein lies the problem, at least for the Trump team. Stormy always had a big mouth, and she told her “did I ever tell you about the time I slept with Donald Trump” story for years before Trump started running for president. Suddenly, the story about Trump boffing an adult film star wasn’t some ribald gossip about The Apprentice host – it was a political liability for a man courting the Evangelical right-wing. Thus, Trump’s goons paid hush money to Stormy (and threatened her) and Trump worked with David Pecker at the National Enquirer to kill stories about Trump, Stormy and anyone else Trump slept with. So, yesterday was Stormy’s big day in court.

After meeting the future president of the United States at a golf tournament in 2006, adult film star Stormy Daniels testified Tuesday that Donald Trump’s personal bodyguard asked if she would like to have dinner with the once-and-future Republican nominee.

“No, with an expletive in front,” Daniels said she told the aide in response, per NBC News. But she reconsidered after meeting with her publicist, she said, recalling their words: “If nothing else, you’ll get a great story” and “what’s the worst that could happen?”

But, according to Daniels, dinner never happened. When she got to Trump’s hotel room, she found him in pajamas — he later changed — and eager to discuss her work in the adult film industry, where she had risen from performer to director, and whether she had ever contracted and STD (“I’ve never tested positive for anything,” Daniels said).

Hungry and annoyed by the questioning, Daniels said she told Trump she’d had “enough of his arrogance,” stating: “Someone should spank you with that,” referring to a magazine in Trump’s hand. “I took it from him and I said, ‘turn around,’ and I swatted him,” she testified. “And he was much more polite.”

Over the course of two hours, Daniels said she and Trump continued to discuss the world of pornography, including whether stars ever “hooked up” off camera. Trump during the exchange brought up Melania, whom he married a year earlier, and assured Daniels that they did not “even sleep in the same room,” according to The New York Times.

At one point, Daniels said Trump compared her to Ivanka. “You remind me of my daughter,” Trump said, according to Daniels, an apparent reference to them both being blonde, intelligent and underestimated.

After a trip to the bathroom, Daniels said she found Trump sitting in his underwear on the bed.

CNN reported that, as Daniels spoke, Trump was “looking straight ahead with a scowl on his face.” But he wasn’t the only one unhappy with all the details being aired in a Manhattan courtroom. Judge Juan Merchan looked “unusually angry,” The New York Times reported, and admonished prosecutors, saying “the degree of detail that we are going into here is just unnecessary.”

[From Salon]

“The degree of detail that we are going into here is just unnecessary…” Excuse me? The level of detail here is exactly WHY Trump paid hush money to Stormy. This was the story she told at parties, this was the story she fought to tell in open court despite accepting the hush money. Besides, she’s given more obscene details about the ordeal in her book, where she literally described what his Nazi bajingo looks like (Toad from Mario Kart). As for the stuff about how he was trying to compliment Stormy by saying she reminds him of Ivanka… my god. It never fails to make my stomach turn. Creepy and unsettling.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

44 Responses to “Stormy Daniels: Before having sex, Donald Trump said I reminded him of Ivanka”

  1. Shawna says:

    I read that the issue about extra detail is that admitting unnecessary information can be grounds for appeal. Apparently, this kind of overreach—not restricting evidence to the actual legal claims—is what got Weinstein’s verdict overturned. Merchan is looking ahead.

    • Libra says:

      Define ” unnecessary “

      • Lightpurple says:

        What was worn or said in that hotel room is unnecessary detail for the elements of this case. What he did and said about it afterwards is necessary

      • Shawna says:

        The case is about the cover-up of the hush-money deal, not about whether or not they had sex. So, they must establish the sexual event as a fact, as it establishes that there was a motive to pay Stormy Daniels, but the details about the sex itself aren’t necessary for making the case about covering up financial records.

        The CNN coverage I read yesterday didn’t mention what I’m about to say next, but I imagine the judge could easily see how Trump could use overly salacious court proceedings to his advantage for the election and future trials.

      • Dara says:

        Do they really need to establish it as a fact though? I’ve wondered about that ever since she was named as a witness. Is just the idea that her story would have been damaging to his campaign, true or not, enough? I get that it makes for a more sympathetic case for the jury if she is telling the truth, but does it really matter in a legal sense?

    • StellainNH says:

      Trump’s team looked for a mistrial yesterday but was denied. Judge told them that he was surprised they didn’t object to any of the testimony.

      • SIde Eye says:

        Great point. The defense attorney has to object while this is going on. When the objection is overruled, the defense attorney has to restate the objection to preserve it for the record. Otherwise, the issue cannot be appealed.

    • Isabella says:

      In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors brought in other accusers. That was the problem, not to much detail. Even then the decision was split.

      “But a 4-3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, found that the trial judge should not have permitted three other women to testify that Weinstein had assaulted them as well because their allegations were not part of the criminal charges against him.”

  2. TheOriginalMia says:

    If more people had been disgusted by Trump’s behavior, we wouldn’t be in this mess. While it turns my stomach to hear about their sexual encounter, the world needs to hear what Trump was trying to hide.

    • Truthiness says:

      And yet there still isn’t enough disgust to stop religious Evangelicals from supporting Trump.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        I imagine the religious Evangelicals have all done the same – remember that Duggar peado who hooked up with a porn actress from that Ashely website. They are all at it, same goes for paying for their side chicks to have abortions.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        This is why Evangelicals find Trump so appealing in the first place. It’s catnip for them.

      • goofpuff says:

        Because they are all like Trump. They wholly believe in his values of cheating on their wives, sleeping with minors, and ripping people off as long as they come out on top somehow. They all worship at the altar of the Prosperity Gospel where wealth and power is what matters.

    • nmb says:

      I don’t get how the religious right supports Trump. First of all, he’s never openly been super Christian. Secondly….remember how they STILL talk about how Bill Clinton was the devil for the stuff with Monica? It wasn’t that he was doing it on taxpayer time or in the White House…it was that he was having an affair. Trump also had an affair. Where is that same outrage for Trump? Why do they support him?! That hypocrisy drives me NUTS.

  3. Tuesday says:

    I thought bajingo was slang for Stormy’s parts, rather than Donald’s.

  4. Kateee says:

    The details were a bit too far for what they needed, but the judge cannot just jump in. The defense needed to object, and they didn’t do it soon or often enough, and the judge called them out on it. So the grounds for appeal are there either way, whether they say the testimony was prejudicial OR that counsel was ineffective. But was there ever a chance he would accept the verdict and go quietly? No.

  5. Libra says:

    Like someone else we kn ow, Trump paid 130,000 dollars to a woman he never had sex with.

  6. bisynaptic says:

    Nothing like the prudishness of the presiding judge to mess up one’s case.
    Also: Trump has also done this to Ivanka.

    • Lightpurple says:

      The case is not the details of what Trump wore of what his body looks like. The case is the details about what he did afterwards to stop her from talking about what they did

      • bisynaptic says:

        The details establish her credibility.

      • Dara says:

        Credibility? I’m no lawyer, but to me the details of their sexual encounter matter not at all. Last I checked, having sex with a woman who is not your wife is gross, but not illegal.

        What this case is about is the fraud that was perpetrated against all of us by hiding the story right weeks before an election. We will never know if having this whole sordid mess made public would have meant Trump not getting elected, but I’d like to think it would have. And election fraud is a crime. Michael Cohen has already gone to jail for his part in this.

      • Lightpurple says:

        The details of place and date and hotel bill establish her credibility, a description of his body parts is unnecessary and a salacious waste of the judge and jurors’ time

      • bisynaptic says:

        Under the circumstances where the defendant is denying he ever met her AND she was earlier forced to reverse herself, the intimate details absolutely establish her credibility.

    • Shawna says:

      “to mess up one’s case…” Whose case? Alas, it’s not Stormy’s. Details are extraneous and will actually compromise the case.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    Trump = Harvey Weinstein.

  8. Lizzie Bathory says:

    Her full testimony was very unsettling even without him mentioning Ivanka. And her publicist saying “what’s the worst that can happen?” before sending her into a hotel room with Trump made me so angry.

    • Chantal1 says:

      @LizzieBathory Yeah it reminds me of those me too stories about agents sending innocent actresses to hotel rooms to meet a specific producer or director.

  9. Gutterflower says:

    His classified docs trial just got postponed indefinitely by Judge Aileen Cannon.

  10. Lightpurple says:

    She reminds him of Ivanka because Trump has been paying to surgically alter Ivanka to look like Stormy since she was about 13 years old

  11. Paulkid says:

    I have read that he also compared Karen McDougal to Ivanka ( and the Creep-O-Meter is exploding for me.)

  12. Lucy says:

    Just the headline makes me want to throw up. No wonder Ivanka is such an empty ghoul.

  13. Chantal1 says:

    45’s comments about Ivanka always turned my stomach. Yet he appears to ignore Tiffany…

    The prosecution is doing a good job of showing how 45 micromanaged everything so his whining about he didn’t know about (fill in the blank) is such bs, as usual.

  14. Betsy says:

    I find the Ivanka comments by Trump to be repellent, but I think he has for sure (I can’t remember what words are allowed on which websites so excuse the passive voice) had relations with his daughter. Points of circumstantial proof: Ivanka becoming oddly emotional in her childhood bedroom talking about how there was no way out in the Johnson heir’s documentary about rich kids and the pictures of Ivanka and Trump in Winston Churchill’s bunker. I have no love for Ivanka Trump as she, as an adult, makes wretched and arguably criminal decisions, but my heart weeps for what I believe she experienced as a child.

    So of course Trump told Stormy she reminded him of his daughter. Gross.

    • Side Eye says:

      I’ve always suspected this as well. It’s horrible. He tells on himself every single time he discusses her. It’s such a creepy lens to look through – no one in their right mind discusses their daughter this way. Tiffany is lucky that Trump was not attracted to her.

      • Betsy says:

        Oh, but the warning signs were flashing for poor little Tiffy. She’s the one of whom Trump referenced her future breasts. When she was an infant. I wonder if that’s one of the things that made Marla run.

      • SIde Eye says:

        Omg Betsy I had no idea! It is all so creepy and terrifying.

      • Libra says:

        Every comment he has made, in my memory, about Ivanka has had references to her physical attractiveness. Iwonder if Ivana, during the time she was married to him, ever suspected anything.

      • Tessa says:

        Marla and tiffany escaped from being in close proximity to Trump. Tiffany has a happier life and is doing well and she has a great mom

  15. QueenLeo says:

    My understanding from some of the legal analyst about the testimony was while it may seem unseemly and unnecessary, it was to show what it was exactly he was trying to hide from the public that could affect the outcome of the election. That that story that she told on the stand would have likely affected his campaign if it was made public, especially after the Extra tape. Also compound that with the Karen McDougal affair, and the (by all counts false) story the valet or doorman was trying to sell about an illegitimate child. And when he won, it was said he no longer cared what came out because he had won.

    So as much as none of us wanted the image of him in his silky pj’s in our head, it was necessary detail to establish why he was desperate for it not to come out at the time.

  16. PunkyMomma says:

    As a survivor, I can’t begin to tell anyone how triggering her testimony was and I’m sure I’m not alone in that aspect.

    My hope is that women who have voted or supported this creep in the past will find this to be the final nail.

  17. Joy says:

    I followed a thread on twitter yesterday by a woman reporter who was in the court room live-xweeting Stormy’s testimony. It is clear that consent was not given and that the act was coercive. She stated her hands were shaking when she was putting on her shoes. He is a POS w/o any redeemable qualities. A rapist, over and over and over.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment