Harry Litman: “From the vantage point of the prosecution, the legal essentials of the hush money payment and alleged fabrication of documents don’t turn on whether the jury believes Daniels. Indeed, a number of analysts suggested the district attorney would have been better off not calling her at all.”
“What that analysis overlooks, however, is the jury’s natural desire to take the measure of the woman who propelled the crisis and about whom they had heard so much. Not calling her risked leaving them wondering what the prosecution was hiding. On the other hand, if a good portion of the jury didn’t like Daniels or, worse, didn’t believe her, that could negatively influence their deliberations.”
“From Trump’s vantage point, the risks are keener. That is in large part because his vanity and arrogance have forced his lawyers to commit to an unnecessary insistence that he never had sex with Daniels. Consequently, if the jury credits the basics of her story, it discredits Trump.”
“And it’s very hard to see how the jury could adopt Trump’s absolutist account, including his claim that he met Daniels only once at a celebrity golf tournament. For starters, the evidence that they met several times thereafter is basically undisputed.”
