Stormy Daniels was, of course, the focus of a lot of today's
direct examination of Michael Cohen back in early 2018.
She signed a statement denying any affair with Donald Trump, a statement
that was subsequently released to the public by Michael Cohen.
I asked her about it during an interview I did with her for 60 Minutes.
So you signed and released a statement
that said, I'm not denying this affair because I was paid in hush money.
I'm denying it because it never happened.
That's a lie. Yes.
If it was untruthful,
why did you sign it?
Because they made it sound like I had no choice.
I knew one was putting a gun to your head.
Not physical violence now.
You thought that there would be some sort of legal repercussion
if you didn't sign that?
As a matter of fact, the exact sentence used was
they can make your life hell in many different ways.
They being
I'm not exactly sure who they were.
I believe it to be Michael Cohen.
Joining us now in an exclusive interview, Stormy Daniels attorney, Clark Brewster.
I want to get your impressions, Michael Cohen's testimony today
and specifically how his statements track with things your client has said.
Do you think that they have corroborated each other?
You know, it's interesting.
I mean, Stormy has never met Michael Cohen.
The first time they talked was in a podcast for Cohen,
but so obviously has facts that she's not privy to with regard
to the negotiations behind the scenes, how the money was allocated and dealt with.
But I don't think there's anything that Michael Cohen had knowledge
of involving Stormy that was inconsistent with what she testified to.
Did Stormy Daniels realize at the time
how big a deal this was unfolding behind the scenes?
I mean, did she know about the Michael Cohen factor?
I don't think she fully appreciated it was a key.
DAVIDSON Just handling stuff.
Yeah.
Keith Davidson, who is representing Karen McDougal as well.
And Stormy was aware of that, I think, at some point.
But obviously the nuances of how this was going down,
she knew it was significant for the campaign and that was the pressure
point, basically.
But I don't think she knew all of the machinations behind the scenes.
How do you think she came out of her testimony?
I think cross-examination, yeah.
I think, first of all, the prosecution team is outstanding.
We spent a lot of time with them, very careful
dealing with the facts and circumstances and the corroboration of her testimony.
The defense is dealing with a very,
very hard working, smart, careful prosecution team.
But I think Stormy did a great job.
You know, she hadn't come face to face with Trump since 2007,
I believe, until they were in that courtroom together
when there were moments where Trump, we found out later, was actually
his attorney was being scolded by the judge.
He was cursing audibly.
Could she hear any of that or did
what did she say about what it was like to be in the room with him?
You know, she was pretty nonplused by him.
She really didn't pay much regard to him.
She did hear the statement that he made
a couple of times to some of her testimony,
but pretty much she heard him cursing in the courtroom
and she heard him cursing, which you heard him responding audibly.
But I don't think she that impacted her at all.
They were really trying to make her feel shamed in some way by her profession.
She seemed completely unfazed by that, entering the courtroom, saying
her name was to be addressed as Stormy Daniels.
Were there moments that she had been prepared
if they would attack her in that way?
And do you think that her response was in line with how she truly felt?
I think Stormy was stormy on the stand.
And she's genuine.
She's very bright, she's quick witted, and I think she came across
as genuine and open and exposed as she intended to be.
And I think the jury saw that clerk.
There was a lot of talk in the testimony about stormy finances.
And one of the things in her finances is because Michael Avenatti filed this failed
lawsuit against Trump, the judge assessed attorney's fees against her.
She now owes Donald Trump something like $670,000.
What's going to happen? Is she going to pay that?
Can she pay it? Is there any way to fight it?
What's going to happen in that?
Well, I think it's a non-issue for this trial.
They try to impeach her with it.
But keep in mind the story that she that she told in that courtroom, it's factually
was before there was any judgment, the judgment was inconsequential
with regard to trying to impeach her testimony
with regard to that judgment is patently unfair.
But that's what happens in a defamation case when the SLAPP statute is applied.
The attorney's fees are almost automatic.
They weren't appealed timely before I got involved.
The main case was but not the attorney's fees.
So we were hampered in trying to deal with that.
But in the the case, which is really the subject
of her testimony in the courtroom, she won across the board.
We were awarded attorney's fees every step of the way.
We didn't get avenatti's billing because he wouldn't cooperate.
So the fee was last was about 100,000 that came off that.
But we'll fight it in Florida, and I think that we'll get some relief there.
Was she aware of that, the potential
that if she didn't, that was not and never explained Her attorney
did not tell her, I don't want to speak for Michael Avenatti, but
he never appreciated the risk of a slap defense
and never really informed her of it and really exposed her.
Mr. President, it's terrible.
If I could just I'm just curious if you feel comfortable telling us about
how many times would you say Stormy was prepared
by the district attorney's office?
I don't have to say about I can tell you exactly what they.
I will just tell you
that they were very diligent, very careful in their examination,
wanted corroboration with everything she told them and found it.
But there were
a number of sessions that were lengthy.
And, you know, being a trial lawyer and doing a lot of criminal cases,
I can tell you this prosecution team is first rate.
A number is more or less than five, more or less.
Between the direct and the cross, Stormy, his demeanor on the stand
was different from, you know, an outsider's perspective.
How did she go from kind of that first day of testimony, first day
and a half to when she knew she was going to get grilled by the defense?
I mean, how did she how did she take that?
What did you did you tell her anything to kind of get her ready for that moment?
Sure. Yeah.
We spent, as you remember, we Tuesday.
Then there was a dark day. Wednesday. We came back on Thursday.
But I knew her time to shine would be on cross because she's very, very
a quick thinker.
She's very,
you know, seizes in on facts of the question and was very responsive.
I think the direct was careful
and I think the cross was right up her alley and she dealt with it well.
She afraid now you now she has a lot of fear and she really does.
I mean, she was concerned about the security coming in to New York.
She wore a bulletproof vest every day.
Closed? Yes.
Until until she got to the courthouse.
I can tell you that before she came on Sunday,
I mean, she cried herself to sleep.
I mean, she was very she was paralyzed with fear, not of taking the stand
or telling her story, but what might some nut might do to her?
And I'm genuinely concerned about it as well.
She had her daughter's necklace on in the courtroom.
Was that some kind of a good luck charm for a mom?
Yeah, it was it was a feeling that she had her daughter with her.
And it was really cute that she did that. The daughter made that necklace.
The defense move for mistrial during your client's testimony, arguing
they tried to do it twice. What did you think of their argument?
Well, it really came into play
with regard to the detail, some of the detail
and establishing her credibility and why she did certain things.
And she said I was fearful and she was told by a lawyer,
you need to hide in plain sight.
The story has got to be memorialized one way or the other.
And if something happens, they'll know who was motivated to do it.
So that was her.
That was the motivation.
And and I think the defense didn't like that.
But keep in mind, in the court of public opinion, Trump
has constantly said she's a sleazebag, she's a liar.
I only met her one time at a and so that that lay down those facts
he thought were important enough for the court of public opinion.
Why wouldn't they be important enough for a jury in this case?
When she was on the stand,
she talked about feeling like she was going to blackout
and she talked about the feeling in her hands.
I think she talked about her head sort of swimming
that was sort of a level of detail she hadn't said before, To my knowledge.
The prosecutor
in questioning her said, is that a recovered memory?
And I think she intimated that, yes, it was sort of a memory she had
that had come to her.
Is that something was that something new that you had heard before?
No, no.
You're talking about the time
she came out of the bathroom and he was on the bed, right?
Yeah.
She's always said that, you know, the defense made a big deal about clearly
was upset by that and was accusing her of,
you know, changing the story from the 2011 In Touch article,
which she saw me on the stand said, you know, that was look,
it's In Touch magazine, you know, going to a level of detail with them.
That's right.
And so the questions asked by the prosecution were very detailed
and very delving into very specific issues.
And, you know, some of the gossip magazine interviews
that had been done before were just pretty superficial.
But she's always said that I heard it from the first occasion.
I spoke with her in depth on this matter.
Does it matter to her if Trump is convicted?
And if so, why?
You know, she's privately to me,
she feels bad for the guy because she's just empathetic.
But publicly, I mean, she's been so damaged by him
in the statements he's made about her that any person
would feel some degree of revenge motive.
So I think that she would be more inclined
to hope that the jury does the right thing and finds and and conviction.
Well, and on the fear part, I mean, there was a moment
where she had to turn to the judge because her address
is on a piece of evidence that she was worried
they were going to show to the courtroom and to have out there.
I mean, does she concern that that they do have her address?
Well, honestly, she's very concerned about that.
And because she she lives in an area that might not have a level of security
that she'd feel comfortable with.