Lawyers for former President Donald Trump presented a recorded phone call to a Manhattan jury on Thursday, alleging that Stormy Daniels’ attorney, Keith Davidson, engaged in potential extortion. The recording, dated April 2018, features a conversation between Davidson and Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, where Davidson claims that Daniels pressured Cohen for money, indicating she wanted it “more than anything.”
According to The New York Post, the call captures Davidson saying that Daniels berated him and demanded that Cohen quickly resolve her claims. Davidson stated that Daniels was extremely angry, calling him a “p—y” and emphasizing her urgency to settle the matter. He noted that Daniels was concerned that if Trump lost the election, their leverage would diminish, affecting the value of the case. Davidson is heard saying, “She wanted this money more than you can ever imagine. I remember hearing her on the phone saying, ‘You f–king Keith Davidson. You better settle this goddamn story.’”
Daniels, however, testified that she never yelled at Davidson, denying any berating language. “No, I did not, actually; I never yelled at Keith Davidson,” she told the court, suggesting that Davidson’s claims sounded like a threat against her.
The phone call is part of Trump’s legal team’s strategy to question Daniels’ credibility and her intentions surrounding her allegations against Trump. Daniels’ narrative centers on her alleged relationship with Trump, offering a consensual but uncomfortable account of her interactions with the former president. During her testimony, she described her secret meeting with Trump, stating that he coaxed her into his hotel suite and suggested that having sex with him could help her “get out of the trailer park.” She testified that she felt disoriented, despite not being drunk or drugged, with her hands “shaking so hard.”
Due to the sensitive nature of the trial, Judge Juan Merchan imposed strict rules to prevent the proceedings from becoming a broader inquiry into Trump’s personal behavior. More than 50 objections were sustained during Daniels’ testimony as the judge aimed to keep the focus on the alleged 2016 campaign finance conspiracy. Despite these restrictions, Trump’s legal team highlighted the potential bias in Daniels’ testimony, drawing parallels with the Harvey Weinstein case and the risks of introducing salacious evidence to sway a jury.
