Trump’s legal team to quiz actress as hush money trial resumes

STORMY Daniels was due to return to the witness box in Donald Trump’s hush money trial.

The defence will try to undermine the credibility of the adult film actress’ salacious testimony about her alleged sexual encounter with Mr Trump and the money she was paid to keep quiet.

Ms Daniels’ account is key to the prosecutors’ case accusing Mr Trump of scheming to illegally influence the 2016 presidential campaign by suppressing unflattering stories about him.

The actress has described an unexpected sexual encounter she says they had in 2006 for hours. Mr Trump denies they ever had sex.

A decade later, his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid Ms Daniels to stay silent in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Her testimony was an extraordinary moment in what could be the only criminal case against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee before November’s election.

Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty and has cast himself as the victim of a politically tainted justice system working to deny him another term.

His lawyers have sought to paint Ms Daniels as a liar and extortionist who is trying to take down the former president after drawing money and fame from her story about him.

Ms Daniels denied the idea that she had tried to extort Mr Trump.

“Am I correct that you hate President Trump?” defence lawyer Susan Necheles asked Ms Daniels. “Yes,” she acknowledged. Mr Trump scowled and shook his head through much of Ms Daniels’ description of their alleged sexual encounter.

She said she met Mr Trump at a 2006 Lake Tahoe celebrity golf outing where sponsors included the adult film studio where she worked.

At one point, the judge told defence lawyers during a sidebar conversation – out of earshot of the jury and the public – that he could hear Mr Trump “cursing audibly”.

“I am speaking to you here at the bench because I don’t want to embarrass him,” Judge Juan M Merchan told Mr Trump’s lawyers, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

For the first time in the trial, the defence pushed for a mistrial over Ms Daniels’ detailed testimony, calling it “extremely prejudicial”.

The judge denied the request, partly blaming the defence for not objecting more vigorously to stop her from giving more detail than she should have.