Connect with us

Published

on

On July 13, 2006, Stormy Daniels says, she had sex with former President Donald Trump in his suite at the Harrah’s Lake Tahoe Hotel and Casino, where he was staying during the American Century Celebrity Golf Championship. At the time, Daniels was a 27-year-old porn star who had started writing and directing adult films, and Trump was a 60-year-old billionaire real estate developer who had gained renewed celebrity as the star of the NBC reality TV show The Apprentice. He had married his third wife, former model and future First Lady Melania Trump, the previous year, and their son was four months old.

A decade later, shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Daniels agreed to keep quiet about that alleged 2006 encounter in exchange for a $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer. That agreement is at the center of Trump’s first and possibly last criminal trial, in which Daniels testified this week at the New York County Criminal Courthouse in Manhattan. In trying to peddle her story to the press as Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, Daniels told the jury, “My motivation wasn’t money. It was to get the story out.”

That implausible claim illustrates a broader problem that the prosecution faces in trying to establish that Trump committed 34 felonies by disguising his 2017 reimbursement of Cohen’s payment to Daniels as legal fees. Even leaving aside the convoluted, legally dubious theory underlying those charges, prosecutors are relying on the testimony of several key witnesses who do not seem trustworthy.

Daniels said she decided to go public with her story in early October 2016, when The Washington Post published a 2005 video in which Trump bragged to Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about what he could get away with as a celebrity. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women],” Trump said. “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. When you are a star, they let you do it. You can do anythinggrab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Prosecutors have emphasized the importance of that recording in understanding why Trump was eager to silence Daniels. His motivation, in turn, is crucial to the argument that the hush payment was a campaign expenditure, that Cohen therefore made an excessive campaign contribution by fronting the money, and that Trump falsified business records to cover up that crime.

“Those were Donald Trump’s words on a video that was released one month before Election Day,” lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said in his opening statement. “And the impact of that tape on the campaign was immediate and explosive. Prominent allies withdrew their endorsements; they condemned Donald Trump’s language….The Republican National Committee even considered whether it was too late to replace their own nominee and find another candidate for the election a month before Election Day.”

Trump and his campaign staff “were deeply concerned that the tape would irreparably damage his viability as a candidate and reduce his standing with female voters in particular,” Colangelo told the jury. So the next day, when Cohen learned from David Pecker, then the CEO of the company that owned theNational Enquirer, that Daniels was pitching her story, Trump “was adamant that he did not want the story to come out. Another story about sexual infidelity, especially with a porn star, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape, could have been devastating to his campaign.”

As Daniels tells it, she was equally determined to tell her story. Yet she ultimately decided that was less important than reaping a windfall from her silence. Daniels did not publicly discuss her relationship with Trump until March 2018, when she appeared on 60 Minutes after unsuccessfully trying to get out of her nondisclosure agreement. This was two months afterThe Wall Street Journal revealed that Cohen had paid Daniels not to do what she eventually did anyway.

In April 2018, Daniels sued Trump for defamation after he called her account of what happened in Lake Tahoe a “fraud.” A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit on First Amendment grounds that October, and Daniels lost her appeal. She was ultimately ordered to cover more than $600,000 in Trump’s legal fees, which she said she would not do.

Since going public, The New York Times notes, Daniels “has leaned into her Trump-adjacent fame. She has sold merchandise, filmed a documentary, sat for high-profile interviews and written a book that was so tell-all it included detailed descriptions of the former president’s genitalia.”

Daniels’ testimony on Tuesday likewise was a bit too graphic for Judge Juan Merchan’s taste. “At one point,” theTimes reports, “he even issued his own objection, interrupting her testimony as she began to describe the sexual position she and Mr. Trump assumed.” During a sidebar discussion, Merchan remarked that Daniels’ testimony included “some things better left unsaid” and “suggested that Ms. Daniels might have ‘credibility issues.'”

Trump lawyer Susan Necheles highlighted what she said were inconsistencies between Daniels’ testimony and the account she gave in her 2018 memoir, Full Disclosure. Necheles also suggested that Daniels had invented an encounter in which she said a Trump supporter had threatened her and her baby daughter in a Las Vegas parking lot, noting that Daniels had not told the girl’s father about it.

More generally, the defense team argues that Daniels has financial and personal reasons to lie about Trump. Cohen paid Daniels “in exchange for her agreeing to not publicly spread false claims about President Trump,” Trump’s lead defense attorney, Todd Blanche, said in his opening statement. “When Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her false claim of a sexual encounter with President Trump,” Blanche told the jury, “it was almost an attempt…to extort President Trump….It was sinister, and it was an attempt to try to embarrass President Trump, to embarrass his family….President Trump fought back, like he always does and like he’s entitled to do, to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand. And that is not a crime.”

None of this means that Daniels fabricated her account of a sexual encounter with Trump, which is completely consistent with his character and history. And strictly speaking, it does not matter whether Daniels is telling the truth about what she and Trump did in 2006, or even whether her story would been “devastating to his campaign,” which is doubtful for the same reasons: Voters knew about his adultery and his disregard for sexual consent, and they elected him anyway. They may very well do so again, even after a jury found him civilly liable for sexual assault. But under the prosecution’s theory, all that matters is that Trump was worried that Daniels’ story might hurt his chances; that he arranged the payoff for that reason, recognizing that he was thereby violating federal campaign finance rules; and that he tried to hide that crime with phony business records.

Daniels’ “credibility issues” nevertheless are apt to affect the weight that jurors give her testimony. Likewise with Pecker, who testified that he agreed to pay off two other people with potentially damaging stories about Trumpformer Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajudin and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougalas part of an arrangement that included notifying Cohen about such threats, running positive stories about Trump in the National Enquirer, and running negative stories about his opponents. Pecker said he had similar, mutually beneficial arrangements with other celebrities, including politicians, and that he sometimes used dirt about them as leverage to obtain access and information.

In addition to those unsavory details about Pecker’s style of journalism, jurors heard that he and his company avoided federal prosecution by agreeing that the McDougal payoff qualified as an unlawful corporate campaign contribution. The legal pressure that resulted in Pecker’s cooperation casts doubt on that characterization and on his testimony that Trump was mainly worriedabout the election when he arranged the nondisclosure agreements with Sajudin, McDougal, and Daniels.

Cohen, the source of crucial links between the Daniels payment and the charges that Trump faces, has yet to testify. But Trump’s lawyers argue that he is a vindictive former loyalist who “cannot be trusted.”

Cohen “cheated on his taxes, he lied to banks, [and] he lied about side businesses he had with taxi medallions, among other things,” Blanche told the jury. He was “disbarred as an attorney, he’s a convicted felon, and he also is a convicted perjurer.” According to Blanche, Cohen had a grudge against Trump, because he “wanted a job in the administration” and “didn’t get one.” He therefore decided to “blame President Trump for virtually all of his problems.” Cohen is “obsessed with Trump,” Blanche said. He “rants and raves” about his former boss on podcasts and social media and “has talked extensively about his desire to see President Trump go to prison.”

Even Pecker, who had a relationship with Cohen that long predated the 2016 election, portrayed him as difficult, badgering, hotheaded, and extremely unpleasant. While all that may be legally irrelevant, Pecker’s testimony also suggested that Cohen was dishonest and unreliable, repeatedly promising to reimburse Pecker for the Sajudin and McDougal payments, which he never did.

This is the guy that prosecutors will be presenting as their star witness. Blanche claimed that “Mr. Cohen has misrepresented key conversations where the only witness who was present for the conversation was Mr. Cohen and, allegedly, President Trump.” Whether or not that’s true, establishing reasonable doubt about the veracity of Cohen’s account should not be difficult.

Continue Reading

Business

Households and business must wait for energy bills to fall – as minister says there is ‘no shortcut’ to bring down prices

Published

on

By

Households and business must wait for energy bills to fall - as minister says there is 'no shortcut' to bring down prices

Households and businesses will have to wait for energy bills to fall significantly because there is “no shortcut” to bringing down prices, the energy minister has told Sky News.

Speaking as Chancellor Rachel Reeves considers ways of easing the pressure on households in next week’s budget, energy minister Michael Shanks conceded that Labour’s election pledge to cut bills by £300 by converting the UK to clean power has not been delivered.

The UK has the second-highest domestic and the highest industrial electricity prices among developed nations, despite renewable sources providing more than 50% of UK electricity last year.

“The truth is, we do have to build that infrastructure in order to remove the volatility of fossil fuels from people’s bills,” Mr Shanks said.

“We obviously hope that that will happen as quickly as possible, but there’s no shortcut to this, and there’s not an easy solution to building the clean power system that brings down bills.”

His comments come amid growing scepticism about the compatibility of cutting bills as well as carbon emissions, and growing evidence that the government’s pursuit of a clean power grid by 2030 is contributing to higher bills.

While wholesale gas prices have fallen from their peak following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, energy bills remain around 35% higher than before the war, inflated by the rising cost of reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

More on Energy

The price of subsidising offshore wind and building and managing the grid has increased sharply, driven by supply chain inflation and the rising cost of financing major capital projects.

In response, the government has had to increase the maximum price it will pay for offshore wind by more than 10% in the latest renewables auction, and extend price guarantees from 15 years to 20.

The auction concludes early next year, but it’s possible it could see the price of new wind power set higher than the current average wholesale cost of electricity, primarily set by gas.

Renewable subsidies and network costs make up more than a third of bills and are set to grow. The cost of new nuclear power generation will be added to bills from January.

The government has also increased so-called social costs funded through bills, including the warm home discount, a £150 payment made to around six million of the least-affluent households.

Gas remains central to the UK’s power network, with around 50 active gas-fired power stations underpinning an increasingly renewable grid, and is also crucial to pricing.

Because of the way the energy market works, wholesale gas sets the price for all sources of electricity, the majority of the time.

At Connah’s Quay, a gas-fired power station run by the German state-owned energy company Uniper on the Dee estuary in north Wales, four giant turbines, each capable of powering 300,000 homes, are fired up on demand when the grid needs them.

Energy boss: Remove policy costs from bills

Because renewables are intermittent, the UK will need to maintain and pay for a full gas network, even when renewables make up the majority of generation, and we use it a fraction of the time.

“The fundamental problem is we cannot store electricity in very large volumes, and so we have to have these plants ready to generate when customers need it,” says Michael Lewis, chief executive of Uniper.

“You’re paying for hundreds of hours when they are not used, but they’re still there and they’re ready to go at a moment’s notice.”

Michael Lewis, chief executive of Uniper
Image:
Michael Lewis, chief executive of Uniper

He agrees that shifting away from gas will ultimately reduce costs, but there are measures the government can take in the short term.

“We have quite a lot of policy costs on our energy bills in the UK, for instance, renewables incentives, a warm home discount and other taxes. If we remove those from energy bills and put them into general taxation, that will have a big dampening effect on energy prices, but fundamentally it is about gas.”

The chancellor is understood to be considering a range of options to cut bills in the short term, including shifting some policy costs and green levies from bills into general taxation, as well as cutting VAT.

Read more from Sky News:
What deleted post reveals about ‘secret’ plan to end Ukraine war
Starmer preparing for China trip in new year

Tories and Reform against green energy

Stubbornly high energy bills have already fractured the political consensus on net zero among the major parties.

Under Kemi Badenoch, the Conservatives have reversed a policy introduced by Theresa May. Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho, who held the post in the last Conservative government, explained why: “Net zero is now forcing people to make decisions which are making people poorer. And that’s not what people signed up to.

“So when it comes to energy bills, we know that they’re going up over the next five years to pay for green levies.

“We are losing jobs to other countries, industry is going, and that not only is a bad thing for our country, but it also is a bad thing for climate change.”

Claire Coutinho tells Sky News net zero is 'making people poorer'
Image:
Claire Coutinho tells Sky News net zero is ‘making people poorer’

Reform UK, meanwhile, have made opposition to net zero a central theme.

“No more renewables,” says Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice. “They’ve been a catastrophe… that’s the reason why we’ve got the highest electricity prices in the developed world because of the scandal and the lies told about renewables.

“They haven’t made our energy cheaper, they haven’t brought down the bills.”

Mr Shanks says his opponents are wrong and insists renewables remain the only long-term choice: “The cost of subsidy is increasing because of the global cost of building things, but it’s still significantly cheaper than it would be to build gas.

“And look, there’s a bigger argument here, that we’re all still paying the price of the volatility of fossil fuels. And in the past 50 years, more than half of the economic shocks this country’s faced have been the direct result of fossil fuel crises across the world.”

Continue Reading

World

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan – they will play for time and hope he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin

Published

on

By

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump's plan - they will play for time and hope he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin

“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.

The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.

It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.

Ukraine war latest: Kyiv receives US peace plan

(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP
Image:
(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP

Its proposals are non-starters for Ukrainians.

It would hand over the rest of Donbas, territory they have spent almost four years and lost tens of thousands of men defending.

Analysts estimate at the current rate of advance, it would take Russia four more years to take the land it is proposing simply to give them instead.

It proposes more than halving the size of the Ukrainian military and depriving them of some of their most effective long-range weapons.

And it would bar any foreign forces acting as peacekeepers in Ukraine after any peace deal is done.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Moscow back in Washington’s good books?

The plan comes at an excruciating time for the Ukrainians.

They are being pounded with devastating drone attacks, killing dozens in the last few nights alone.

They are on the verge of losing a key stronghold city, Pokrovsk.

And Volodymyr Zelenskyy is embroiled in the gravest political crisis since the war began, with key officials facing damaging corruption allegations.

Read more from Sky News:
Witkoff’s ‘secret’ plan to end war
Navy could react to laser incident

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukrainian support for peace plan ‘very much in doubt’

The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.

Perversely, though, it may help him.

There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.

The genesis of this plan is unclear.

Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.

The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.

Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.

If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.

Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.

They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.

Continue Reading

World

South Africa is making history with its first G20 summit, but the continued exclusion of its oldest communities is a symbolic threat

Published

on

By

South Africa is making history with its first G20 summit, but the continued exclusion of its oldest communities is a symbolic threat

This is the first time the G20 summit is being hosted on African soil.

Heads of state from 15 countries across Europe, Asia and South America are expected to convene in South Africa’s economic capital, Johannesburg, under the banner of “solidarity, equality and sustainability.”

The summit is facing challenges from the Oval Office as US President Donald Trump boycotts the event, where the G20 leadership is meant to be handed over to him by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The US has also warned South Africa against issuing a joint declaration at the end of the summit. The challenges to South Africa’s G20 debut are also domestic.

Trump had a contentious meeting with Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office earlier this year. File pic: AP
Image:
Trump had a contentious meeting with Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office earlier this year. File pic: AP

Nationwide civic disobedience has been planned by women’s rights charities, nationalist groups and trade unions – all using this moment to draw the government’s attention to critical issues it has failed to address around femicide, immigration and high unemployment.

But a key symbolic threat to the credibility of an African G20 summit themed around inclusivity is the continued exclusion and marginalisation of its oldest communities.

“There is a disingenuous thread that runs right through many of these gatherings, and the G20 is no different”, Khoisan Chief Zenzile tells us in front of the First Nations Heritage Centre in Cape Town, “from any of them”.

More on G20

“I am very concerned that the many marginalised sections of society – youth, indigenous people, are not inside the front and centre of this agenda,” he added.

Khoisan Chief Zenzile says land developments on indigenous land are the 'most ridiculous notion'
Image:
Khoisan Chief Zenzile says land developments on indigenous land are the ‘most ridiculous notion’

As we speak, the sounds of construction echo around us. We are standing in a curated indigenous garden as South Africa’s Amazon headquarters is being built nearby.

After years of being sidelined by the government in a deal that centres around construction on sacred Khoisan land, Chief Zenzile said he negotiated directly with the developers to build the heritage centre and sanctuary as a trade-off while retaining permanent ownership of the land.

“There are many people who like to fetishise indigenous people who want to relegate us to an anthropoid state, as if that is the only place we can, as if we don’t have the tools to navigate the modern world,” he says when I ask about modern buildings towering over the sacred land.

“That is the most ridiculous notion – that the entire world must progress and we must be relegated to a state over which we have no agency.”

An hour and a half from Cape Town’s centre, Khoi-San communities have seized 2,000 hectares of land that they say historically belongs to them.

Knoflokskraal is a state where they exercise full agency – filling in the infrastructural gaps around water and electricity supply that the provincial government will not offer to residents it categorises as “squatters”.

“We are – exactly today – here for five years now,” Dawid De Wee, president of the Khoi Aboriginal Party, tells us as he gives us a tour of the settlement. “There are more or less around 4,000 of us.

“The calling from our ancestral graves sent us down here, so we had an urge to get our own identity and get back to our roots, and that was the driving motive behind everything we are here now to take back our ancestral grounds.”

'We are here now to take back our ancestral grounds,' Dawid De Wee says
Image:
‘We are here now to take back our ancestral grounds,’ Dawid De Wee says

Dawid says they have plans to expand to reclaim more swathes of land stolen from them by European settlers in the 1600s across the Cape Colony.

Land reform is a contentious issue in post-Apartheid South Africa, with a white minority still owning a majority of the land.

Read more from Yousra Elbagir:
The ‘killing fields’ where thousands ‘made to bury their relatives’
Madagascar’s new president denies coup after Gen Z uprising
Niece of woman ‘murdered by British soldier’ seeking justice in UK

Indigenous land is even further down the agenda of reparations, and South Africa’s oldest communities continue to suffer from historic dispossession and marginalisation.

For many Khoi-San leaders, G20 represents the ongoing exclusion from a modern South African state.

They have not been invited to officially participate in events where “solidarity, equality and sustainability,” are being discussed without reference to their age-old knowledge.

Instead, we meet Khoi-San Queen Eloise at a gathering of tribal leaders from around the world on the most southwestern tip of Africa in Cape Point called the World Tribal Alliance.

Khoi-San Queen Eloise tells Sky that the G20 'is a politically-based gathering'
Image:
Khoi-San Queen Eloise tells Sky that the G20 ‘is a politically-based gathering’

“In order for us to heal, Mother Nature and Mother Earth is calling us, calling our kinship, to come together – especially as indigenous people because with indigenous people we are still connected to our lands, to our intellectual property we are connected to who we are,” Queen Eloise tells us.

“G20 is a politically-based gathering – they are coming together to determine the future of people politically.

“The difference is that we will seek what Mother Earth wants from us and not what we want to do with technology or all those things politically, but the depth of where we are supposed to go.”

Continue Reading

Trending