It’s a gold dress in this case but let’s not get hung up on details.
The idea that she still has the dress she wore on the night of her encounter with Trump and hasn’t had it cleaned in 12 years — even though he wasn’t a presidential contender until three years ago — seems plausible, right? This definitely isn’t a gimmick she’s shopping to the tabloids in hopes that one will buy the rights to reveal the results of the test in their pages.
Coming soon to In Touch: “DNA FOUND ON STORMY’S DRESS.” Tiny subhed: “No way to know if it’s Trump’s.”
This story is just the latest evidence, by the way, that Americans would never tolerate Trump being removed from office in favor of boring ol’ Mike Pence. It’d be like turning off a “Mad Max” movie to watch “Antiques Roadshow.”
Sources close to Daniels tell The Blast the shimmering gold mini dress with a plunging neckline was kept in pristine condition after her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump at the Lake Tahoe hotel suite.
We’re told Daniels is planning on having the dress forensically tested to search for any DNA that proves she isn’t lying about her tryst with Trump, including samples of skin, hair or … anything…
Obviously, Stormy and her legal team would need a test sample from POTUS too, but any DNA that may be extracted from her dress that could possibly prove Trump was with her in the hotel room will be a big deal.
Not really. There’s no dispute that Trump and Daniels have met. There’s a photo of them together at an event in 2006. She attended the launch party for his vodka brand in L.A. in 2007. There could be perfectly innocent explanations for the presidential DNA to be found on her clothing, depending on, ah, what type of substance the DNA comes from.
Plus, c’mon. Does anyone still doubt Daniels’s story, now that Michael Cohen’s admitted paying her? Finding Trump’s “DNA” on her dress at this point is like finding a few extra hairs from O.J. at the Simpson/Goldman murder scene. Nice for the prosecution to have, I guess, but we already have a pretty good idea of what went down. So to speak.
Speaking of Michael Cohen and prosecutions:
In a brief interview on Wednesday, Mr. Cohen declined to answer questions about whether Mr. Trump had reimbursed him, whether the two men had made any arrangement at the time of the payment, or whether he had made any payments to other women or accusers of the president…
Charles Wolfram, an emeritus professor of legal ethics at Cornell University, said the situation raised a host of potential issues, but that more facts were needed to understand which rules applied to it.
“The thing seems so weird that it invites an inquiry into what you’re doing,” he said. “Lawyers don’t go around giving $130,000 to strangers, benefiting their clients, without billing their clients.”
*If* the payment to Daniels qualifies as a campaign contribution (see the standards for that here) then Cohen’s waaaay over the $2,700 limit he’s legally allowed to donate — assuming he made the payment as a gift to Trump. If in fact Trump reimbursed him then it’s a legal donation by POTUS to his own campaign but it would need to be reported to the FEC. And it wasn’t. So is it a campaign contribution or not? Expect the Trump-controlled FEC to tackle that thorny question sometime between now and never.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s Trump antagonist Jimmy Kimmel having some fun with Cohen last night. Lawyers routinely make six-figure payments to porn stars for no reason, don’t they?