UNKNOWNS: We were told that Daniels is "telling her truth!"

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2024

But what in the world does that mean? Is it true, what Stephanie Clifford said, speaking in a chilly Gotham courtroom—testifying under oath?

In an early part of her testimony, she said that she preferred to be referred to as Stormy Daniels. In news reports in the New York Times, she's routinely described as a "porn star." In news reports in the Washington Post. she's described as an "adult film actress." 

However you want to score that point, is what she said accurate—true? We start today with her basic claim—with the claim which has produced so much excitement. 

Testifying under oath, Daniels said that, on one occasion in 2006, she engaged in sexual intercourse with a future presidential candidate by the name of Donald J. Trump.

She says this happened on one occasion, ten years before Trump ran for office. Donald J. Trump continues to say that it never happened at all. 

Everyone knows what Daniels has said. But is her statement accurate—true?

If we had to bet, we'd bet that her statement is true. In fairness, though, we can't say that anyone has ever produced any evidence establishing, or tending to establish, her claim as an actual fact.

There has been no stain on anyone's dress. There has been no testimony of a contemporaneous statement to a friend or associate. 

Still, we would bet that Daniels' basic claim is true. In part, we'd do so based on a fairly obvious fact:

You can't believe a thing Trump says! Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that his denial in this case is inaccurate.

At any rate:

Several years ago, inquiring minds went into a tizzy about Daniels' claim. Ten years before he ran for president, the candidate allegedly engaged in consensual intercourse, on one occasion, with a woman who wasn't his wife!

Within the past several months, major thought leaders have flooded the zone, saying that voters needed to hear Daniels' story in 2016 before they could know how to vote. But what exactly would such voters have been hearing?  At New York magazine, a lengthy profile by former "tattletale intern" Olivia Nuzzi started off like this, dual headline included:

This Isn’t the Same Stormy Daniels 
The night she met Donald Trump changed both their worlds.

For months, Stormy Daniels’s life had been in a state of suspended animation as she prepared to be called as a witness in Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan. “She’s just been waiting to testify,” a person close to her said. “Her mind-set is that this is a justice system that hasn’t protected her, and yet she’s here spending her money, her own time, and taking time off work and risking her safety to show up for a legal system that didn’t show up for her.” Daniels arrived at the courthouse accompanied by her longtime bodyguard, Travis. “She was concerned about having government-appointed security,” the person close to her continued, “because she doesn’t trust the government anymore. She doesn’t trust that they’re going to protect her. She doesn’t trust that the legal system is going to protect her after everything that she’s been through.” At a social event earlier this spring, Daniels was “anxious, nervous, and talking fast” in the same manner that she would address the court, the person close to her recalled. “It’s very, very stressful for her.”

Daniels had been telling her story, in various forms and formats, for going on seven years now. She’d done TV interviews, magazine spreads, her own podcast, other people’s podcasts, a stand-up comedy tour and a Peacock documentary called Stormy. But there is a difference between telling your truth and testifying. The rule of law does not always accommodate what feels righteous, and the workings of the system can grind down even the unindicted. Another witness for the prosecution, Hope Hicks, cried when she testified. During jury selection, several prospective jurors also broke down in tears; one said she had to quit because she was overwhelmed by anxiety. Daniels has always prided herself on her toughness, but the pressure had taken a toll. “I didn’t ask for this,” she said back in April 2023, a few days after Trump was charged with falsifying business records to conceal a deal to keep her quiet about their alleged sexual relationship ahead of the 2016 presidential election. “I’m significantly more crazy now than I was before,” she said with a laugh. “Because it does wear on you.” She’d been paid off, and, as she saw it, she’d been paying for it ever since.

That's the way the lengthy profile started—and then, it continued from there. We call your attention to a turn of phrase found in that second paragraph.

In the first paragraph of Nuzzi's profile, an unnamed person "close to [Daniels]" makes an assortment of claims. As almost anyone can understand, those statements may all be perfectly accurate—but then again, possibly not!

In paragraph 2, Nuzzi turns to Daniels herself. Nuzzi starts with a statement which most people will likely accept as being straightforward, and as being plainly accurate:

"Daniels ha[s] been telling her story, in various forms and formats, for going on seven years now."

"Daniels has been telling her story?" Most people would understand what that locution means. That said, most people would almost surely, at least if pressed, accept this basic idea:

When a person tells a story, her story may not be accurate.

"Daniels has been telling her story," Nuzzi says. That doesn't constitute a claim that the story in question is true. 

That's the way Nuzzi begins—but in paragraph 2, she moves to a different locution. Does anyone know what Nuzzi means when she offers this?

"But there is a difference between telling your truth and testifying."

All of a sudden, Daniels hasn't simply been "telling her story." All of a sudden, we're now told that she has been "telling her truth!"

What does it mean when a journalist says that someone has been "telling her truth?" Does ir mean that the person's claims have been accurate? Does it mean that her story has been true?

It almost sounds like that's what it means, but we can't say we're sure. In truth, this is a relatively new locution—a formulation which was invented to let us news consumers wallow in pleasing stories where the truth can't be established in any conventional manner.

Daniels has been telling her truth! But are the various assertions which constitute her truth actually accurate—true?

Late in that lengthy second paragraph, Nuzzi offers the word "alleged." That can be seen as a small reminder of the fact that Daniels' fundamental claim hasn't been verified in any conventional way, and that it's still being denied by one Donald J. Trump.

But what was it supposed to mean when we were told that Daniels has been "telling her truth?" Fellow citizens, we don't know—and you don't really know either!

For the record, nothing will ever turn on the question we ask, except to the extent that it quite possibly will. In truth, though, the larger story Daniels has told includes a very large number of smaller claims, none of which have been established as true.

For example:

Did Daniels look in Trump's toilet kit when she went in the bathroom of his hotel suite? When she did, did she spy the embarrassing, cheapo toiletries she says she saw in his kit?

Indeed, did she ever go into the bathroom of his hotel suite at all? There is no evidence to establish the truth of that assertion—but all across the upper-end press, the words "alleged" and "allegedly" were given the week off last week as major journalists blew past the lack of evidence in support of such pleasing claims.

It's the most basic journalistic distinction known to us the humans. It's the distinction between things a journalist knows to be true, as opposed to thigs a journalist has merely heard someone say.

We know of no obvious reason to doubt the claims that Daniels has made. That said, we also know of no obvious reason to assume that her various claims—the claims which are said to constitute "her truth"—are actually accurate, true.

Is it possible that her basic claim is accurate, but some of her lesser claims are not? Yes, of course that's possible—unless you were on the set of Morning Joe on the morning of Friday, May 10, when Mika Brzezinski seemed to blow past the most obvious rule in the book.

Fellow citizens, hear us out! We're speaking here of the basic way our upper-end press corps has been inclined to function over the past thirty to forty years.

When they get a story they like, they tend to rush past the basic gateposts which remind us that the story in question may not be accurate—true. Using the language of Donald Rumsfeld, they're strongly inclined to take a bunch of "unknowns" and turn them into "knowns."

In the matter under review today, a peculiar state of affairs obtains. As has be explained a thousand times, when it comes to the criminal charges against Donald J. Trump, it doesn't even matter if Daniels' statements are true!

It doesn't matter if Daniels and Donald Trump didn't have sex. If Daniels is lying through her teeth, that doesn't affect the 34 felonies with which the defendant stands charged.

That said, our high-end journalists loved the story which Daniels told last week. And so, they gave the words "alleged" and "allegedly" the week off as they transformed her story into "her truth."

We lost a couple of days this week, and so we're a bit behind in our exposition. That said, we're suggesting that you look at the way our journalists tend to behave when they find themselves in the presence of a story they like.

We'll start tomorrow with something Mika said—something  which seems to make no earthly sense. That said, the tendency involved in this matter—the tendency to look for ways to assert that some preferred story is true—is a tendency which has ruled the roost across the mainstream press over the past many years.

Tomorrow, we'll start with what Mika said. We'll suggest that what she said last Friday made no apparent sense.

That said, Mika was hardly alone in her rush to turn an unknown into a truth. As we end today's submission, we'll tease the headline which appeared above Quinta Jurecic's essay in The Atlantic:

What Happened to Stormy Daniels Is Not Salacious

That headline implies that Jurecic actually knows "what happened to Stormy Daniels." As we'll show you, Jurecic never makes that claim in her actual essay.

To appearances, some editor worked a sleight of hand which turned some unknowns into a known. This blows us past the world's most basic journalistic distinction:

There are certain things a journalist can sensibly say she knows to be true. There are other things a journalist has merely heard someone say.

It's the world's most bone-simple distinction. As we noted on Monday, it was even understood by the author or authors of the western world's first great poem of war, thousands of years in the past.

It's the world's most basic journalistic distinction! For decades, our journalists have been highly skilled at honoring it in the breach.

Tomorrow: What Mika (strangely) said