As I understand, the issue here is that Trump falsified his account to cover the payment, not that he assaulted Daniels.
Why is Daniels' (or McDougals') testimony from May 7&9 relevant? Whatever happened between the two, it's not relevant to whether Trump falsified his accounts.
The charge is not a plain fraud charge. The offence becomes a felony when the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." Prosecutors have revealed that one option they are advancing for the "another crime" is New York State Election Law Section 17-152, which makes it an offence for two or more persons to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.
The theory of relevance, proposed by various commentators, like Roger Parloff at Lawfare (see the May 7 podcast episode: listen to minutes 19 through 22) is that because this charge is also about influencing an election by illegal means, it is important for the jury to understand what was being suppressed by the payments (documentation about which was allegedly falsified).
The prosecution team submitted during the May 7 mistrial hearing that Daniels's evidence is highly probative of Trump's intent.
The prosecution also drew out evidence from Daniels that may show that Mr. Trump did not care about keeping Daniels's story secret until after he became a candidate for the Presidency.
The Judge himself actually answered this question at the end of yesterday's session. This is Trump's lawyers own doing.
At the beginning of the trial they decided (one suspects at their client's insistence) to dispute that Ms. Daniel's account of events ever happened at all. So while her credibility might not necessarily have been at issue here, the Defense chose to made it so.
Here's how Judge Merchan put it ("Mr. Blanche" is Trump's lead counsel):
Mr. Blanche in your opening statement, you denied there was ever a sexual encounter between your defendant and Stormy Daniels.
Your denial puts the jury in a position of having to choose who they believe: Donald Trump, who denies that there was an encounter, or Stormy Daniels, who claims that there was.
The more specificity Daniels provides the better that can weigh her credibility.
... and in conclusion ...
You said, "My client never had a sexual encounter": that pits your client against Ms. Daniels. So the prosecution can rehabilitate her credibility. YOUR MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL IS DENIED. I’LL SEE YOU TOMORROW AT 9:30
It is not. The goal of the procecuters is to convince the jury that the misdemeanors lead to the felony. Only then can their case be won.
A comment I made to others after the first half of that days procedings:
The procecuters have proven their point, then (during the 2016 election) and now (2024) the Trump 'crew' have undertaken great efforts to prevent the conservative voters from learning the details of the 2006 'meeting' with Stormy Daniels. So the motive is clear. We will later see if the jury see this in the same way.
(Originaly posted as a comment that was later deleted and received 4 upvotes: Comment from 2024-05-11)
2024-05-09 BBC: Trump trial: What we learned from Stormy Daniels' testimony
Building a 'narrative'
With their cross-examination, Mr Trump's legal team also may have inadvertently helped the prosecution's case, experts said.While grilling Ms Daniels, the defence demonstrated exactly why Mr Trump would have tried to conceal the sex scandal before the election - to avoid association with a witness the defence team portrayed as ''tawdry,'' Ms Florence said.
"It was a side show at the trial - and it would've been a main event just before the election," she said.
