During the ongoing legal battle between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, Trump's attorney Susan Necheles has raised questions about the nature of their meeting, particularly focusing on the topic of dinner. Necheles has pointed out what she perceives as an inconsistency in Daniels' account of the encounter.
Daniels has maintained that when she mentioned meeting Trump for dinner, it did not necessarily imply that they actually ate a meal together. This distinction has become a point of contention in the legal proceedings.
Necheles repeatedly probed Daniels about the dinner aspect of their meeting, seeking clarification on whether they had indeed shared a meal. Daniels reiterated that while it was dinner time when they met, the term 'dinner' did not necessarily imply a dining experience.
Expressing frustration, Daniels emphasized that attending someone's house for dinner does not always entail consuming food. This clarification underscores the nuanced interpretation of the term 'dinner' in the context of social interactions.
The back-and-forth between Necheles and Daniels regarding the dinner meeting highlights the intricacies of language and communication in legal proceedings. The debate over the semantics of a seemingly simple word like 'dinner' underscores the meticulous scrutiny applied to every detail in high-profile cases.
