There is even a courtroom drawing with her in this pose they showed on CNN.

RickyJim: "Likewise, most of Stormy's testimony didn't have much to do with the falsifying records charges."

While the respective behaviors of both Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein toward women - and in particular, vulnerable women - are indeed quite similar, their respective cases are most assuredly not.

Weinstein was indicted, tried and convicted in both New York and Los Angeles for multiple instances of sexual assault. For his part, Trump was indicted in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal criminal conduct - in this case, an illegal and undisclosed $130,000 campaign contribution, which is the underlying crime - that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

And in Trump's case, the testimony offered by Stormy Daniels on the witness stand this week about Trump's sleazy behavior toward her back in 2006 constituted that "damaging information" which Trump sought to keep from voters in those final few weeks of the 2016 campaign.

In context, let's please remember that Michael Cohen's purchase of Ms. Daniels' silence with a $130,000 payoff was the political equivalent of a tourniquet to staunch the perceived hemorrhage of Trump's public support following the release of that damaging "Access Hollywood" video.

Unfortunately for both Cohen and Trump, it also constituted a felony campaign violation, to which Cohen would subsequently plead guilty in federal court in August 2018 and be sentenced to prison. And let's also please recall that in Cohen's federal indictment, Trump was named as "Individual 1" and an unindicted co-conspirator.

Now, to be sure, Trump was never charged with the sexual assault of Ms. Daniels for their 2006 encounter in Lake Tahoe. But in my considered opinion, the defense's arguments to that effect before Judge Juan Merchan this week are a red herring.

For their part, prosecutors countered that Trump's desire to prevent any information of that sexual encounter with Ms. Daniels from becoming public knowledge in the middle of his presidential campaign ten years later speaks directly to his motive for the subsequent alleged criminal conduct, for which he's (finally) been charged.

While under more normal circumstances such boorish sexual behavior would be considered more personally embarrassing than criminal, no less than two grand juries - one federal, the other state - determined that Trump's and Cohen's subsequent efforts to cover up public knowledge of that 2006 tryst likely crossed over the line and warranted criminal charges.

So, in that regard Stormy Daniels' sometimes-lurid testimony held considerable probative value. Speaking for myself only, it's likely prejudicial to those individuals who are personally squeamish when it comes to frank discussions about sex, or whose own personal attitudes toward human sexuality border on the prudish, puritanical and / or Victorian.

Far from being irrelevant to the 34 felony counts of falsification of business records, Stormy Daniels' story of her 2006 encounter with Trump served as the primary catalyst for an effort by the 2016 Trump campaign to buy her silence, which in turn gave rise to the foolish attempt to falsely recast that hush money payment in the Trump Org.'s corporate ledgers as a series of legitimate business-related legal expenses.