Legal Expert Reveals BOMBSHELL Admission From Stormy Daniels’ Testimony: ‘Big Damn Deal’


Putting Stormy Daniels on the witness stand is starting to look more like a gamble that won’t pay off for Manhattan prosecutors, according to CNN.

Analysts at the network broke down the cross-examination of the adult film star, predicting that her hatred of former President Donald Trump and her refusal to abide by past court orders will perforate her reliability in the eyes of jurors.

“Her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you hate Donald Trump?’ Yes, of course, she does,” attorney Eli Honig explained during a panel, spotted by the Daily Caller. “That‘s a big deal. When the witness hates the person who‘s liberty is at stake, that‘s a big damn deal. And she‘s putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail. That really undermines the credibility.”

Hatred is just one on Daniels’ testimony, according to Honig. Attorneys for Trump also questioned her about past public statements where she refused to abide by a court order to pay the former president $500,000 for bringing a meritless lawsuit against him in 2018.

“The fact that she owes him $500,000, she, by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half million dollars and said, ‘I will never pay him, I will defy a court order,’ the defense is going to say, ‘She‘s willing to defy a court order. She‘s not willing to respect an order of a judge. Why is she going to respect this oath she took?’” Honig said, “So I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of direct, I thought, ‘Okay, they got what they needed,’ but I think the cross is making real inroads.’”

Putting Stormy Daniels on the witness stand is starting to look more like a gamble that won’t pay off for Manhattan prosecutors

Bragg has brought 34 felony charges against President Trump alleging he paid Daniels $130,000 — as well as another sum to another woman, Karen McDougal — to scuttle plans to reveal Daniels had sex with Trump in 2006 as part of a news story coming out days before the 2016 election. The payment, made by disgraced former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, was then classified as a legal expense for Trump, something Bragg claims should have been regarded as a contribution to his presidential campaign. The Federal Election Commission previously conducted its own investigation and found the payment did not need to be listed on campaign finance reports.

The second week of Trump’s hush money trial has seen testimony from Cohen and the introduction of business documents that Bragg says were signed by Trump to complete the payments. Prosecutors have yet to prove that the former president knew the payments were meant to silence Daniels and McDougal, a “catch and kill” strategy implemented by former National Enquirer editor David Pecker to benefit Trump’s campaign.

Other witnesses who have backfired for Bragg include Hope Hicks, the former spokeswoman for Trump’s 2016 campaign. When asked whether the payments were intended to primarily benefit her boss’s campaign, Hicks said Trump was foremost concerned with how the allegations and resulting news story would affect his wife Melania. Ultimately, the Wall Street Journal ran a news story about the affairs just days before the election. Trump was “concerned how it would be viewed by his wife,” Hicks testified, asking her to ensure a paper was not delivered to his house that day.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button