Stormy Daniels Just Got Devastating News

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

The fact that adult film actress and Trump trial witness Stormy Daniels was put to a cross-examination after testifying against former President Donald Trump was deemed a catastrophe by CNN legal analyst Elie Honig.

Honig found Daniels’ testimony of having a sexual encounter with Trump in a hotel room in 2006 to be “plausible,” but her responses during Trump’s team’s cross-examination cast doubt on her credibility.

“So it‘s interesting, because I was doing our live coverage, following along with our minute-by-minute updates from inside the courtroom, and I had the exact opposite impression. Now, you had the benefit of being in the courtroom, so I will defer to that, but we do also have to be careful when we play sort of amateur psychologists to the jurors’ movements, right?” Honig began.

“They were leaning forward, they were taking notes. Okay. They could be taking notes because they think this is a great point, or they could be taking notes because they think ‘This makes no sense and I don‘t believe it.’ So let‘s just all be cautious in reading into the jurors physicality. My impression was she was plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room. It‘s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought this is entirely made up,” he said.

“There may well be some embellishments, which Arthur I think pointed out effectively in the last hour, but I think it‘s quite clear they had sex in 2006 in that hotel room. But the cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, do you hate Donald Trump? Yes, of course she does. 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,” he added.

Honig continued: “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?’ 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 make real inroads.’”

A legal analyst for MSNBC dissected adult film star Stormy Daniels’ testimony during Trump’s hush money trial on Tuesday and speculated about the potential effects it might have had on the jury in a different segment.

Reporting from the Manhattan courtroom, legal analyst Harry Litman said that Daniels’s “wild” speech may have confused some jurors.

Before the lunch break, after the prosecution had questioned Daniels in court, former U.S. attorney Litman discussed his observations with MSNBC. He speculated that the jury’s response to Daniels’ evidence, which he characterized as maybe being too “colorful,” would have been conflicting.

“There was a lot to see as far as the jury. We’re talking about a very, very colorful witness who detailed kinds of events and just efforts and ways of being that I think for the jury were fairly foreign. She spoke very quickly, nervously, she told a lot of jokes, but not all of them landed,” he said.

Judge Juan Merchan granted multiple objections raised by Trump’s defense team during her evidence. These arguments included unduly specific accounts of their interactions, including details about Trump’s attire and references to items like Old Spice.

At one point in her evidence, the judge told Daniels that she was giving “unnecessary” details, including a description of a sexual position she claimed she and Trump were in. Litman observed that the degree of detail in the statement had “irritated” him more than he had ever seen Merchan before. Previously, when Trump broke a gag order for the ninth time and was found to be in criminal contempt, the judge had to threaten him with jail time.

Litman called the testimony “hyper-colorful” and “wild.” Daniels recalled a time when, when Trump allegedly welcomed her at a hotel suite door wearing “silk or satin” pajamas, she jokingly asked him if Hugh Hefner knew that he had taken his pajamas. Daniels claims that Trump “politely” dressed differently at her request.

Litman pointed out that the jury’s attention was mostly on Daniels during her testimony rather than the former president.

According to him, Trump exhibited a “general impassiveness” when the purported details became public. Litman continued, “In overall, I think this is a vivid, possibly hyper-colorful witness.

In remarks to reporters this week, Trump made a clear indication that he is willing to serve a jail sentence for breaking Merchan’s tight gag order.