Stormy Daniels' Testimony Questioned by Legal Experts

Legal experts have raised questions about the credibility of adult film star Stormy Daniels after her testimony in the New York v. Trump case, suggesting that she may have damaged the prosecution's case by providing unnecessary details and expressing her personal dislike of former President Donald Trump.

Legal experts have expressed concerns about the credibility of Stormy Daniels' testimony in the New York v. Trump case, questioning her editorializing and loathing of the former president. MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos argued that Daniels' testimony turned the trial into a "quasi-sex assault case," providing Trump's legal team with an opening for appeal.

Cevallos emphasized that Daniels' unnecessary details and commentary could have been avoided, suggesting that her testimony could have been accomplished by simply stating that she had sex with Trump. He also criticized Daniels for exceeding direct questions and adding her own opinions, which he viewed as damaging to the prosecution.

MSNBC legal analyst Elliot Williams noted that Daniels' expression of hatred towards Trump could potentially hurt the prosecution's case. CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez echoed this sentiment, stating that her testimony would be used against the prosecution in Trump's closing statements.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig questioned Daniels' credibility based on her responses under cross-examination by Trump's team. He pointed to her disastrous responses, particularly her admission of hatred for Trump, as undermining her reliability in the eyes of the jury. Honig highlighted Daniels' tweets fantasizing about Trump's imprisonment, further calling her credibility into question.

The View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump aide, also expressed doubts about Daniels' credibility. She argued that the salacious details were unnecessary and questioned whether Daniels' personal experiences exploited by men affected her testimony. Griffin acknowledged that she believed Daniels' story but maintained that her credibility was compromised.

However, other co-hosts on The View defended Daniels' credibility. Sunny Hostin suggested that Trump's word against hers necessitated his testimony but doubted he would testify. She emphasized that Daniels seemed credible based on reports from courtroom reporters. Co-host Sara Haines also found Daniels credible and believed her testimony was significant.

The Washington Post highlighted Daniels' descriptions suggesting a lack of full consent during the encounter, raising concerns about its potential prejudicial effects on the jury for the prosecution. The outlet suggested that this testimony could provide Trump's legal team with grounds for appeal.

Daniels has maintained that Trump did not force himself on her but acknowledged a power imbalance and her subsequent shaking aftermath. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the alleged payments to Daniels.

Legal experts have raised questions about the credibility of Stormy Daniels' testimony in the New York v. Trump case. Her editorializing, unnecessary details, and expression of hatred towards Trump have been cited as potential damage to the prosecution's case. However, some commentators have defended Daniels' credibility, arguing that she seemed believable and her testimony was significant. Daniels' testimony and its impact on the trial remain a matter of ongoing scrutiny.