‘Really Dangerous Thing’: MSNBC Legal Analyst Breaks Down How Stormy Daniels’ Testimony Might Hurt Prosecution

[Screenshot/MSNBC: Morning Joe]

Nicole Silverio Media Reporter
Font Size:

An MSNBC legal analyst warned Wednesday that former porn actress Stormy Daniels’ testimony could hurt the prosecution’s case.

Legal expert Danny Cevallos said Daniels’ intensely detailed testimony turned the hush money trial into a “quasi-sex assault case,” separating from the contents of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment. The district attorney is charging former President Donald Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels to keep an alleged affair undisclosed before the 2016 election.

“I think Stormy Daniels’ testimony could’ve been accomplished with three words in the sense that ‘we had sex.’ Everything else was probably unnecessary and then to me, [a] testimony like saying ‘well, he was a lot physically larger than me and I wasn’t intimidated, but he was a lot bigger than me, he was blocking the door.’ It goes back to the issue, this is not a sexual assault case. And the defense is going to argue, right or wrong, this is what they’re going to argue on appeal that that kind of testimony turned it into a quasi-sex assault case which painted the defendant [Trump] in an unnecessarily bad light in a way that you can’t unring the bell.”

Cevallos said the testimony would be less risky with a different witness, as Daniels tends to “add her own editorial” at the witness stand.

“So my point is that yes, it was really helpful that Stormy Daniels described an environment where her story had all this value because it was close to campaign,” he continued. “Even a testimony where Donald Trump didn’t seem all that concerned about Melania finding out. That was good and they actually solicited that in a very clever way … It could get worse. Maybe it won’t. Maybe she’ll survive and be fine. But Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses who likes to not only answer the question asked but add her own editorial and that is a really dangerous thing.”

“I promise you, the prosecution is sitting at their desk saying ‘just answer the question. Just please answer the question. Please, just the question, no editorializing,'” he added. (RELATED: Bragg Trial Judge ‘Noticeably Uncomfortable’ By Stormy Daniels’ Testimony About Alleged Sexual Encounter With Trump) 

Daniels presented graphic details of an alleged sexual encounter between her and Trump at his Lake Tahoe hotel suite in 2006. The former porn star alleged she returned from the bathroom to find Trump sitting at the edge of his bed in boxers and a T-shirt, and claimed he blocked the room’s exit in a non-threatening manner, according to The New York Times.

Daniels alleged she witnessed the “room [spin] in slow motion” and the “blood left her hands and feet” before blacking out, the Times reported. The former porn actress told the court she has been shaken and bewildered by the alleged encounter, wondering how she got to a place where she had sex with Trump. She reportedly did not object to the event at the time, but alleged there was an “imbalance” in the power dynamic.

During the defense team’s cross-examination, Daniels confirmed she hates Trump and would dance in celebration if he were put in jail, CNN reported.

Details of the alleged encounter had not appeared in earlier accounts of Daniels’ account, according to the Times. In a 2011 interview, she never mentioned blacking out and described the event as being more casual.

The defense filed a motion for a mistrial over Daniels’ “unduly prejudicial” testimony, which New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan decided was “unwarranted.” The witness, who admitted to hating the former president, became highly combative when defense attorney Susan Necheles suggested she was motivated by making money and a hatred of Trump.

The judge visibly disapproved of Daniels’ behavior at the witness stand and allowed for several objections by the defense.