CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez predicted that the testimony of adult film actress Stormy Daniels in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial “is going to backfire” on the prosecutors.

On Tuesday, Stormy Daniels testified, and her explicit details led to tensions with both the judge and the defense. Judge Juan Merchan cautioned Daniels against providing unnecessary specifics as she recounted incidents involving Trump, including descriptions of him in Hugh Hefner-like pajamas. The situation escalated when she began to describe a sexual position, prompting an objection from the defense, which the judge upheld. Despite these contentious moments, the judge denied the defense’s motion to declare a mistrial.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and Perez joined Dana Bash on “Inside Politics” on Wednesday, discussing reports that Trump’s defense team is planning a more extensive cross-examination following the initial testimony. There was a pause in the proceedings that day, but Daniels took the stand again under cross-examination by the defense on Thursday.

Williams recognized issues with the testimony but emphasized that Daniels was a “valuable” and necessary witness. Trump is facing over 30 felony counts for allegations that he falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to Daniels, intended to hide an affair. Trump has denied both knowledge of the payments and the affair itself. Many legal experts have said District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s charges against Trump were largely fabricated after federal prosecutors and the Federal Election Commission refused to bring any charges.

Perez contended that Daniels might have been a damaging witness due to her tendency to over-talk and divulge too much, providing ample opportunities for the defense. He highlighted a specific issue where Daniels insinuated some form of intimidation when questioned about her ability to leave a hotel suite where she met Trump. Given that there has been no allegation of a “nonconsensual” encounter, Daniels’ choice of words could allow the defense to challenge her credibility more aggressively, Perez argued.

Advertisement

“They now have room to go after her for some of the suggestions she made,” he said.

Williams stood behind his position and maintained that proving an alleged sexual encounter was crucial for the hush money payments to be considered valid and not dismissed. “Prosecutors have to establish a sexual encounter or else all the other stuff goes away,” he said.

Daniels’ former attorney, Michael Avennati, issued a scathing response to her testimony.

Avenatti, who is serving time in a minimum security federal prison in California for multiple infractions, nevertheless dismantled Daniels after lawyers for the former president asked Judge Juan Merchan to declare a mistrial because her testimony differed from public accounts that are years old.

In his rebuttal, Avenatti said that Daniels essentially committed the same infraction Trump is charged with, The Blaze reported. He mentioned that last year, a producer developing a documentary about Daniels had reached out to him.

Initially, he contemplated participating, but he decided against it upon discovering that Daniels was being paid for her involvement. He saw this as a blatant indication that Daniels would control, be biased, and lack integrity in the project.

Also, Avenatti claimed that the producer told him that Daniels was going to be “secretly paid” to hide the money because “she owed Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars” following a defamation suit he won against her.

“Among other things, [the producer] told me that they had fictionally ‘optioned’ the rights to Daniels’ book and then routed the money Daniels demanded through a fabricated ‘trust’ that had been set up in the name of Daniels’ daughter—all to hide the money from Trump and avoid paying the judgment,” Avenatti wrote on the X platform.

He added that if the producer’s account were true, “How can DA Bragg possibly rely on the testimony of Daniels, who is herself guilty of fraud and recently falsifying business records to cover up a crime (i.e., fraudulent transfer and wire fraud)?”

“Further, will DA Bragg or others be promptly filing criminal charges against Daniels or others involved in this scheme?” Avenatti asked.

Advertisement