CNN: Ex-Prosecutor Says Donald Trump Lawyer's Questions to Stormy Daniels May Backfire

Source:CNN- left to right: Defendant Don & his Stormy problem.

"CNN panel breaks down the cross-examination of Stormy Daniels, who is testifying in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial." 

From CNN

"New York University law professor Ryan Goodman on Wednesday explained how an expected change in tactics from Donald Trump’s legal team in his hush money trial could ultimately backfire on the former president.

CNN’s Erin Burnett noted how Trump’s attorneys are reportedly considering conducting a more intense and thorough cross-examination of porn actor Stormy Daniels when the trial resumes Thursday.

“I think it backfires, especially if by going after Stormy Daniels in order to protect Trump’s ‘reputation’” in the public eye, Goodman predicted of Trump’s defense team grilling his former paramour.

Firstly, Goodman said it could see Daniels testifying “more and more about the details as to why she now is saying that she felt uncomfortable in the situation and some of the testimony that she gave is towards the end of the spectrum of nonconsensual sexual encounter.”

The more that Trump’s lawyers elicit from Daniels “could actually be worse for him,” he said.

Secondly, Trump’s team may “actually have a basis to appeal” but that could be nixed if they go too hard on Daniels, said Goodman. A call for a mistrial because of “salacious” and prejudicial information from Daniels will be void because they “will actually be eliciting it, potentially, so that also might undermine their ability to use that as a basis to appeal the final judgment,” he added." 

From Yahoo News

"'It backfires': Law professor shows how Trump's latest move 'undermines' his case" 

Source:M.L. Nestel- CNN OutFront With Erin Burnett.

From M.L. Nestel

As I said about this yesterday:

"Arthur Aidala whose a defense attorney from Brooklyn, whose been arguing for three weeks now, that there's no crime here, was the only lawyer arguing that Manhattan had to call Stephanie Clifford  up, because without her, you have no motive. And the defense could just argue that Donald Trump was being extorted by Stephanie Clifford and company. 

Again, details matter. Maybe they could've brought her up after Michael Cohen, but hopefully not closed with her. But without a real reason for the hush money, as well as proving that Donald Trump knew about these payments and signed off on then and they were about protecting his 2016 presidential campaign, the Manhattan District Attorney has no case. 

This jury now knows that Donald Trump had an affair with Stephanie Clifford exactly when she said they did. And they're damn close to knowing and probably are already assuming, that he paid her off in 2016, to protect his presidential campaign. Which would make him guilty of 2 campaign finance felonies in New York: An illegal campaign contribution to his own campaign and failure to disclose that campaign contribution." 

From The New Democrat

I have to admit that I was hard on CNN legal analyst Laura Coates yesterday. (Not that I'm taking anything back) But she's damn right today. Instead of Donald Trump's lawyer making it about the fact that Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels) simply wants to get back at their client, they're back to making it about the affair that she had with her client and pretty much proving motive for the prosecution: They're basically saying: "Who needs prosecutors when the defense can make their case for them?" 

Trump and company knew Stephanie Clifford hates him and that they need to dispose of her before her story gets out before the 2016 election.They know she's credible because the affair happened, etc. They basically just made the prosecution's case for motive for them.

As far as Ryan Goodman's commentary about how Mr. Trump's lawyers would try to handle Stephanie Clifford: he called it perfectly last night. And you can see why Erin Burnett has him on her CNN show probably at least once a week now. Because he's not there for partisan legal arguments, but to argue the facts and evidence of the law. He even said that Donald Trump has a solid case for appeal, before their cross-examination of Clifford today. But his lawyers just flushed that down the toilet. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.