Stormy Daniels' salacious testimony disastrous for DA Bragg's case, legal experts say

There have been several major twists to former President Donald Trump's ongoing hush money trial.

The latest massive plot twist involves witness Stormy Daniels, whose testimony, legal observers say, was a spectacular backfire for DA Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors.

According to the Daily Mail, Daniels' testimony was described as "lewd" and was based mostly on her recollection of her sexual encounters with the former president, long before he won the election in 2016.

Legal experts from across the spectrum have agreed that her sexual history-based testimony was not only irrelevant to the case overall, but highly damaging to the prosecution.

The Daily Mail noted:

Legal experts believe Stormy Daniels' detailed testimony should not have been allowed and actually damaged the prosecution case despite her being an important witness in supporting their theory that there was an effort to violate election law.

Judge Juan Merchan was even taken aback by Daniels' bizarre testimony, saying at one point some things would have been better left unsaid. He also described her as "a little difficult to control."

Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and trial attorney, was not impressed with her testimony and said that it definitely scored points in Trump's column as far as the jury is concerned.

"I think the testimony hurt the prosecution terribly," Zelin said. "The jurors had to be sitting there with their sphincters tightening, they were so uncomfortable."

He added, "That testimony does nothing, nothing to further the prosecutor’s obligation… it sends a message to a juror: you don’t have it."

John Yoo, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, echoed Zelin's thoughts on the situation, saying Daniels' testimony ended up being advantageous for Trump and his lawyers.

"Stormy Daniels’ testimony should not have been admitted," Yoo said. "It was far more prejudicial to Trump than it added in facts relevant to the actual legal charges here."

Yoo added, "The DA seeks to prove that Trump improperly accounted for the payment to Daniels, in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement, to influence the election. All of the details allowed in, including her claim that the sex was non-consensual, was not necessary to prove that point."

Aside from scoring points because of Daniels's testimony in the trial, Trump also landed a massive legal victory earlier in the week regarding the delay of the classified documents trial, which was set to start later this month.

The former president also won the chance to appeal the decision to not have Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis removed from his Georgia election interference case, ultimately delaying that trial as well.