Legal Analyst Reveals How Stormy Daniels EXPOSED Alvin Bragg With Her Testimony

Judge Juan Merchan denied a request for a mistrial Thursday after Trump’s legal team objected to parts of adult film actress Stormy Daniels’ testimony earlier in the week. Daniels, a big witness in District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, was cross-examined this week by the defense in a bid to expose inconsistencies in her account and challenge her credibility. However, both Bragg and Daniels have been widely criticized this week.

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett slammed Bragg’s case in an opinion piece, saying it “devolved into more ridiculousness” once Daniels took the stand. In her testimony, Daniels spoke at length about a purported affair with Trump nearly two decades ago, which Trump denies. However, her cross-examination revealed previous contradictory statements and an admission that she had falsified her own signature.

“You have been making money for more than a decade on the story that you had sex with Donald Trump,” attorney Susan Necheles said during cross-examination, questioning Daniels about her various accounts. Daniels acknowledged omitting details from her narrative to boost its profitability. Jarrett argued that Daniels “worked overtime to profit financially off of her fleeting association with Trump” by publishing a tell-all book, “Full Disclosure,” and headlining strip club performances with a modified version of Trump’s “MAGA” slogan.

According to Jarrett, the defense aimed to show that her testimony was “irrelevant” to the charges against Trump and instead served to smear the former president. In court, Daniels’ vivid and salacious testimony prompted Judge Merchan to instruct jurors to disregard certain details. Jarrett criticized the judge for allowing inflammatory testimony, arguing that it unfairly prejudiced the jury against Trump.

WATCH:

(BREAKING: Glenn Beck sounds the alarm on the American economy – prepare yourself now)

Jarret wrote:

The decision by Merchan to even allow such inflammatory testimony is so appalling that it prompted Trump’s lawyers to demand a mistrial. But since the judge was instrumental in creating the legal blunder, he naturally denied the motion that will surely be a bright red flag for the defense on appeal.

As I’ve noted in prior columns, relevant evidence must be excluded “if its probative value is outweighed by the danger that its admission would create undue prejudice to a party” (NY Rules of Evidence, 4.06). Here, the prejudice to Trump is manifest and immense, and the testimony itself has almost no probative value whatsoever.

Neither the facts nor the law support Bragg’s anemic case. So, he has taken to defiling Trump in court with the hope that jurors will convict him over a smutty story bereft of criminal wrongdoing.

We are three weeks into this absurd trial, and there is still no evidence that Trump committed any crimes. No one has testified that the former president was involved in booking the Daniels legal payments as “legal expenses.” Prosecutors allege uncharged election crimes that they have no authority to enforce. Only the federal government can do that and chose not to because no crimes were committed.

Daniels’ testimony is part of the prosecution’s strategy leading up to expected testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney. Jarrett claimed that Bragg relies on an emotional narrative rather than factual evidence to bolster his case. Despite the defense’s objections, the trial continues and Trump’s legal team is expected to meticulously scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence. With Daniels’ testimony laying the groundwork, many await Cohen’s testimony to see if Bragg’s strategy can withstand the scrutiny of Trump’s defense.

(BEWARE: Here’s how to shield yourself from Biden’s collapsing economy)