When even the most hysterically anti-Trump news outlet has been forced to admit the star witness in the current trial against the former president lacks credibility, you know that case is in trouble.
The case in question was the "hush money" trial Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought against Donald Trump regarding the alleged illegality of a payment supposedly made to porn star Stormy Daniels to prevent her from speaking about an alleged affair.
Taking the stand on Tuesday, and irritating the entire courtroom with an unending string of needless details, Daniels' testimony forced even a CNN legal expert to cast doubts on her overall credibility.
Senior CNN legal analyst Elie Honig appeared on a panel on Anderson Cooper's show, discussing Daniels' testimony and cross-examination by the defense.
While his peers were more impressed with Daniels' testimony, especially under cross-examination, Honig admitted he had "the exact opposite impression."
According to Honig, while Daniels was "plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room" in 2006, she nevertheless fell flat on her face with the cross-examination.
In Honig's words, in the cross-examination, "her responses were disastrous."
Citing one of the questions put to Daniels, Honig said "'Do you hate Donald Trump?' Yes, of course she does. That's a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that's a big d*** deal."
Honig continued, saying that "she's putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail? That really undermines the credibility. The fact that she owes him $500,000 -- She, by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half a million dollars, and said, 'I will never pay him, I will defy a court order.'"
As Honig pointed out, her statements left a great weak spot for the defense to exploit: "The defense is going to say, she's willing to defy a court order ... She's not going to respect the order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she took?
"So," Honig concluded, "I thought it went quite poorly."
Ouch.
Now, of course, Honig was only articulating what most who have been paying attention (without being blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome) already knew quite well.
Daniels' whole motivation in going after Trump has been the same as everyone else who has been prosecuting him -- to prevent him from winning the presidency again in November.
She freely admitted on the stand that she hated him, and, as The Hill recapped for the curious public, Daniels admitted she has thus far failed to pay the money she owed to Trump because it "wasn't fair."
The Post Millennial likewise reported that Judge Juan Merchan, despite tossing out the defense's mistrial request, nevertheless had to admit Daniels went into far too much detail and was "difficult to control."
For these and many other reasons (including previously signing a statement saying her story about the affair was false), Daniels was not a credible witness, and could only hinder rather than help the prosecution.
And the fact that even a CNN legal expert could readily admit that her cross-examination was disastrous for the prosecution was incredibly telling.
Why should a witness who says they hate the defendant and who has refused a court order to pay that defendant be listened to?
Even the most legally ignorant member of the jury had to be asking questions about her credibility after she admitted that.
Daniels cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
But, between her active social media presence and eager appearances on shows like The View, that should have been clear before the trial ever started.
It was only because of the blind prejudice of folks like Alvin Bragg that this trial got as far as it did in the first place.
