Donald Trump's Defense 'a Complete Disaster'—Legal Analysts

The defense's latest cross-examination of Stormy Daniels during Donald Trump's hush-money trial has been widely condemned by legal experts.

Daniels, an adult film star, took to the stand for the second time in New York on May 9 to answer questions under oath about her alleged affair with the former president.

Daniels gave extensive and often salacious details about the alleged sexual encounter, which experts said was mostly irrelevant to the criminal case. She also responded to attacks on her credibility from Trump's team. George Conway, a lawyer and frequent Trump critic, was one political commentator who suggested the cross-examination of Daniels by Trump's legal team was a "complete disaster" and "embarrassing."

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to money he arranged for his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to pay Daniels to keep an alleged affair she had with Trump a secret in the run-up to the 2016 election. The $130,000 sum was listed in Trump's company records as "legal fees," which prosecutors suggest was part of an unlawful attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential race.

Discussing the trial on CNN, Conway said: "My takeaway was that the continued cross-examination of Stormy Daniels was a complete disaster and a fiasco for the defense."

"It just went on and on, and they didn't have anything on her," he continued. "You've got to confine crosses to basically a few short lines of stuff that's good. They didn't do that."

Conway said the defense team was hindered because Trump is a "narcissistic sociopath" and that the former president was "obsessed with proving the lie" that he did not have an affair with Daniels, which Conway called "counterproductive."

"It was just garbage, and it was embarrassing," he said, adding, "It was just a complete waste of time."

Newsweek has contacted Trump's legal team for comment via email.

During Thursday's proceedings, Judge Juan Merchan rejected a request from Trump's lawyers for a mistrial. They argued that Daniels' testimony attempted to suggest the former president might have sexually assaulted her during their 2006 encounter.

In his reasoning, Merchan criticized Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, for not objecting while Daniels answered questions from the prosecution, with the judge wondering "for the life of me" why she did not object to details about whether Trump wore a condom while having sex with Daniels.

In the cross-examination, Necheles attempted to attack Daniels' credibility, including suggesting her career in porn showed she had experience of "making phony stories about sex" appear real.

"You have a lot of experience in memorizing these fictional stories?" Necheles said.

"I have experience in memorizing dialogue, not how to have sex—pretty sure we all know how to do that," Daniels responded.

Norm Eisen, who served as a special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump's first impeachment, suggested Trump's lawyers were "more aggressive" with Daniels than they were during her testimony on May 7.

"It was clear that Trump's lawyers wanted to swing big and, unfortunately for them, they struck out. The defense may have fared better if they did not have such a formidable witness in Daniels," Eisen told Newsweek.

"For instance, after one of defense lawyer Susan Necheles' attempts to discredit her, Daniels used it as an opportunity to highlight the power imbalance between her and Trump."

Laura Jarrett, an NBC anchor and senior legal correspondent, suggested she could write "an entire thesis" on the cross-examination.

"We've heard Daniels couldn't have been intimidated by Trump b/c she worked in porn/was good at making up 'phony stories' about sex," Jarrett wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "It's a stark throwback to an earlier, pre-'Me Too' time and the day is not done."

In a series of posts Thursday, Harry Litman, an attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general, suggested that Necheles' cross-examination of Daniels was "ineffective."

He wrote: "Overall Stormy seemed more in control of the dynamic than Necheles. Necheles also was over aggressive and even offensive in spots, including her suggestion that a porn star could possibly be cowled by a 60-year-old billionaire.

"The end of the day rulings by Merchan, esp on the denial of the mist trial when he positively excoriated the defense, both for making it all about stormy's credibility in the opening—justifying the additional details and then not objecting during the testimony."

"Again rough day for Necheles," Litman added.

The hush-money trial against Trump is scheduled to resume Friday.