CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said adult film actress Stormy Daniels gave “disastrous” responses during her appearance on Tuesday at former President Donald Trump‘s New York City hush-money trial.

During a segment on CNN with other legal experts, Honig offered his take on the testimony, which included Stormy Daniels discussing her alleged 2006 hotel tryst with Trump that the former president has denied. While he contended that Daniels was believable when it came to the sex claim, Honig argued the cross-examination could spell trouble for prosecutors.

“The cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘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 damn deal.”

In the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to allegedly cover up payments, including to Daniels, in a bid to conceal damaging information as part of a “catch-and-kill” scheme to influence the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty. The trial began last month, and Daniels took the stand on Tuesday.

See Also:

Pro-Hamas rioters try to break into hotel in Athens where Israelis were staying (video)

During the cross-examination, Daniels said “yes” after being asked if she hated Trump. When pressed on whether she wants Trump to go to jail, Daniels said she wants “him to be held accountable” and “if he is found guilty, absolutely.” She also faced questions about tweets suggesting she does not want to pay $500,000 in legal fees to Trump after a failed defamation lawsuit.

“The defense is going to say she’s willing to defy a court order,” Honig said after raising these issues. “Why — she’s not willing to respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she took? I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of direct, I thought, OK, they got what they needed. But I think the cross is making real inroads.”

Earlier, Honig said his impression was that Stormy Daniels had been “plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room” in 2006. “It’s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought, this is entirely made up,” he said, adding that although there “may well be some embellishments,” he thought it was “quite clear they had sex in 2006 in that hotel room.”

Source: Daily Wire