When even the Far-Left Anti-Trumper legal experts are going on CNN and siding with President Trump and against Alvin Bragg in the so-called “hush money” case, you know it’s near the end for Bragg and his tenuous charges.

This comes on the heels of Judge Cannon “indefinitely postponing” the Jack Smith case yesterday:

BREAKING: Judge Cannon “Indefinitely Postpones” Jack Smith Case Against Trump! 🚨

It sure does feel like all of these cases are imploding all at the same time, doesn't it?

I wrote as much earlier today on Twitter:

Every single "gotcha" legal case against President Trump is crumbling right now.

Soon all to be gone. pic.twitter.com/MTLIq4DwAS

— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) May 8, 2024

Legal analyst Shira Scheindlin (no known relation to Judge Judy Scheindlin, although it is strange), a former federal judge, went on “CNN This Morning” and shot holes in the relevance of Stormy Daniels’ testimony.

Scheindlin said the testimony was not relevant to the case and only shows that Stormy Daniels was trying to get Trump.

Watch this clip, provided courtesy of my friends at Trending Politics:

Fox News had more:

If you thought the Manhattan criminal trial of former President Donald Trump couldn’t devolve into more ridiculousness, it did on Tuesday.

The folly of District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution was further exposed when the notorious ex-porn star, Stormy Daniels, sashayed to the witness stand. Not unexpectedly, she offered a tutorial on her notorious vocation — sex.

Her real name is Stephanie Clifford, but her nom de plume is what made her famous in the underworld of adult erotica. In court, she confirmed starring in "40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up." That may have been titillating, but was there really a point? Like most of her testimony, no. Let’s review.

...

On the stand, Daniels told the jury a salacious tale of meeting Trump privately for dinner and having sex with him only once. Curiously, she now claims she blacked out. Is any of it the truth? It doesn’t matter. It’s utterly immaterial to the case. Moreover, Daniels has a nasty habit of peddling inconsistent narratives about the purported episode. At one point, she reversed course and recanted her signed statement repudiating the affair. Yet, on the stand she admitted faking her own signature.

Adopting the mantle of an innocent, Daniels assured the jury that she didn’t care about the money; she only wanted to get her story about Trump out to the public. Really? Then why did she sell her story to Trump’s lawyer for a load of cash in exchange for remaining silent? That one statement alone from the mouth of the witness completely undermined any semblance of credibility. But that’s not all. Daniels confirmed that she instructed her manager to "get the story out and make some money!"

It’s important to note that Daniels has multiple motives to lie. Beyond wanting to advance her career, cashing in and trying to justify the payola she pocketed in an apparent blackmail scheme, she lost her quixotic defamation lawsuit against Trump and was ordered by the courts to pay him more than half a million dollars in legal fees — a sum she still indignantly refuses to pay.

ADVERTISEMENT

Daniels responded by tweeting, "I will go to jail before I pay a penny." No objection here.

Bragg’s team of unscrupulous prosecutors called this untrustworthy witness for only one purpose: to slime Trump. That’s obvious. Because none of what she had to say on the stand Tuesday has anything to do with the charges against Trump — charges that don’t even constitute crimes under the law.

The indictment accuses Trump of falsifying business records. Forget that there was nothing false about them. They were legal payments in exchange for a legal document that was negotiated by two lawyers and booked as "legal expenses" because that is what they were. The Trump Organization accountant who handled it corroborated it when he testified on Monday.

So, how in the world does Daniels fit in to this sordid mess? She doesn’t. She was never privy to the internal accounting of the payments she received from Trump’s then-attorney, Michael Cohen. She adds nothing to the case except to smear him with humiliating stories about her supposed transient encounter.

Watch more here:

Newsweek had an even stronger headline:

Alvin Bragg's Witnesses 'Contradicted' Basis for Trump Prosecution—Attorney

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's witnesses "contradicted" the basis for Donald Trump's prosecution in the hush money case against him, according to attorney Jonathan Turley.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump, the presumed 2024 GOP presidential nominee, is facing 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

The criminal case brought on by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, alleges that Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 to keep her silent about a rumored affair she had with Trump in 2006, which the former president denies. Trump then allegedly reimbursed Cohen and concealed it as legal expenses.Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and claimed the case is politically motivated.

In an opinion piece published by The Hill on Saturday, Turley mainly focused on discrediting Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, Bragg's star witness who turned critical of Trump after spending time in prison for eight criminal charges, including campaign finance violations related to the alleged hush money scheme involving Daniels.