Welcome back to Sunday Night in America. Stormy Daniels was on the witness stand this week, and there should have been a parental discretion warning. There were salacious details, but were those details relevant, probative, and admissible, and necessary, and did her testimony help or hurt the Trump defense? Judge Juan Mershon seemed to suggest defense counsel should have objected to parts of her testimony, but objecting and not prevailing does nothing but draw more attention to the testimony. It's a tough call unless you do it outside the presence of the jury. Speaking of the jury, they seem both disquieted and riveted by her testimony, but were they moved? Joining us are two prosecutors with state and federal experience, Elliot Fheelik and Katie Tarkasky. Welcome to you both. Katie, could Trump have stipulated he had sex with Stormy Daniels for purposes of this trial only and therefore made her detailed testimony unnecessary? Was that an evidentiary option to spare the detail?

Well, I certainly think that the judge would have agreed to limit the testimony because he actually said that most of that was irrelevant, but for some reason, he let the testimony keep coming anyway and then blame the defense for not objecting, even though they had already preserved that issue in pretrial motions. I assume that might have been an option, but with Judge Murchon, really, it's hard to say because as we've all discussed, this is all very non-standard. This is not what we see for those of us who do practice in the criminal justice system day in and day out.

All right, Elliot, what do you think? Trump denied having sex with Stormy Daniel. Is that what made her testimony admissible in the more salacious areas that she has the right to corroborate or the government has the right to corroborate her with details that only someone in the room would have known. Is that the justification for it?

It could be. I don't know that the prosecutors, though, would have even been interested in a stipulation because I think they want to be able to set the stage in all gory detail as to what led up to the payments. Even if the prosecutors had made that offer, I don't think with Donald Trump as a client, that stipulation would have been put forth potentially by the defense. I'm not sure the prosecutors would have been willing to go along with that.

All right, Katie, you got to help me here. How did a case about whether someone falsified the nature of business expenses, which almost puts me to sleep, turn an X-rated novel? Is there anything you think the defense team could have done, given the judge assignment that you got, is there anything the defense team could have done to stop it from sounding like an X-rated novel?

Well, I think the defense team did what they could to try to limit this to the charge at hand, which, again, the prosecution has presented no evidence of how this was a falsified business record. As Donald Trump was saying, as is the case, The minimal thing they have to prove is that the entry was a false entry. They have presented absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. In terms of Stormy Daniels' testimony, it was very irrelevant, except for the fact that they wanted to close the loop, that there was, in fact, a payment. But the truth or falsity of what may have happened between them is really irrelevant to whether President Trump entered into an NDA with her. I don't see the relevance of that really at all. I think that they could have gotten away with just asking her a a couple of basic questions to establish that she was in fact paid. But still, that does nothing to close the loop for the prosecutors as to how this was a false entry. Michael Cohen can't do that either. Unless they're planning to throw up a CPA or some expert in accounting to explain that this was an improper designation for that type of payment, then they haven't even established that misdemeanor offense at a bare minimum, let alone the unknown felony escalator.

All right, Well, let's listen to the former president together, and then I'm going to get some free legal advice from you on the other side.

What the judge did was amazing, actually. It was amazing. Everybody can say whatever they want. They can say whatever they want, but I'm not allowed to say anything about anybody. It's a disgrace. To put me in jail, and that could happen one day, and I'd be very proud to go to jail for our Constitution because what he's doing is so unconstitutional.

All right, there is one forum in which he can say what he wants to say, and that would be to testify. If you were defense counsel, are you even thinking about letting your client testify? And if so, what would he say? That he did it to protect his marriage, that not the presidency, or that Cohen did it on his own? Would you let your client testify, and how would you prep him on what to say?

I would strongly strongly advise him not to testify. It takes attention away from the prosecution's case, which has serious flaws. It sometimes causes the jury to do a balancing, which they're not supposed to do. They're just supposed to ask whether the prosecution to met its burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. It will change the whole dynamic if he testifies it'll become a referendum in effect on Donald Trump. In this jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which voted 85% for Joe Biden, that's a referendum he cannot win.

Katie, the news is not all bad from the former President. This looks like the only matter that will get in front of a jury between now and November. It just seems like between the Supreme Court appeals and what's going on in Georgia and the federal judge in Florida putting the pause that this may be the only time he faces a jury between now and November. What do you think?

Oh, I absolutely agree, which is not surprising whatsoever. These cases are very complex. The artificial timeline of getting them in before the election was only an artificial timeline for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the litigation of very complex matters, some of which involve classified materials, making them even more complicated. Then, of course, the Supreme Court has to weigh in on the overriding immunity issue, not to mention the Georgia issues, of course. So not surprising from a criminal justice perspective in terms of the delays that come up in litigation, but certainly, I'm sure, disappointing for those on the political left here.

You're right about that, Katie. I mean, the left, they have their hair on fire because it might not go to trial before the election day. But the Speedy Trial Act doesn't mention election day. The Speedy Trial Act doesn't care about election day. So thank you both for free legal advice on a Sunday night. I hope all the moms in your lives have a great Mother's Day, and I have a sneak in suspicion. We'll be talking again about this very soon.

Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click subscribe to Fox News' YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.