CNN legal analyst Laura Coates explains why Stormy Daniels claims could eventually bring down Donald Trump

While the court of public opinion may be what President Donald Trump cares about, there are legal ramifications of the so-called deal that was made between adult film star Stormy Daniels and an LLC set up by lawyer Michael Cohen.

CNN's Chris Cuomo began by saying "there are such bigger things to worry about," when it came to Trump and the deal with Daniels. "But here's the jam he's in now: if there can be established a pattern of tactics that Trump used to keep people quiet even though it would wind up contradicting my own point. You're allowed to pay people to talk in nature. Does he have a way of doing things when it comes to women in his life could have longer legs."

Daily Beast editor John Avlon cited Trevor Potter, former commissioner and chairman of the United States Federal Election Commission, saying there are potential violations.

"If this relationship occurred in 2006, 2007 -- days before the presidential election, Michael Cohen decides there is an urgency to pay off the porn star, that's not an accident," he said.

Coates explained that the FEC angle ultimately will be a much stronger case when looking at Cohen's actions for Trump than it was in the John Edwards case.

"This is 11 days before [the election]," Coates explained. "What you had in the

is that the attorney for Daniels has been saying, 'Listen, it was intended to be a campaign contribution to silence us to have a benefit for the campaign.' That never fleshed out last night in the interview. No one mentioned it. It hasn't backed up. It hasn't backed up since."

Cuomo argued that the threat in the parking lot and things Ronan Farrow has reported that could be much bigger. Avlon argued the photos, text messages and the alleged tape recordings is what Daniels attorney is using.

Coates went on to say that the biggest problem with the NDA is it not being signed by Trump. She said that many contracts can't be signed and that it could be argued that the deal wasn't between she and Trump but between a third party.

"We found out last night this was only one time they were together, even though there was a larger courtship about joining 'Celebrity Apprentice,'" Avlon said. "If he is indeed sharing images in the context of a one-time deal, that is indicates a larger pattern, a larger problem. In the alleged eight-month relationship with the 'Playboy Playmate,' that may create more of a content for this."

"The biggest flaw in the NDA is liquidated damages clause, you get, $1 million per breach," Coates said. "Having that sort of clause says, 'We can't calculate right now what the damages would be if you were to lose a presidential election. Let's say it is a million dollars.' The court would say, 'That might be right.' I mean, ask [Hillary' Clinton what happened when [former FBI director James] Comey spoke. You could maybe value that. But think about the issue of, you cannot then say a million per breach. That is penalty and the court may look at that and say, 'Twenty million dollars when the news is out there.' There is no real value lost on disclosure before versus after."

Watch the full discussion below: