Porn star Stormy Daniels testified last week with salacious and unnecessary details about her alleged 2006 one-night stand with former President Donald Trump during his New York criminal trial for allegedly covering up with falsified business records a $130,000 "hush money" payment to her ahead of the 2016 election.

Now, the porn star husband of the actress, Barret Blade, says they will likely flee the country if Trump is ultimately acquitted of the dubious criminal charges pressed against him, the Daily Mail reported.

In fact, the couple may leave the U.S. even if the former president is convicted, in part because of their fear of possible retribution from Trump's devoted supporters.

"Good chance we’ll probably vacate this country"

Blade, whose real name is Russel Barrett, spoke with CNN's Erin Burnett on Tuesday about his possible plans for the future with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, following her testimony in former President Trump's trial last week, with those plans likely being contingent upon the final verdict of the jury.

"Either way, I don’t think it gets better for her. I think if it’s not guilty, we got to decide what to do. Good chance we’ll probably vacate this country," Blade said, though he implied they might leave anyway if Trump is found guilty due to the level of "hate" Daniels has received from the president's supporters.

"I don’t see it as a win situation either way," he continued. "I know that we would like to get on with our lives. I know that she wants to move past this. We just want to do what I guess you’d say 'normal people' get to do in some aspects but I don’t know if that ever will be, you know, and it breaks my heart."

Blade went on to reiterate that Daniels wants nothing more than "to get on with her life" and told the CNN host, "As much as it’s boring for the media to keep hearing it over and over again, it sucks for her to have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. It wears on her, but she’s a warrior."

Blade decries alleged lack of support for Daniels

The Daily Mail reported that Blade also became emotional during the CNN interview as he chastised women's groups and other Trump accusers for not sufficiently supporting Daniels, and even took a swipe at his wife's disgraced and convicted former attorney, Michael Avenatti.

"I don't see people fighting back for her, for instance, E. Jean Carroll. Although we're super happy that everything happened for her happened," Blade said about the writer who won a defamation suit against Trump over his denials of her unproven allegations of sexual assault in the 1990s. "Stormy opened the door. Stormy got sued for the exact same two comments but she's gotta pay legal fees. No one wants to help her for that."

"Or the women's groups. She fights for women's groups all day long. I don't see anyone doing Gofundmes to try and help with her legal fees and help her," he added. "Michael Avenatti, he did a Gofundme to try to help her, then he ended up stealing all her money!"

Daniels' testimony could "backfire" on the prosecution

As for Daniels and her graphic testimony against Trump, Fox News reported that several liberal legal analysts on the rival cable news networks admitted that she may have done more harm than good for the prosecution's efforts to convict and imprison the former president on business record falsification charges.

On CNN, legal correspondent Evan Perez said Daniels "may have done damage to the prosecution’s case by virtue of the fact that she just couldn‘t stop saying stuff, and so that’s going to backfire on them. Legal analyst Elliot Williams similarly suggested that Daniels' admitted hatred of Trump would likely be used by his defense team during closing arguments to discredit her testimony, while legal analyst Elie Honig said, "Her responses were disastrous."

Over on MSNBC, legal analyst Danny Cevallos said the prosecution would have been better off relying upon a "less risky witness," and explained, "Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing, I promise you. The prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, 'Just answer the question, please. Just answer the question.'"

Fox News noted that The Washington Post's analysis of Daniels' testimony highlighted how it could be viewed as "prejudicial" to the jury and how, despite having never previously alleged that there was ever anything non-consensual about the alleged affair, she now seemingly testified that she hadn't consented to the sex as she claimed to have been intimidated by a "power imbalance" that left her "shaking" following the encounter.