‘He Lied To Us For A Long Time’: Elie Honig Says Hunter Biden Pardon Will ‘Tarnish’ Joe Biden’s Legacy
'Now he’s gone back on that'
Legal expert offers bold prediction about Georgia election interference case — and Democrats won't like it: 'It's over'
Legal expert Elie Honig believes the Georgia election interference case may be on life-support.
On Wednesday, the Georgia Court of Appeals halted all proceedings in the case involving former President Donald Trump until the court decides whether or not Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) should be disqualified from prosecuting the case. The appellate court has tentatively scheduled oral arguments to decide that issue on Oct. 4.
'If Trump and the defendants prevail in this appeal, this case is essentially a toast.'
Because the appeals process will take months to play out, that means Trump and his codefendants will not be tried in the case until after the election.
But Honig believes the case is effectively "over."
"It's over. Let's be realistic: It's not happening before the 2024 election. It's not happening in 2024. It's maybe not happening at all," he declared on CNN.
Honig based his prediction on the fact that the Georgia Court of Appeals not only decided to take the case, but it stayed all proceedings in the trial court pending its decision.
"They didn't have to pause the district court," he explained. "In fact, the trial court judge — when he issued his ruling allowing Donald Trump and the others to ask the appeals court to take the case — specified, 'While you all are doing that, I am going to continue holding proceedings in this trial court.' Now, today, just a couple hours ago, the appeals court said, 'No, no, no, pause that, too.'"
"So, that tells me that they are taking this appeal very seriously. And if Trump and the defendants prevail in this appeal, this case is essentially a toast," Honig predicted.
Aside from the question of Willis' potential disqualification, Honig spotlighted the "bigger" issue that could sink the case.
"There is a separate issue that Trump and the other defendants are going to raise that I think is a bigger deal, which is Fani Willis' inappropriate comments about the case outside of court," he said.
"Judge McAfee found those comments to be 'legally improper,' and then he did nothing about it," he explained. "And so, the defense is going to argue to the Court of Appeals, 'If the prosecutor makes 'legally improper' statements that impair the constitutional rights of the defendant, there needs to be a remedy for that."
The question, then, is what the remedy should be: Willis' disqualification or for the case to be dismissed.
Of course, whether Trump faces a jury in Georgia depends on the outcome of the election, as it would be unlikely that he would go to trial if he is the sitting president.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Weaponizing The Justice System Is An Attack On All Americans, Not Just Trump
The left's lawfare marks the descent of the American legal system into the very type of politicization our Founding Fathers warned against.Legal expert hits CNN panel with truth on why Stormy Daniels' testimony was 'disastrous' for prosecutors: 'Big damn deal'
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, believes Stormy Daniels' testimony went "quite poorly" for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
On Tuesday, the former porn actress took the witness stand in Donald Trump's hush money trial, testifying for hours about her relationship with Trump. At one point, Trump's attorneys called for a mistrial — a move that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan rejected — because Daniels provided salacious details about her relationship with Trump, even suggesting their sexual encounter was nonconsensual. Trump's attorneys argued such testimony was "extraordinarily prejudicial."
"Prosecutors went too far in the details they elicited."
Reacting to the testimony on CNN, Honig said that Daniels' answers on cross-examination were "disastrous" for the prosecution.
"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," Honig explained.
"And she's putting out tweets fantasizing about him being in jail? That really undermines the credibility," he noted.
Not only does Honig believe that Daniels' undermined her credibility as a witness, but he explained how Daniels may have shown that she doesn't respect the legal system.
"The fact that she owes him $500,000," Honig said. "She, by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half-million dollars, and said, 'I will never pay him, I will defy a court order'? The defense is going to say, 'She's willing to defy a court order. She's not willing to respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she took?'"
"So, 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," he explained.
Honig also believes prosecutors damaged their case by taking "cheap shots" during Daniels' testimony.
Those cheap shots, he explained, are the questions that prosecutors asked Daniels to extract "extraneous detail about the sexual encounter" between Daniels and Trump.
"Prosecutors went too far in the details they elicited," Honig said. "I think, yes, it was the right move by Donald Trump's team to ask for a mistrial."
Daniels is expected to take the witness stand again on Thursday.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Legal experts reveal how judge's ruling against Trump is actually a victory for him: 'Not what Jack Smith wanted to hear'
United States District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected on Thursday Donald Trump's motion to dismiss his classified documents case on the basis that the Presidential Records Act permitted him to retain classified documents.
The decision seemingly hands special counsel Jack Smith a pretrial victory. However, legal experts believe Trump was the real winner of Cannon's latest decision.
The background
Last month, Judge Cannon asked both special counsel Jack Smith and Trump's defense team to prepare potential sets of jury instructions incorporating his PRA defense.
The first set of instructions:
In a prosecution of a former president for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
The second set:
A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.
In a filing on Tuesday, Smith blasted Cannon for indulging what he believes is a legal defense made of "pure fiction."
Smith argued that "both scenarios rest on an unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise," arguing the "PRA should not play any role at trial at all." To allow the defense into trial, Smith claimed, would "distort the trial."
The special counsel, moreover, threatened to seek pretrial appellate review — an unusual move — if Cannon allows the jury to hear Trump's PRA defense.
To be clear, we do not yet know if Cannon will allow Trump's attorneys to use the PRA defense at trial. Her request for potential jury instructions merely shows that she is considering how, if at all, it may fit into the trial.
Still, Smith demanded that Cannon immediately decide if she will allow the defense into trial.
Cannon's latest ruling
On Thursday, Cannon rejected Trump's motion to dismiss the case but signaled that Trump could possible use the PRA defense at trial.
More importantly, Cannon scolded Smith for making "unprecedented and unjust" demands.
"The Court's Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case. Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression," she explained.
That Cannon left open the possibility that Trump may resurrect his PRA defense at trial is a win for him, legal experts said.
"Instead of the judge saying, 'OK of course, [Trump's argument is] ludicrous.' She just said, 'I'm not deciding that pretrial. I might let that happen during the trial and maybe that's what I'll decide — in the midst of the trial. Now I'll actually say, "Oh, those are your personal documents. I issue a judgment for acquittal."' That's called Rule 29," explained law professor Ryan Goodman on CNN.
"She could do it in the middle of the trial and then it's too late. That is not appealable," he said.
Goodman then observed that Cannon's ruling at first appears to be a "loss" for Trump, "but not really."
"I think this is not what Jack Smith wanted to hear," he explained.
— (@)
Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agreed. He said on CNN that Cannon's decision is "impossible" to appeal, and Smith should be worried.
"This is why I think Jack Smith is concerned with today's ruling. Although he won — in the sense that the court did not dismiss the charges — if I'm Jack Smith? And I think Smith feels the same way, I'm very worried about this defense going to a jury because it's confusing, because it's complicated, because it's technical," Honig explained.
"Prosecutors always want to tell a simple, straightforward story. And frankly, defendants want to muck things up," he continued. "And as much as I think this defense lacks merit, I do think it could confuse a jury in a way that would worry me, as a prosecutor."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com