CNN’s Elie Honig Says Trump ‘Strategy’ On Border, DOGE Is ‘Not Unconstitutional’
'Conscious legal strategy'
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!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com