Ellie Honig Is A Putz

He’s correct. That’s usually the way things work. However, in this particular case, the Supreme Court created something entirely new that isn’t in the constitution with a somewhat vague test to apply with even less guidance on procedure. This isn’t especially shocking given that. pic.twitter.com/IIrk2acTct

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) October 3, 2024

That’s an opinion I’ve held for a long time.  Now I’m convinced.

First, this is a poorly reasoned argument. Honig is a lawyer, but Josh is right:

It's remarkable the degree to which Elie Honig is fast careening toward full Jon Turley status. This column in New York is just the wildest new example. https://t.co/2ldVQAYtgL

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) October 3, 2024

Honig is a poor man’s Turley. The article could have been written by Stephen Miller for all the legal reasoning it contains. 

The Supreme Court remanded this case to Chutkan with directions to determine whether there was enough evidence outside the reach of their freshly minted (and poorly defined) privilege, to sustain a prosecution. In response, Smith filed a superseding indictment intended to focus on the facts and charges outside the absolute barrier of what the Court labeled “official conduct.”

Nothing stated in that paragraph is included in Honig’s analysis.

When the case returned to her, Chutkan set a hearing on her own initiative. In consultation (in open court) with the parties, Chutkan decided evidence presented in a brief was preferable over live testimony in a “mini-trial.” The parties acceded to this because Trump didn’t want a “mini-trial” and, for other reasons, Smith didn’t either.

Chutkan ordered the briefs. Smith asked leave to file a lengthy brief so he could present enough evidence to meet the standard (such as it is) in the Supreme Court opinion, and keep his case from being dismissed.

This is where the quote from Honig Trump reproduced, comes in. Nothing I have told you is in Honig’s article. He leaves out all context to make it look like Smith is rogue (he explicitly labels him such before he’s through) and Chutkan is his partner in crime. Smith, says Honig, filed his brief as an “October surprise.” Honig ignores the reported fact that Trump raised that issue in court (this is all too close to the election for Trump’s comfort), and Chutkan pointedly asked why she should care about the election calendar. Facts are inconvenient things, so Honig ignores them.

He also claims Smith ignored DOJ guidelines by bringing out information within 90 days of an election. Except Smith is in the court’s calendar. And the DOJ guidelines apply to investigations.”: starting or announcing them within 90 days of an election. The guideline has no application in an ongoing case. As I said, the judge controls the calendar then, not the AG or the DOJ or the election process.

Smith has not gone rogue. Chutkan is not in his pocket. Trump has extraordinary good luck before the Roberts Court; but Honig seems to think every ruling has to go in Trump’s favor, or it’s clear evidence of judicial bias.

Honig does not argue the facts. He doesn’t argue the law. He ignores the fact that the Supreme Court undid the rules of procedure by writing new rules of evidence, and telling the trial court to figure them out and see what is left. All of this was directed by the high court. Honig leaves all that context out so he can slam

Smith and, by default, pity Trump, a hapless defendant in the hands of a crusader prosecutor bending the rules and the law like Javert pursuing poor, beleaguered Jean Valjean.

It’s all my balls. Honig is a putz, and a hack.

Well he had to pinch hit for Olivia at the last minute so

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) October 3, 2024

What Keith said.