Clinton and CNN are supposed to be allies. They both promote radical Leftist ideologies any chance they get.
But CNN has just turned its back on Hillary Clinton in the most stunning way imaginable.
In a recent commentary, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her claim that the legal system’s handling of former President Trump is “nothing out of the ordinary.”
Clinton’s comments followed a controversial legal move by Special Counsel Jack Smith, which has raised eyebrows across the legal community.
Honig, who wrote a column for New York Magazine on the subject, didn’t mince words in his assessment of Smith’s 165-page federal court filing regarding Trump’s immunity from prosecution. According to Honig, Smith’s approach has been “procedurally irregular,” a departure from standard legal practices in similar cases.
“The larger, if less obvious, headline is that Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects,” Honig wrote. He continued, “At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis.”
Honig also drew a parallel between Smith’s actions and the infamous conduct of former FBI Director James Comey during the 2016 election.
“Anyone who objected to James Comey’s outrageous announcements about the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the eve of the 2016 election should feel the same about Smith’s conduct now,” he argued, pressing the question of what meaningful distinction could be drawn between the two situations.
In response, Clinton rejected the comparison, asserting that the circumstances are fundamentally different.
“I think the situation is completely different, and this is in the context of an ongoing criminal procedure that the special counsel has brought against Donald Trump many, many months before the run-up to the election,” Clinton stated during an interview.
She further argued that Smith’s actions were motivated by judicial orders that have, in her view, been “extremely favorable” toward Trump.
When asked for his response to Clinton’s remarks, Honig expressed his strong disagreement, suggesting that Clinton’s analysis missed key details, including a possible confusion between two judges involved in Trump’s legal battles.
“All respect to Secretary Clinton,” Honig began, “she’s the one who suffered the consequences for James Comey’s, I believe, outrageous conduct in 2016; DOJ found later that it was outrageous.” However, he added, “The problem, though, with Secretary Clinton’s analysis of the Jack Smith case is, respectfully, she’s got her facts wrong.”
According to Honig, Clinton appeared to be mixing up Judge Aileen Cannon, who has ruled largely in favor of Trump, with Judge Tanya Chutkan, the presiding judge in the case in question. “Judge Chutkan has ruled almost entirely against Donald Trump,” he clarified.
Honig was especially critical of Clinton’s assertion that there was “nothing out of the ordinary” in the case.
“More to the point, the last thing we just heard Secretary Clinton say was — quote — ‘There is nothing out of the ordinary.’ But as I described before, the way they flipped this procedure is the opposite of the ordinary,” Honig countered.
He went on to question the rationale behind Smith’s unusual approach. “You can talk to a hundred former federal prosecutors who’ve collectively handled 100,000 cases. They will all tell you they never filed their motions first,” Honig emphasized.
“And I think it begs the question, what was the rush here? Why did Jack Smith have to ask for this, to quote Judge Chutkan, procedurally irregular approach?”
With a respectful but firm tone, Honig concluded by making it clear he disagreed with Clinton’s perspective on the matter.
Stay tuned to The Federalist Wire.
