‘Huge Win for Jack Smith!’ CNN’s Elie Honig Says SCOTUS May Not Even Take Up Presidential Immunity Case After DC Court ‘Forcefully Rejected’ Trump’s Argument

CNN’s Elie Honig declared former President Donald Trump’s immunity claims to be kiboshed, at least according to the unanimous rejection handed down by the judges on the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his analysis minutes after the news broke on Tuesday, Honig explained to CNN anchors John Berman and Sara Sidner that this decision was a “huge win” for special prosecutor Jack Smith , which means a huge blow to Trump in his federal election fraud case:

So biggest picture, huge win for Jack Smith. Unequivocal win for Jack Smith. The language in this ruling is very strong. They forcefully reject Donald Trump’s immunity arguments.

Honig continued:

There’s really three major findings that the D.C. Court of Appeals makes here. First of all, they reject this notion of blanket immunity. They say it is not, and cannot be, that a president simply can never be charged for anything that happens during his time in office.

Second, the Court of Appeals in D.C. says, if we’re asking the question of whether Donald Trump’s conduct was inside his job as president or outside his job as president, they say he was out of bounds here. He’s not covered because he was out of bounds. So even if there is some immunity for stuff that’s inside the presidency, he’s way out of it.

And then finally they reject this — I think, ludicrous, I think we discussed it at the time — argument that, well, a president can only be indicted if he has first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Remember, that led to the ridiculous hypotheticals about could a president order assassination? And so this Court of Appeals rejects that.

Berman then asked Honig if this meant the Supreme Court would be less likely to take this case up at all:

Berman: Given how unanimous this has been at every level, broadly speaking — and I think the stringent language we’re seeing here in this federal appeals court panel ruling — does this make it less likely that the Supreme Court will get involved?

Honig: I think it does. It’s still 100%. Now we have one more example of a court forcefully rejecting the notion that what Donald Trump did, Mark Meadows tried to make this argument, Jeffrey Clark tried to make this argument. Everyone who’s made this argument that “what we did in connection with what led up to January 6th was somehow within our jobs” is 0 for however many now. And I do think this unanimity makes it more likely that the Supreme Court may say, “No, we don’t need to interfere.”

John, I’m glad you asked, because I actually pulled a quote out of the decision that I think goes to that exact point of was Donald Trump somehow within the scope of his job? The court writes: “Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role, thereby undermining the constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress.” They say, “not even close, absolutely outside of the bounds here.”

Watch the video above via CNN.