CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig: ‘Here Is My Free, Unsolicited Advice For President Trump. It’s Over. IT. IS. OVER.’
President Donald Trump and his allies continue to push unfounded claims of voter fraud, but CNN legal analyst Elie Honig wasn’t having it, telling Ana Cabrera, “it’s over, it is over…they simply do not have reliable evidence of widespread voter fraud.”
“How realistic is it that President Trump can succeed on a strategy of challenging state election results in court?” asked Cabrera, referring to a question submitted by a viewer.
“Here is my free, unsolicited advice for President Trump,” replied Honig, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney for the Southern District of New York. “It’s over. It is over. This legal strategy has almost no chance of changing the outcome of the election…they simply do not have reliable evidence of widespread voter fraud.”
Honig continued, noting that courts across the country were dismissing the Trump campaign’s lawsuits “almost as quickly as they’re filed.”
“Here’s the practical problem: margins matter,” he explained. “If Joe Biden holds on to Arizona or Georgia, then he doesn’t even need Pennsylvania in order to stay over 270. And even within Pennsylvania, it looks like Biden’s margin of victory is way larger than even the number of ballots that are in dispute.”
President Trump has said that tomorrow we’re going to see this grand litigation strategy rolled out,” said a clearly skeptical Honig. “They better come out with something new, because so far they’ve got nothing.”
Cabrera read another viewer question asking if Trump could take the case to the Supreme Court “and have them decide who won the election as he said he would do?”
“No. That is not the way it works,” Honig was emphatic, explaining that no one simply gets to just take their case to the Supreme Court.
“They decide if they’ll hear your case. It’s called certiorari, they only grant it in under 5% of all cases presented to them.”
Honig added that cases have to pass several additional procedural hurdles to get to the Supreme Court, going through lower federal or state courts, and sought to distinguish the current election from the 2000 recount in Bush v. Gore.
“Please understand the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore did not say, George W. Bush, you win, Al Gore, you lose. They were ruling on a very narrow issue of law. Because the whole election happened to come down to one state, Florida, and because the margin was razor thin, not even a thousand votes, we had this very unusual situation. That is not the scenario here. Do not expect another Bush versus Gore.”
As Honig alluded to, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore was to stop the recounts that were ongoing in several Florida counties, because they were using different standards from each other. This resulted in the vote certification by Secretary of State Katherine Harris that had declared Bush the winner to stand, awarding Florida’s electoral college votes to Bush and making him the president-elect.
Watch the video above, via CNN.
Have a tip we should know? firstname.lastname@example.org