Join Elie Honig as he unpacks the complex legal issues shaping our country. A former prosecutor and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, CNN senior legal analyst, and author, Honig brings sharp insight and clear perspective to the intersections of law, politics, and current events. New episodes every Friday. From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network.
Last refreshed: ⓘ
Follow this podcast in the Metacast mobile app to refresh it and see new episodes.
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more
Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastcho...
Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastcho...
This episode covers critical legal developments, starting with the Supreme Court's decision on Virginia's gerrymandering and the unusual prosecution of an ICE officer in Minnesota. Elie Honig then announces his co-moderation of a New Jersey congressional debate and invites listener questions. The core discussion focuses on a little-noticed Trump executive order designed to overhaul federal elections, which faces significant constitutional challenges and could plunge future midterms into chaos if not invalidated.
Elie Honig previews the rare Senate appearance of Supreme Court Justices, speculating on who will attend and the expected political sparring. The main discussion critiques the DOJ's handling of the Cole Thomas Allen case, where top prosecutors refuse to recuse themselves despite being intended victims and witnesses. Honig argues this decision creates significant legal risks for the prosecution and is likely driven by political aspirations rather than ethical considerations, potentially jeopardizing a clear-cut case.
This episode begins with a heartfelt tribute to the late Ted Turner, celebrating his visionary leadership in founding CNN and his broader impact as an environmentalist. Elie Honig then shifts focus to the Jim Comey indictment, analyzing the "8647" seashell post and arguing that the prosecution is flawed. He meticulously outlines why the case will fail, citing legal arguments based on ambiguous threats, First Amendment protections, and evidence of vindictive and selective prosecution.
This episode delves into the unprecedented insider trading indictment of Special Forces soldier Gannon Ken Van Dyke, who profited on Polymarket from classified information regarding a military operation. Elie Honig examines the legal complexities of applying insider trading laws to prediction markets and discusses former President Trump's surprising take on the matter. The discussion broadens to the pervasive risks of insider exploitation across various sectors, particularly in politics and national security, ultimately questioning the Justice Department's commitment to aggressively enforce these laws against influential power players.
Elie Honig critically examines the New York Times' reporting on the Supreme Court's "shadow docket," praising their access but questioning their context and political bias. He also discusses Justice Sotomayor's recent apology for comments made about Justice Kavanaugh's background, using it to reflect on judicial candor. Honig then pivots to the upcoming midterms, projecting a likely Democratic House takeover and a competitive Senate race, explaining how this political shift influences President Trump's urgent cabinet firings and his push for Supreme Court justice retirements to secure long-term appointments.
Elie Honig discusses the ethical challenges of critiquing public figures he knows personally before sharply criticizing Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Honig highlights Hellerstein's age, judicial history, and a concerning lack of action and questionable decisions in the high-profile Nicholas Maduro case, particularly regarding Venezuela funding Maduro's defense. The judge's handling threatens to significantly delay the prosecution, misunderstands international sanctions, and could set a dangerous precedent for U.S. foreign policy cases. Honig argues the judge should reassign the case to prevent further damage.
This episode delves into Donald Trump's criteria for his next Attorney General, highlighting the easy-to-find fealty and the impossible demand for successful, politically motivated prosecutions. The host critiques former AG Pam Bondi's performance and explains why even highly skilled prosecutors will fail to secure convictions without valid evidence. Finally, potential candidates like Janine Pierrot, Lee Zeldin, and Todd Blanche are assessed, with the conclusion that the job is inherently set up for failure under Trump's expectations.
This episode delves into the controversial tenure and unexpected firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi. Host Elie Honig outlines how Bondi's time in office was marked by a series of missteps, notably her botched handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, which drew bipartisan criticism. More significantly, Honig argues that Bondi's actions eroded the Justice Department's institutional independence by pursuing politically motivated prosecutions against presidential adversaries and refusing to investigate administration allies, leaving a lasting stain on the department's integrity.
This episode previews an upcoming Supreme Court oral argument on birthright citizenship, stemming from the 14th Amendment. It details how Donald Trump's executive order attempts to redefine
This episode honors Robert Mueller's heroic and complicated legacy, exploring his esteemed career alongside the controversy of the Trump investigation. It then scrutinizes the Justice Department's self-proclaimed "most transparent" status, specifically challenging Attorney General Pam Bondi's response to a congressional subpoena regarding the Epstein files. The discussion highlights the AG's attempts to substitute formal, sworn testimony with informal briefings, detailing the political maneuvering and historical precedents for contempt of Congress.
Elie Honig criticizes the Justice Department's decision to eliminate the one-year experience requirement for federal prosecutors, viewing it as a sad statement on the DOJ's current state and staffing issues. He then delves into Donald Trump's ongoing battles with the Federal Reserve, detailing his unsuccessful attempts to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook and Chair Jerome Powell. These efforts, including problematic subpoenas and firings via social media, have been rebuffed by the Supreme Court and federal judges, drawing criticism from even congressional Republicans and undermining Trump's own goals.
The episode first examines recent controversies within the Department of Justice, including alleged political pressure on prosecutors and an ethics scandal involving a top official, signaling a decline in DOJ independence. It then shifts to a major legal challenge: the Trump administration's retention of over $160 billion in tariffs deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Despite a federal judge's ruling for universal refunds, the administration is fighting repayment, incurring significant daily interest costs for taxpayers and creating a scenario where businesses may profit while consumers bear the ultimate financial loss.
Elie Honig breaks down the constitutional implications of the war with Iran, asserting that only political pressure, not judicial intervention, can provide accountability. He then analyzes the recent testimonies of Bill and Hillary Clinton regarding Jeffrey Epstein, noting Hillary's lack of relevant information and Bill's "Clintonian" evasiveness about his extensive relationship with Epstein. The episode concludes by exploring the potential for Donald Trump to be subpoenaed next, dissecting Republican counter-arguments and the legal complexities of compelling a sitting president's testimony.
The podcast first details the Supreme Court's ruling against President Trump's emergency tariff powers, highlighting the unresolved issue of collected funds and the ongoing legal challenges. It then pivots to a strong critique of the US Justice Department's lagging efforts in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, contrasting it with the aggressive actions of British authorities and Congressional subpoenas for powerful figures. The host expresses skepticism about DOJ's justifications, emphasizing the department's superior investigative tools that remain unused.
Elie Honig begins by reflecting on George W. Bush's essay praising George Washington's humility and applies its lessons to current politics. He then provides a sharp critique of Attorney General Pam Bondi's recently released "Epstein List," detailing how it confusingly includes unconnected celebrities and politicians alongside actual offenders. Honig exposes significant redactions in the Epstein files and questions the Justice Department's transparency, concluding with a call for congressional action to ensure full disclosure.
This episode critically examines Pam Bondi's unhelpful congressional testimony and a politically motivated federal raid on the Fulton County, Georgia elections office. The host exposes the questionable origins and flimsy evidence supporting the warrant, arguing that the investigation into debunked 2020 election fraud claims serves as political score-settling rather than legitimate law enforcement. It highlights unreliable sources and legal flaws in the probe.
Elie Honig discusses the controversial arrest of Don Lemon and then focuses on Attorney General Pam Bondi's accountability. He poses six critical questions, scrutinizing the Justice Department's ambiguous stance on Epstein sex trafficking investigations and the withholding of related files. The episode also delves into the federal handling of ICE officer shootings, the exclusion of local law enforcement, and the DOJ's overall credibility issues under Bondi's leadership.
Elie Honig analyzes the Trump administration's response to the Minnesota shootings, critiquing both their factual misrepresentations and their distorted legal interpretations. He highlights that not all issues can be solved by courts, emphasizing the importance of political pressure. Honig meticulously debunks claims around "domestic terrorism," "absolute immunity," resisting arrest, and the legality of carrying firearms at protests, revealing the administration's disregard for legal accuracy.
Elie Honig opens by criticizing the DOJ's handling of the Renee Good shooting and its perceived political motivations under the current administration. The episode then pivots to the Clintons, exploring their history of narrowly avoiding federal charges, from Bill's impeachment to Hillary's email server. Currently, they face contempt charges for refusing to testify before Congress regarding their connections to Jeffrey Epstein, setting up a politically charged prosecution by a DOJ Honig views as partisan, despite the low likelihood of a conviction.
Elie Honig examines the Minneapolis ICE shooting investigation, arguing its integrity is severely compromised by premature public pronouncements from federal and local officials. He draws a sharp contrast with the 2015 Ferguson investigation under Obama's DOJ, where impartiality prevailed despite political pressure. Honig concludes that current political interference, where "truth is imposed, not discovered," severely erodes public trust in justice.
Preet Bharara's former colleague discusses the dramatic arrest and indictment of Nicolas Maduro, offering an insider's view on the legal process. The episode delves into the historical context of trying foreign leaders, contrasting it with the KSM case, and scrutinizes the prosecution's evidence and Maduro's likely defense arguments. It highlights the SDNY's specific capabilities and why a federal trial is considered the most appropriate path forward for this high-stakes case.
Elie Honig critically examines the Justice Department's severely mishandled rollout of the Epstein files, detailing how DOJ leaders missed statutory deadlines, released documents riddled with errors, and failed to protect victim privacy. He argues that the DOJ openly disregarded the law's substantive commands by refusing to disclose internal deliberations and redacting co-conspirator names, which obstructs true accountability. The episode also highlights the confusing and contradictory statements from DOJ officials regarding ongoing investigations into uncharged individuals.
This episode critiques Attorney General Pam Bondi's series of "payback prosecutions" targeting perceived political opponents, citing repeated failures by judges and grand juries against cases like those involving Jim Comey and Letitia James. Elie Honig argues that these actions inflict irreparable institutional harm on the Justice Department and notes a growing political backlash, even among Trump's supporters. He suggests Bondi, as an experienced prosecutor, must consider her legacy and the practical political implications, calling for a necessary "intervention."
This episode critically examines the recently passed Epstein Files Transparency Act, highlighting the political hypocrisy from both parties during its passage. Elie Honig explains how the act's broad exceptions, particularly those related to active investigations and national security, grant the Department of Justice, led by Pam Bondi, significant power to withhold or redact crucial documents. Despite public anticipation for full transparency, the law is structured to limit genuine disclosure, ensuring many important answers will remain unrevealed.
This episode from The Counsel by CAFE features Elie Honig dissecting FBI Director Kash Patel's "malignant incompetence." Honig uses a revealing quiz of real and fabricated incidents to highlight Patel's vanity and lack of qualifications, comparing him unfavorably to predecessors like Comey and Mueller. The discussion covers Patel's embarrassing social media gaffes, volatile congressional testimony, and questionable internal decisions that have reportedly damaged FBI morale and institutional integrity, posing a significant challenge for future presidential administrations.
A federal judge recently dismissed the Trump administration's "payback prosecutions" against Jim Comey and Letitia James, ruling that the temporary U.S. attorney who brought the indictments was improperly appointed. This decision highlights the importance of an independent Justice Department, a core theme discussed in the host's class. While the DOJ plans to appeal, the cases face significant obstacles, including grand jury resistance, statute of limitations issues, and arguments of selective prosecution.
Elie Honig discusses the recent law mandating the release of Jeffrey Epstein files, noting a critical loophole. The main focus is the Justice Department's prosecution of Jim Comey, revealing it as a politically motivated "payback" case. A federal judge issued a scathing ruling against rookie prosecutor Lindsay Halligan for numerous errors, including misstating law, mishandling evidence, and procedural blunders in grand jury proceedings. These significant blunders make the Comey trial's progression to a jury highly improbable.
Elie Honig recounts his firsthand encounter with jury nullification during the repeated prosecutions of John Gotti Jr., where juries refused to convict despite strong evidence. He then explains how juries exercise this unspoken power to reject cases they deem excessive or politically motivated, citing examples from the "Subway sandwich thrower" to grand juries dismissing petty charges. The episode concludes by arguing that this trend reflects a growing loss of trust in the Justice Department, positioning everyday juries as a crucial check on executive power when other government branches fall short.
