CNN legal analyst fires back after Carville calls his criticism of Trump trial ‘downright awful’

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig and Democratic Party strategist James Carville clashed over the trial and conviction of former President Trump during dueling segments of CNN show “Smerconish” on Saturday.

Carville took a veiled dig at Honig’s critical commentary on the trial during an earlier segment of the talk show, dismissing Honig’s concern that Judge Merchan donated to a far-left, anti-Trump political organization. 

During a subsequent segment, Honig addressed Carville’s rebuke, asking him if he’d be fine having a judge on a Trump case who donated to an explicitly pro-Trump cause.

“I don’t think James Carville would be okay with that,” Honig declared during his time with CNN anchor Michael Smerconish.

BIDEN MOCKS IDEA HE’S ‘PULLING THE STRINGS’ IN TRUMP PROSECUTION: ‘I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS THAT POWERFUL’

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig and Democratic Strategist James Carville argued over Honig’s criticism of the Trump trial that ended in the former president’s conviction.  (Screenshot/CNN | jfizzy/Star Max / Contributor/Getty)

The debate centered on Honig’s piece in New York Magazine that went viral Friday as it called out certain aspects of the trial that led to the conviction of former President Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records.

In his commentary, the legal analyst stated he respected the jury’s verdict, but accused District Attorney Alvin Bragg of bringing “an ill-conceived, unjustified mess” of a case before an explicitly anti-Trump judge.

“Prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey,” Honig wrote, summarizing the case.

The point that Carville fixated on was Honig’s critical assessment of Judge Juan Merchan. Honig wrote, “The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’”

The legal guru asked the question, “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to ‘Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!’?” 

“Absolutely not,” he wrote.

‘ABSOLUTELY INSANE’: AMERICANS REACT TO TRUMP’S STUNNING CONVICTION IN NEW YORK TRIAL

Elie Honig wrote that New York v. Trump prosecutors “contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.” (CNN/Screenshot)

Carville scoffed at this in his conversation with Smerconish and former Obama aide David Axelrod. 

Hinting at the column, he stated, “Some of the commentary on this is just downright awful. One person talked about the $35 donation that the judge made to Democrats without telling his readers that said judge asked a supervisory court if he should proceed, and they said, yes.”

“So there‘s a lot of stuff to be flushed out here,” he concluded.

Minutes after the segment with Carville and Axelrod, Honig appeared on the show to discuss his problems with the trial. At one point, he addressed Carville’s rejection of his point about Judge Merchan.

The legal analyst and former U.S. attorney did acknowledge the strategist’s argument that an ethics committee did allow Merchan to preside over the case despite his donation, but questioned whether that still justified his participation.

“There was an ethics committee that looked at this and said, ‘You don‘t have to recuse.’ Now, but there‘s a difference between ‘must’ and ‘should.’”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Addressing Carville, he added, “And I would pose this question to Mr. Carville or anyone along these lines: Would you be okay if in another one of the Trump cases, if the judge had donated a very small amount of money – $35 – to ‘MAGA 2020 Trump Forever: Resist Joe Biden?’ I don‘t think so.”

“I don‘t think James Carville would be okay with that and I think that’s the principle here,” he concluded.