Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elie Honig argues that President Donald Trump is seeking yet another "fix" in his push to have political adversaries indicted — and that the effort is built on legally hollow foundations.

The latest salvo comes from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who has sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice urging the indictment of former special counsel Jack Smith. Honig characterizes the move as a straightforward "sleight of hand."

Writing in New York Magazine, Honig observed: "Sure, congressional Republicans have worked themselves into a retributive frenzy — We've got him now! — while Donald Trump shakes pom-poms behind them. 'Justice at last???' the president mused on Truth Social, expectantly."

The Core Allegation

Republicans allege that Smith lied under oath during a taped congressional interview regarding his investigations into Trump. Over the past year, GOP lawmakers have accused Smith of "spying" on them by obtaining their phone records.

In reality, what Smith subpoenaed were toll records — essentially logs showing who Trump called, who called him, call times, and durations. Toll records do not contain the content of communications.

Smith separately subpoenaed text messages sent to and from Trump's phone during his presidency. Those messages had been backed up and transferred to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) upon Trump's departure from office. Smith's subpoena was directed at the National Archives for those records.

When committee members questioned Smith about the first subpoena, they specifically asked whether he had requested text messages within "the toll records." Smith answered "no" — because toll records, by definition, do not contain text messages.

Honig concluded that "Jordan doesn't quite buy into his own carnival barkery on this one" and dismissed the referral as "bullshit."

Broader Pattern of Failed Prosecutions

Examining the larger landscape of political prosecutions targeting Trump's perceived enemies, Honig predicted that the Smith referral would meet the same fate as other DOJ cases pursued at Trump's urging. The first hurdle would be securing a grand jury indictment, which Honig considers unlikely. Even if that threshold were met, Smith would almost certainly file a motion to dismiss on grounds of vindictive prosecution.

The dispute also highlights a broader legal reality behind the headlines: subpoenas, referrals, and public accusations may generate attention, but they still have to survive ordinary evidentiary and constitutional checks before becoming a viable case.

"In October 2025, Trump claimed that Smith and others 'should be prosecuted for their illegal and highly unethical behavior!'" Honig recalled. "He reiterated his request in January 2026, citing Smith's 'large-scale perjury.' And Trump openly celebrated just moments after news broke of Jordan's referral of Smith to the DOJ."

Trump also posted about the matter on Truth Social.

Honig suggested that neither Trump nor the DOJ appears to grasp — or care — that these cases are consistently failing. "As long as they get the sugar high of the investigation and (sometimes) the indictment, they don't seem at all bothered when these cases inevitably crash and burn," he said.

The Comey "Perp Walk" Request

The pattern extends beyond the Smith matter. CBS News reported in October that Trump had wanted a theatrical "perp walk" in connection with the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.

"The source told CBS News that leadership asked for 'large, beefy' agents to conduct an arrest of Comey 'in full kit,' including Kevlar vests and exterior wear emblazoned with the FBI logo," the report stated. "It was suggested that a supervisory special agent in the violent crimes division of the FBI's Washington Field Office would be able to put together the kinds of agents who fit the bill."

The FBI supervisor who refused to stage such a "perp walk" was subsequently fired, Reuters reported.