Book Review: Elie Honig, “When You Come at the King”

Elie Honig’s book, “When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ’s Pursuit of the President from Nixon to Trump” (Harper 2025), is well worth reading.  It is entertaining, educational, prescriptive, disturbing, and optimistic, in that it suggests that we learn from precedent and make it better. The title of the book seems to come from the series The Wire: “You come at the king, you best not miss.”

Entertaining:  Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox was “a man of grace and dignity….”  Mr. Honig reports that Mr. Cox “once noticed an establishment near the office on 14^th and K Streets in Washington, D.C….” It was called “Archibald’s.”  And, “Cox suggested that [he and his staff] might go eat there sometimes, given that he shared a name with it.”  Mr. Honig reports, however, that younger prosecutors “knew that Archibald’s was in fact a strip club” and they told Cox, “[t]hat place isn’t for you, Archie.”

Another anecdote of interest is:

“Irresistible fun fact: In 1864, [President Abraham] Lincoln pardoned Moses J. Robinette, a civilian in the Union Army who had stabbed another Union employee during a fight in a mess tent and was sentenced to two years of hard labor. Robinette was the great-great-grandfather of the future president, Joe Biden.

Educational:  Although subtitled “from Nixon to Trump,” the book begins earlier, with a historical description of Pres. Ulysses Grant’s appointment of, and efforts to later derail, an “outside prosecutor.”  In fact, Mr. Honig covers much more, from Grant to Truman, as well as Iran-Contra under President Reagan, Ken Starr and President Clinton, and the investigation of President Biden.

The book summarizes a broad presidential strategy of bringing in an outside investigator to give an appearance of independence, only to later restrict it.  In early days, there were no statutes and this resulted in ad hoc approaches with the President retaining “virtually unrestrained power over the unfolding cases…”  Thus, “both Grant and Truman removed the attorney general or outside prosecutor, without endangering their own presidencies,” according to Mr. Honig.

The book explains the change from a “Special Prosecutor” to an “Independent Counsel,” to “Special Counsel,” and provides an in depth look at the Watergate prosecution, among others.  It states: “Total costs of the investigations ran from less than $20,000 to more than $73 million.  Some investigations lasted fewer than six months, and others took more than ten years.”

However, Mr. Honig suggests that the “playbook” often went back to President Grant – – appoint an outside counsel to fend off political pressure, and then throw up roadblocks if the investigation becomes uncomfortable.  Mr. Honig wrote: “Targets of investigations attack the motives of the prosecutors…. And terms like ‘witch hunt’ and ‘fake news’ were coined by investigative targets well before Donald Trump came along…. The point is, as we move forward: Everything old is new again.”

Disturbing:  The book is both comforting – real investigations were conducted and led to convictions – and disturbing – very real flaws existed.  It explains failures by prosecutors, defects in statutes and regulations, and, questionable judgment calls, as well as unacceptable political involvements.

Further, it describes in detail how the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution remains very much unresolved.  Mr. Honig posits a hypothetical.  Would the following hypothetical text from a sitting president to the attorney general be immune?

Opposition party leader in the Senate is giving me a headache on this bill. Need you to arrest him for whatever you can think of – maybe drugs or child pornography?  Just plant something at his house, do a search warrant (make up whatever you need to get the judge to sign, pick a friendly one). Notify press in advance, have them standing by when you go in.  Get this done and the next Supreme Court opening is yours.

Mr. Honig explains that the answer is unclear. The fact that it is even debatable is unsettling.

Prescriptive & Optimistic:  Mr. Honig provides an analytical framework.  He posits that each historical precedent can be evaluated using six criteria.

1. Necessity:  Did we need an outside investigative attorney?  Could DOJ have handled it in the ordinary course of business?
2. Duration: Was the investigation timely concluded or did it drag out?
3. Scope: Was the scope clearly defined or was it infected by “mission creep”? Was it “focused” or a “wild-goose chase”?
4. Convictions: Did the investigation result in criminal charges or convictions?
5. Declinations: This is the “inverse of the prior question,” according to Mr. Honig. “Sometimes a prosecutor’s job is not to prosecute if the facts don’t conclusively establish criminality.”
6. Sixth: How was the investigation perceived by the public? Was it credible?

The need for evaluation and, to use Mr. Honig’s term, “guardrails,” is self-evident. The book reports an anonymous comment to Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz in 1988: “G-d knows, if I had $30 million, I could find dirt on you, sir.”

With those six factors in mind, the last chapter is titled “The Next Evolution.”  It suggests new “guardrails” that are practical, efficient, and constitutional.  Mr. Honig lays out a seven-point plan and concludes: “There’s no perfect solution. But in the final analysis, much as Winston Churchill famously said of democracy itself: It’s the worst form of government, except for all others.”  That is cause for optimism.  To paraphrase an old saying, “from your lips, to Congress’s ears.”