'The fix is in': Expert breaks down 'very strange' Judge Cannon hearing on Trump docs

A recent hearing in Donald Trump's criminal case over stashed classified documents was "very strange," according to one legal expert.

Lawfare's Roger Parloff, who recently reported that Judge Cannon had created a "secret docket" in the process of overseeing the Trump case, Sunday broke down the findings of Thursday's hearing before Cannon, after he had time to "decompress."

"Some mixed messages but, to me, very strange," Parloff said before explaining the hearing in which Cannon heard two motions to dismiss.

ALSO READ: Racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents

"But she also asked questions about a [third] motion, alleging 'selective or vindictive prosecution.' Though the last is breathtakingly baseless, she is treating it very seriously," Parloff said. "The selective/vindictive prosecution theory is that Trump is being treated unfairly compared to previous ex-presidents or ex-VPs who took classified docs or info home from [White House]."

The "obvious distinction," Parloff noted, is "Trump’s months-long refusal to return docs when asked—allegedly lying to NARA, FBI, grand jury, his own attys; concealing subpoenaed docs; plotting to destroy subpoenaed video."

He continued:

"But Cannon seemed to be cordoning off all of that to create the appearance of disparity. Repeatedly she pressed each side if it wasn’t true that the crime of 'willful retention' was 'complete' on 1/21/21, the day after Trump left office. If so, hadn’t other officials who possessed classified docs the day after their terms ended committed the same offense?"

Special counsel Jack Smith's lawyer, Jay Bratt, reportedly "conceded that if 'willful' retention could be proven, the crime would be complete 1/21/21. But, he added, Trump wasn’t indicted 1/21/21; he was indicted after [months and months] of allegedly criminal evasions."

"I doubt Judge Cannon would *dismiss* based on selective/vindictive prosecution, but she might grant Trump additional discovery & a public hearing to explore those questions, which would itself be virtually unprecedented," he added. "She could also write an order decrying purported disparities in treatment beneficial for his campaign."

Longtime GOP stalwart Bill Kristol, after reading Parloff's legal analysis, said, "The fix is in."

Read the full thread here.