Judge Aileen Cannon delivered a blistering critique of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Donald Trump during a hearing on Thursday. The hearing, which took place in a South Florida courtroom this morning, was another episode in the ongoing saga of Trump’s classified documents case.

The case against Trump, spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith, accuses the former president of mishandling classified documents, a charge that has been thrust into the spotlight amidst revelations concerning President Joe Biden’s handling of similar materials. In a major development, Cannon specifically touched on the alleged double standard in the application of justice regarding the two cases, notably citing Robert Hur’s explosive report on Biden.

Special Counsel Hur’s recent findings on President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, which include allegations of willful and intentional mismanagement, misleading federal investigators, and potentially compromising national security, have ignited controversy. According to Hur’s report, the severity of Biden’s actions has prompted an Intelligence Community “damage assessment” to evaluate the potential risks to national security.

Amid the reports, Judge Cannon’s scrutiny of the case against Trump was rigorous. Legal analyst Julie Kelly reported that Cannon challenged the Department of Justice’s stance, highlighting the absence of precedent for charging a former president or vice president under the Espionage Act for retaining classified records. The judge’s examination underscored a critical question: If Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents has not led to charges, why should Trump’s case be different?

Cannon’s probing went further, as she questioned the very inception of the “crime” of willfully retaining national defense information, pinpointing the date cited in Smith’s indictment to the day Trump left office. The line of inquiry not only challenged the prosecution’s timeline but also the foundational basis of their case.

Moreover, the judge’s interrogation of the official processes (or the lack thereof) regarding a president’s security clearance post-tenure opened another dimension to the debate. Jay Bratt, representing the special counsel’s office, contended that a president’s clearance automatically expires at the end of their term. The assertion, however, contradicts the longstanding practices of how former government officials maintain clearances, further complicating the legal landscape.

Journalist Kyle Becker writes that today’s developments are great signs for Trump:

That is as clear a signal that the Trump classified documents case is in peril as could have arisen out of the day’s courtroom proceedings.

While both cases may contain elements of technical illegalities, Donald Trump’s case is far less egregious than Joe Biden’s, given the fact Trump was a sitting president with ultimate declassification authority; he stored the documents at Mar-a-Lago, his authorized presidential office away from the White House; and he has further protection by the Presidential Records Act.

Thus, in the event of a “guilty” verdict in the Trump case, it will be a case of “selective and vindictive prosecution” — as blatant a case of election interference in U.S. history.

A Trump guilty verdict would thus be a political outcome subverting the will of American voters. It would be the true “attack on democracy” that the Democratic Party is dishonestly protesting about, while it interferes in America’s elections and compromises institutions such as the rule of law.

If Judge Cannon dismissed the Trump classified documents case with prejudice, it would be a true victory for “democracy.”