Former President Donald Trump made a notable appearance in court for a crucial closed-door meeting with Trump-appointed Federal Judge Aileen Cannon and his legal team to discuss classified evidence in his Espionage Act case. This high-stakes encounter follows a 22-page motion filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, identifying what he deemed as “clear errors” by Judge Cannon, potentially putting witnesses at unnecessary risk.
Trump’s visit to the federal courthouse occurred after his participation in a Super Bowl LVIII party at his resort, where he was seen dancing with cheerleaders. The in-chambers conference involved Trump and his attorneys meeting privately with Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, without the presence of prosecutors. Smith and his team were scheduled to meet with the judge subsequently.
The closed-door hearing aimed to delve into the case details extensively, with Trump’s defense arguing for access to classified evidence that has not been disclosed to them or their clients. Prosecutors and intelligence agencies sought to limit access, potentially providing only summaries due to the sensitivity of the information.
Trump arrived at the federal courthouse Monday morning as he and his attorneys plan to meet for several hours with Cannon in a closed-door hearing without prosecutors present to discuss the case “in detail,” according to court documents. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team will meet with Cannon afterward.
The defense lawyers will argue for access to classified evidence in the case they or their clients haven’t yet seen – and that prosecutors and intelligence agencies seek to keep from them, potentially giving them only summaries of the information because of how sensitive it is, according to the court record.
The legal saga began with an FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort home in August 2022, leading to Trump’s arrest and arraignment on 37 counts related to violations of the Espionage Act. Critics have accused Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, of slowing down the case and issuing rulings unfavorable to the prosecution.
Smith’s recent filing accused Judge Cannon of “clear error” and raised concerns about the safety of witnesses. The revelation of witnesses’ identities or the substance of their FBI interviews could expose them to harassment and intimidation, particularly in what Smith referred to as “Trump world.” One witness, mentioned in the sealed ex parte exhibit, declined to have their interview recorded due to perceived risks. The exhibit also contained information about other potential witnesses, non-public details about the case, and speculation about witness tampering by an uncharged individual.
(R)evelation of these witnesses’ identities, or the substance of their interviews with the FBI, dangerously risks exposing them to the same type of harassment and intimidation described above and experienced by the witness in the sealed ex parte exhibit. Indeed, the witness whose statement appears in Exhibit D declined to have his interview recorded, citing the associated risks to him in “Trump world” of doing so. Exhibit D also contains the witness’s opinions about other potential witnesses and information about the case that other witnesses have revealed, but that are not public, as well as information about uncharged potentially obstructive conduct by a defendant, and speculation about witness tampering by an uncharged individual.
The proceedings underscore the contentious nature of the Espionage Act case, with both the defense and prosecution clashing over access to classified evidence and concerns about witness safety. The closed-door nature of the meetings highlights the sensitivity of the information being discussed. Smith’s accusations against Judge Cannon further intensify the already complex legal battle surrounding Trump’s post-presidential legal challenges.
