On Monday, a federal judge, Aileen M. Cannon, made a significant ruling regarding the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump. She narrowed the scope of the charges, specifically stating that prosecutors cannot charge him based on an incident where he allegedly showed a highly sensitive military map to a political adviser months after leaving office.
Judge Cannon’s decision was seen as more of a critique of the prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, rather than a major setback to the allegations against Mr. Trump. Although technically removing the incident from the 53-page indictment, prosecutors may still be able to present evidence of it to the jury if the case proceeds to trial.
The incident in question occurred in August or September 2021 at a meeting at Mr. Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J. Prosecutors claim that during the meeting, Trump showed a classified map related to a military operation to a representative of his political action committee, believed to be Susie Wiles, who is now a top adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign.
While this episode illustrates Trump’s handling of classified materials, it is not central to the formal allegations in the case. The focus remains on his removal of sensitive documents from the White House and his subsequent efforts to obstruct the government from retrieving them from Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida.
Despite removing the incident about the map from the indictment, Judge Cannon left untouched a similar allegation from a few months earlier at Trump’s Bedminster property. In that instance, prosecutors claim Trump showed a classified battle plan to a group of people during an interview for a memoir being written by his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
Trump’s lawyers had contested the inclusion of the map as part of a broader attack on the indictment, arguing it was extraneous and irrelevant. Judge Cannon denied their request to dismiss the charges altogether but acknowledged that prosecutors had taken on extra responsibility by using what is known as a “speaking indictment,” which vividly describes events rather than merely listing legal violations.
