In a federal case against former President Donald Trump and two associates involving classified documents, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied a request to dismiss charges, but did agree to strike a paragraph from the indictment that defense lawyers deemed prejudicial. The paragraph in question involved allegations that Trump showed a classified map of a foreign country to a representative of his political action committee while discussing a military operation. Cannon also criticized special counsel Jack Smith’s team for including language in charging documents that was legally unnecessary, causing confusion in the allegations. The judge postponed a trial that had been set for May 20 in Florida due to various pretrial motions and disputes that have arisen in the case. Additional arguments are scheduled for later in the month, including a challenge by Trump to the legality and funding of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.
Legal experts had initially viewed the classified documents case as straightforward, with allegations that Trump illegally kept classified documents from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate and hindered FBI efforts to retrieve them. The defendants had sought to dismiss several of the counts in the indictment, but Cannon rejected their challenge, stating that the identified deficiencies did not warrant dismissal. The defendants had questioned counts related to obstruction and false statements, but Cannon ruled that these challenges were either permitted by law, raised evidentiary issues not suitable for dismissal at this stage, or could be addressed through appropriate jury instructions and verdict forms.
The indictment accuses Trump of conspiring with his valet, Walt Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira to hide sensitive files from the government. One of the motions to dismiss had claimed that Trump was authorized under the Presidential Records Act to retain the documents after leaving the White House and designate them as personal files. However, Cannon had previously rejected this argument, along with other motions to dismiss the case. The delays in the case have been significant, with motions and disputes causing a backlog of unresolved issues that have impeded the trial’s progress. The judge’s decision to strike a portion of the indictment while keeping the rest intact illustrates the complexity and contentious nature of the case, which continues to generate legal challenges and controversies.
