Judge Aileen Cannon threw out one basis for the case against the former president, involving a highly sensitive military map he showed an aide after leaving office.
Trump has been charged with illegally retaining documents he should not have kept, and for not properly securing sensitive documents.
In a separate incident, Trump showed a classified map of an ongoing military operation to an aide who had neither the security clearance nor any need to see the map.
Trump may have committed a crime in showing the map to the aide, but that wasn’t one of the crimes he was indicted for in this case.
The incident was included in the charges as an example of a pattern of behavior.
The judge ruled that the incident should not be included in the charges, because it’s not directly related to the retention or mishandling of documents.
The prosecution can still present evidence of the incident to the jury as evidence of a pattern of careless ambivalence towards information security, with the judge’s permission (she might say no, but there is very little legal justification for that).
This has very little impact on the trial, but it is indicative of the mood of the Judge, who used this ruling as an opportunity to admonish the prosecution for embellishing the charges. It is crystal clear that the judge will take every legal opportunity to assist Trump, and the only question is how far outside the law she will go (or be allowed to go).
Trump has been charged with illegally retaining documents he should not have kept, and for not properly securing sensitive documents.
In a separate incident, Trump showed a classified map of an ongoing military operation to an aide who had neither the security clearance nor any need to see the map.
Trump may have committed a crime in showing the map to the aide, but that wasn’t one of the crimes he was indicted for in this case.
The incident was included in the charges as an example of a pattern of behavior.
The judge ruled that the incident should not be included in the charges, because it’s not directly related to the retention or mishandling of documents.
The prosecution can still present evidence of the incident to the jury as evidence of a pattern of careless ambivalence towards information security, with the judge’s permission (she might say no, but there is very little legal justification for that).
This has very little impact on the trial, but it is indicative of the mood of the Judge, who used this ruling as an opportunity to admonish the prosecution for embellishing the charges. It is crystal clear that the judge will take every legal opportunity to assist Trump, and the only question is how far outside the law she will go (or be allowed to go).