In July 2021, this involved a document about attacking Iran which Trump allegedly called “highly confidential” and “secret,” and which he acknowledged he has not declassified (despite his public claims about such documents). In August or September 2021, it involved Trump displaying a classified map of an unknown country and allegedly telling his guest not to get too close.

As that latter instance demonstrates, it’s not clear exactly how closely the documents were shown to his visitors or whether they would have gleaned sensitive information. (The former also involves Trump consulting with someone on whether it could be shared and seemingly waving around papers.) The government summarizes these cases by saying Trump “showed classified documents to others.”

It’s worth emphasizing that Trump has not been charged specifically for sharing such information; the government included these instances apparently to reinforce that Trump knew how sensitive the information he had was.

But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t still be charged for that. And politically speaking, given the GOP’s defenses have focused on the idea that no harm was done and on comparisons to other instances of high-ranking officials merely possessing classified documents, these scenes could figure significantly not just in the legal case but the court of public opinion.

The other most significant revelations in the indictment came in the form of notes and testimony from Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran. In multiple instances, these pointed to Trump hinting at the idea that certain documents not be returned or possibly even disappear.

Getting information from Corcoran was a major coup for the government, given attorney-client information is generally privileged. In this case, it was ruled that the information pertained to a potential crime. And we have now found out why.

There is no question that the government appears set to lean extensively on information gleaned from Corcoran, of which we so far only have snippets and could presumably learn quite a bit more.

One question is whether Trump’s legal team can try to prevent such information from being used at trial. It could also push to dismiss the charges by saying such information should have remained private. But the bigger issue would seem to be precisely how much we’ll learn from Corcoran.

Related to those questions is the judge who will apparently be presiding, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon. Nominated to the bench by Trump himself in 2020, she gained notoriety last year by issuing a ruling in Trump’s favor.

Cannon initially held up the FBI’s review of documents seized in its August search of Mar-a-Lago by appointing an expert, known as a special master, to review the materials. Her ruling was later roundly and unanimously reversed by a panel of conservative appeals court judges, who said she had “abused” her “discretion” in the case.

Initially when Cannon was selected for the criminal case, many Trump critics called for her recusal given all of the above. It appears she has no duty to do so.

Should she remain on the case, she could exercise considerable control through procedural matters like pretrial motions on evidence (such as the Corcoran evidence) and even a potential dismissal. Her decisions on such matters could influence how the case is perceived publicly. Her decisions will also bear upon when the trial takes place and whether it will be resolved before voters vote. She would also be in charge of a potential sentence if Trump is convicted.

It will also be something of a trial by fire for Cannon, 42. As the New York Times notes, she has precious little experience presiding over criminal cases, totaling 14 trial days over four cases that proceeded that far during her tenure on the bench.

Despite the legal wrangling that has taken place over many months, it’s not at all clear how Trump’s lawyers might defend him.

Some former Trump allies like ex-attorney general William P. Barr have described the evidence as damning and a relatively easy case to prove. Recently departed Trump lawyer Timothy Parlatore remarked to the Daily Beast, “It’s really bad ... if they have the evidence to back it all up.”

Trump’s lawyers could try to argue that key documents don’t fit the definition of national defense information, but the volume of it and the high classification statuses suggest that would be very difficult to do on a large scale.

Trump was indicted alongside one man, longtime aide and valet Walt Nauta, who allegedly assisted Trump in moving boxes in ways that prosecutors say was meant to hide what Trump had. He faces six counts including obstruction of justice, conspiracy and lying to investigators.

The conventional wisdom is that Nauta faces a potentially damning fact pattern, particularly for allegedly lying to investigators, raising the possibility that he could be tempted to flip on Trump, as other allies have in the past.

Nauta’s attorneys have previously told The Washington Post that he was indeed cooperating with investigators, but there are surely different levels of cooperation. And the decision to charge Nauta alongside Trump sends a signal about his central role in this alleged scheme.

For now, there is little evidence that will be the case. After the two were processed Tuesday, Nauta and Trump appeared at a Miami cafe together. The two of them are prohibited from discussing the case, but Trump clearly would like to keep him close.

This is one of the unhappy aspects of this case. Not only don’t we really know what was in the documents, but the documents are in some cases apparently so sensitive that the government even redacted their classification status from the indictment.

While the case will hinge on whether the documents qualify as national defense information, perceptions of Trump’s conduct will surely also hinge on what we know about how sensitive that information was — and accordingly, how seriously Trump put our national security at risk.

We know some things about the documents thanks to public reporting and comparing the indictment to the known faces. They include that the one he showed off in July 2021 had to do with attacking Iran. We also know nuclear information is involved. But we don’t even know, for example, what country’s map he allegedly showed off later in 2021.

And it might be difficult to truly get a handle on all of it. Precautions will surely be taken to safeguard such information, including potentially from jurors themselves given they don’t have security clearances. That might mean we never truly get the full picture of Trump’s conduct.