In an order issued Monday, Southern District of Florida United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart let it be known that he does not intend to release any information from the Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit that would be helpful to TFG.
Last Thursday, Reinhart held a hearing to address motions made by a group of media organizations (the “Intervenors”) to unseal the Affidavit supporting the Search Warrant used to seize the Mar-a-Lago documents that were illegally held by TFG (allegedly).
For those who are unfamiliar, the Affidavit is the document that was used to provide evidence to the magistrate judge demonstrating that the FBI/DOJ had probable cause to conclude laws were broken, and provided the basis for him to issue a Search Warrant for the documents at Mar-a-Lago. As such, it lays out the who’s, what’s, where’s, and why’s of the investigation, including secret grand jury findings. Clearly, the DOJ/FBI would not want the entire Affidavit made public, as it could tip off their investigative moves, reveal witnesses, endanger agents, etc. The media Intervenors argue that the public has a right to know, and petitioned the Court to release the Affidavit in its entirety. Drumph, in his typical “have my cake an eat it too” style, mouthed off in the media claiming the FBI was hiding the Affidavit and demanded it be made public — yet his “legal team” took no formal legal action to move for its release, likely because they believe its contents will make Il-Douché look even worse than he already does.
At the conclusion of the August 18 hearing, Reinhart ruled from the bench that the DOJ had not met its burden for keeping the Affidavit sealed, and ordered them to propose a redacted version by Noon, August 25. Several media outlets were quick to label this ruling as an affirmation that the DOJ/FBI are trying to hide something, with Faux News proclaiming ”Judge Reinhart formally rejects DOJ argument to keep Trump affidavit sealed, calls raid 'unprecedented” .
Today, Reinhart issued an order memorializing and supplementing oral rulings of August 18, which sheds a little more light on what he intends to do. The salient excerpts are outlined below, but the TLDR version is:
- Reinhart agrees with the DOJ/FBI that protecting the investigation, witnesses, agents, etc, outweighs the public interest, so the full Affidavit will not be unsealed
- Interestingly, he says that his reasoning is based in part on the fact that FBI agents were threatened when an unredacted version of the Search Warrant that contained their names was released. This unredacted version was published by right wing scumbag rag Breitbart News, who presumably received if from TFG — it’s nice to see the Treasonous Tangerine’s efforts to target law enforcement are blowing back on him.
- While Reinhart appears unwilling to release any juicy bits of the Affidavit that would allow The Slobfather to target witnesses, obstruct justice, or otherwise attempt to get one step ahead of the law in this case, he has asked that the DOJ, in the interest of maximizing public transparency, propose a redacted version of the Affidavit that protects the interests of the investigation, while still providing some meaningful information to the public.
- Once the DOJ has submitted its proposed redacted version of the Affidavit on Aug 22, Reinhart will either:
- Accept and release the DOJ’s version
- Create and release his own redacted version
- Decide that properly redacting the Affidavit renders it meaningless to the public, and deny the motion to unseal it
Note that if the DOJ is unhappy with Reinhart’s decision, they may appeal it, in which case the Affidavit would almost certainly remain sealed until the appeals process plays out. That would likely take months, by which time the investigation may advance to the point that keeping it under seal is no longer be required. In other words, the DOJ could appropriate TFG’s go-to “delay move”, and use it against him for a change. Karma’s a bitch!
With any luck, a redacted version of the Affidavit will be unsealed that reveals just enough information to further demonstrate just how guilty TFG appears to be, but not enough to help him to dig himself out of the hole he is in. This could be another instance of Garland calling TFG’s bluff.
Excerpts from Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s
August 22 Order on Unsealing the Mara-a-Lago Search Affidavit
- In the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, the legitimate governmental concerns include whether:
- witnesses will be unwilling to cooperate and provide truthful information if their identities might be publicly disclosed;
- law enforcement’s ability to use certain investigative techniques in the future may be compromised if these techniques become known to the public;
- there will be an increased risk of obstruction of justice or subornation of perjury if subjects of investigation know the investigative sources and methods;
- At the pre-indictment stage, the Government’s need to conceal the scope and direction of its investigation, as well as its investigative sources and methods, is at its zenith. Maximizing the Government’s access to untainted facts increases its ability to make a fully-informed prosecutive decision while also minimizing the effects on third parties.
- As the Government aptly noted at the hearing, these concerns are not hypothetical in this case. One of the statutes for which I found probable cause was 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which prohibits obstructing an investigation.
- Also, as some of the media Intervenors have reported, there have been increased threats against FBI personnel since the search.
- An armed man attempted to infiltrate the FBI Office in Cincinnati,Ohio on August 11, three days after the search.
- After the public release of an unredacted copy of the Inventory, FBI agents involved in this investigation were threatened and harassed.
- Given the public notoriety and controversy about this search, it is likely that even witnesses who are not expressly named in the Affidavit would be quickly and broadly identified over social media and other communication channels, which could lead to them being harassed and intimidated.
- Balancing the Government’s asserted compelling need for sealing against the public’s interest in disclosure, I give great weight to the following factors:
- There is a significant likelihood that unsealing the Affidavit would harm legitimate privacy interests by directly disclosing the identity of the affiant as well as providing evidence that could be used to identify witnesses. As discussed above, these disclosures could then impede the ongoing investigation through obstruction of justice and witness intimidation or retaliation. This factor weighs in favor of sealing.
- The Affidavit discloses the sources and methods used by the Government in its ongoing investigation. I agree with the Government that the Affidavit “contains, among other critically important and detailed investigative facts: highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government; specific investigative techniques; and information required by law to be kept under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).” ECF No. 59 at 8. Disclosure of these facts would detrimentally affect this investigation and future investigations. This factor weighs in favor of sealing.
- The Affidavit discusses physical aspects of the Premises, which is a location protected by the United States Secret Service. Disclosure of those details could affect the Secret Service’s ability to carry out its protective function. This factor weighs in favor of sealing
- No one disputes that there has been much public discourse about this Warrant and the related investigation. [...] Nevertheless, much of the information being discussed is based on anonymous sources, speculation, or hearsay; the Government has not confirmed its accuracy. In any event, these arguments ignore that the contents of the Affidavit identify not just the facts known to the Government, but the sources and methods (i.e., the witnesses and the investigative techniques) used to gather those facts. That information is not known to the public. For the reasons discussed above, the Government has a compelling reason not to publicize that information at this time.
- After weighing all the relevant factors, I find that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause/a compelling interest that overrides any public interest
- I must still consider whether there is a less onerous alternative to sealing the entire document. The Government argues that redacting the Affidavit and unsealing it in part is not a viable option because the necessary redactions “would be so extensive as to render the document devoid of content that would meaningfully enhance the public’s understanding of these events beyond the information already now in the public record.” [...] I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government.
- In its Response, the Government asked that I give it an opportunity to propose redactions if I declined to seal the entire Affidavit. I granted that request and gave the Government a deadline of noon on Thursday August 25, 2022. ECF No. 74. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that by the deadline, the Government shall file under seal a submission addressing possible redactions and providing any additional evidence or legal argument that the Government believes relevant to the pending Motions to Unseal