By Ashe O Washington 23rd, August : US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed the warrant for the FBI raid on the former residence of President Donald Trump in Florida residence, said on Monday that the Department of Justice (DoJ) might be able to convince him that only a small amount of information contained in the affidavit that prompted the warrant needs to be made public.
He decided that he was “balancing the government’s assertion of a urgent need to seal against the public’s desire in disclosure” The Washington Examiner reported on Monday publishing an original copy of the Affidavit.
Reinhart stated in the court that he believes there are parts that could be uncovered and ordered the government to file a proposal for redactions.
“Allowing access to the unredacted affidavit will not affect the court’s function,” Reinhart said on Monday.
“Having carefully read the affidavit prior to signing the warrant, I amand am satisfied that the information sworn by the affiant’s signature are authentic.Therefore when I released the affidavit to the public wouldn’t cause incorrect information to be distributed.”
The DoJ had last week announced its opposition to publication of the basis for the search, just a few days after it formally agreed to revoke the FBI warrant for the search of Trump’s Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago.
Trump was requesting the release of an unredacted version of the FBI warrant, and also to appoint an outside party, which is neutral, to look over the documents that were sealed.
However, he made no motion with his lawyers about this.
Reinhart stated in his decision on Monday that: “It is a foundational principle of American law that judicial proceedings are accessible to the general public.The right of an individual to access records of a court may be derived from common law or the First Amendment, or both.”
He also added: “Despite the First Amendment right of access, documents can be sealed in the event of an unavoidable government interest.”
The judge stated that “protecting the integrity and confidentiality of the criminal investigation in progress is a widely-recognised significant interest for the government”.
Reinhart declared that “there is a high likelihood that the sealing of the affidavit will compromise legitimate privacy rights” by revealing the identity of the FBI agent who wrote it “as as well as providing evidence which could help find witnesses” and that “these disclosures could hinder the ongoing investigation by causing obstruction of justice, witness intimidation or in retaliation”.
Reinhart stated in his decision “I cannot at this time that the redactions that are partial will be enough to result in an insignificant information, however I could eventually reach that conclusion after further hearing from the government.
“The government claims that the requirement to remove portions of the affidavit which do not reveal the identities of agents or sources for investigation or methods puts an unnecessary cost on its resources, and creates an example that could be difficult and disruptive in future instances.I don’t need to decide of what, in some other cases the same concerns could justify refusing access to the public, but they certainly could.”
In an 11-page ruling in an earlier court case, the judge declared that he might partially un-seal the affidavit, and ordered the DoJ to submit a redacted version of the affidavit of raid.
He has suggested he might permit the DoJ to keep the FBI declaration of the Mar-a-Lago operation mostly sealed but he denied the DoJ’s claims that the reasoning behind the “unprecedented search” should be completely concealed.
The DoJ has tried to keep the affidavit supporting the search secret.
However, Reinhart said: “Particularly given the intense public and historical significance in the unprecedented investigation of the former residence of Presidents The government hasn’t yet proven that these administrative issues are sufficient to justify sealing the affidavit.I therefore do not agree with government arguments that this evidence warrants maintaining the whole affidavit sealed.”
Reinhart stated that a number of outside groups , including the group of conservative advocacy Judicial Watch and a host of media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and an agency had intervened to open the affidavit however, the DoJ “opposes the request to release”.
Reinhart stated that “neither Trump nor anyone else pretending to be the proprietor of the property” at Mar-a-Lago has filed a motion to take an opinion on the release of the affidavit.
Reinhart had requested some documents to be released in redacted forms on Thursday.The cover sheet for a search warrant that was originally made public on 5 August, and later ordered to be released, contained more information about what Justice Department was looking for.
The documents reveal that Trump was under investigation in accordance with 18 U.S.C.793 (part of the Espionage Act) and that it was in connection with “willful keeping of national defense information”.
The un-sealed cover sheet pointed at 18 U.S.C.2071 specifically, the “concealment or destruction of government documents” as well as 18 U.S.C.1519, which is specifically related to “obstruction of federal investigation” according to the Washington Examiner said in a report.
Reinhart explained that he is also in agreement with the DoJ that the affidavit sealed includes information on sources and methods that should be disclosed “would negatively impact the investigation and subsequent investigations”.
He also stated that the affidavit details physical aspects of Mar-a-Lagothat “could affect the ability of the secret service to perform its protective role”.
However, he observed, “unsealing the affidavit could increase the public’s understanding of important historical incidents” and “this aspect weighs in favor of the disclosure”.
Reinhart also referred to the many leaked stories that were not published by Mar-a-Lago’s search.
“No one would dispute the fact that there’s been plenty of public debate regarding this warrant and the investigation that follows,” he noted, adding, “Nevertheless, much of the information presented is based on anonymous sources or hearsay, or speculation and the government has not confirmed its veracity.”
The items confiscated by the FBI in the month of April comprised “various classified or [top secret]/[sensitive compartmented documents,”” four “miscellaneous top secret documents” and three “miscellaneous secret documents” as well as two “miscellaneous confidential documents” as well as one “confidential document”.
Trump and allies of his have claimed he classified the documents, with the former President claiming that he had an “standing order” during the duration of his presidency, which states that “documents that were removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were considered to be classified the moment he took them away”.
Many of ex- Trump administration officials have however disproved that assertion.
ash/arm
