The Department of Justice must now respond to motions to unseal the warrant behind the FBI’s raid of the 45th President Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. The same judge who approved the unprecedented
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the same Reinhart that represented Jeffrey Esptein top associates who I believed to have signed off on the still-sealed FBI warrant approving the Bureau’s Trump raid, said the DOJ must now “file a Response to the Motion to Unseal” following efforts by Albany-based news outlet the Times Union. Another group The Conservative Advocacy group Judicial Watch requested the DOJ make it public as well.
Reinhart said the DOJ’s response may be filed “ex party and under seal as necessary to avoid disclosing matters already under seal.” This means that the full response may be secret but that “the Government shall file a redacted Response in the public record” also.
Judicial Watch wrote that it is “investigating the potential politicization” of the FBI and the DOJ and whether they are “abusing their law enforcement powers to harass a likely future political opponent of President Biden” and that “if the Court were to unseal the materials, Judicial Watch would obtain the materials, analyze them, and make them available to the public.”
Reinhart said that the “Government may file a consolidated Response to all Motions to Seal” and that the DOJ will have until Monday to respond.
How corrupt is the Department of Justice when Reinhart’s page for The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida was removed from its website late Tuesday afternoon after his connection to Epstein went viral on social media?
“Access denied,” Reinhart’s page now reads. “You are not authorized to access this page.”
Reinhart was appointed by district judges to his current position as a magistrate judge in 2018.
The judge also recused himself from a civil lawsuit involving Trump and his 2016 presidential opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Trump sued Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and numerous political entities and figures in March for promoting stories that alleged Trump was colluding with Russia during the 2016 election.
Reinhart recused himself from the case on June 22, citing a portion of the U.S. code that requires any magistrate judges to disqualify themselves if they have a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
Reinhart did not specify in his recusal if the party he had a personal bias or prejudice toward was Trump, Clinton, or one or more of the dozens of other defendants in the lawsuit.
Thanks to our friends at The Washington Examiner for contributing to this article.
You can support The DC Patriot at the links below
FaithNFreedoms.com – Our Apparel Brand
PreparewithMatt.com – Long lasting food from our friends at My Patriot Supply
Patreon.com/MattCouch – Support our work on Patreon
Cash App: https://cash.app/$TheDCPatriot