Judge Bruce Rinehart said Thursday that he was “not inclined to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed,” during a court hearing between members of the media and the Justice Department. “There are parts of it that could, at least, possibly be unsealed.” Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart, August 18, 2022. Sketch by William Hennessy Jr. Media organizations such as The New York Times, CBS News and others asked the court to unseal the affidavit, arguing that releasing the affidavit would help the public determine whether the Justice Department had legitimate grounds for the investigation. Trump also requested the release of the unredacted affidavit, although his lawyers have not been named as interested parties in the lawsuit. The judge gave prosecutors a week to file their proposed amendments to the affidavit — which likely contains a more detailed account of the reasons behind last week’s Mar-a-Lago search — and said he would rule after this. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division said they objected to the release of the affidavit “to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation involving national security.” That investigation is looking into Trump’s handling of presidential records after the National Archives and Records Administration said in January it had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records, some containing classified national security material, from Mar-a-Lago, and asked the Department of Justice to look into the matter. The Justice Department, with the approval of Attorney General Merrick Garland, sought the search warrant that resulted in the Aug. 6 law enforcement action at Trump’s resort. Reinhart, who has seen the affidavit and reviewed any evidence from investigators, approved the search warrant on Aug. 5. He told the court Thursday that in approving the government warrant, “all the information the court relied on is in the affidavit.” Recently unsealed court documents revealed more about the exact laws investigators say may have been violated: “18 USC § 793 Willful retention of national defense information, 18 USC § 2071 Concealment or removal of government records, and 18 USC § 1519 Obstructing a federal investigation.” “ Last week, the court unsealed the warrant itself with the consent of both Trump’s lawyers and federal prosecutors, an unusual move prompted by the former president’s public acknowledgment of the FBI investigation. The media argued that the affidavit and all other documents related to the investigation should be unsealed, based on the intense public interest in the case. In court Thursday, Jay Bratt, the top Justice Department official leading the investigation, responded: “There is another public interest: that criminal investigations can proceed.” Releasing the affidavit, he argued, would interfere with the investigation, which Bratt said is “in the very early stages.” However, the media argued that at least a revised version should be released because it could satisfy both the public interest in the case and the intention of investigators to continue the investigation without charge. “We the people are the ultimate stakeholders,” said Chuck Tobin on behalf of the media organizations. “Transparency serves the public interest in understanding outcomes. You can’t trust what you can’t see.” “You’re pro-public. You’re the gatekeeper,” Tobin told the judge, who has since received threats from far-right Internet trolls after finding “probable cause” to approve Trump’s warrant. “I’m inclined to say I’m not going to seal the entire document,” Reinhart revealed in court Thursday. He issued an order saying, “I find that on the present record the government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.” Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to propose amendments to the affidavit by next Thursday, after which “I will issue a decision accordingly,” Reinhart said.
“I may agree with the government and we may be done. I may not agree.” Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Trump mishandled classified information after improperly moving documents from the White House to his Florida estate. The former president also claimed he declassified the documents in question before leaving office and denies any wrongdoing. On Thursday, Trump released on social media an order from January 2021, shortly before he leaves office, in which he declassifies federal material linked to the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump and Russia. It’s unclear if those were among the documents found in the Aug. 8 search at Mar-a-Lago. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena related to the probe in the spring, according to sources familiar with the matter, and Trump’s lawyers met at Mar-a-Lago with Justice Department officials later in June. Online news outlet Just the News first reported the subpoena’s existence. A Trump lawyer later signed a document certifying that all classified materials had been removed from Mar-a-Lago, CBS News has learned, but the now-released search warrant inventory created after last week’s search showed that the signed document was incorrect — 11 more sets of classified documents retrieved.

Nicole Sganga

CBS News reporter covering homeland security and justice.

title: “Judge Suggests Parts Of Trump Probe Affidavit Could Be Hypothetically Unsealed Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-08” author: “Jeff Lodge”

Judge Bruce Rinehart said Thursday that he was “not inclined to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed,” during a court hearing between members of the media and the Justice Department. “There are parts of it that could, at least, possibly be unsealed.” Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart, August 18, 2022. Sketch by William Hennessy Jr. Media organizations such as The New York Times, CBS News and others asked the court to unseal the affidavit, arguing that releasing the affidavit would help the public determine whether the Justice Department had legitimate grounds for the investigation. Trump also requested the release of the unredacted affidavit, although his lawyers have not been named as interested parties in the lawsuit. The judge gave prosecutors a week to file their proposed amendments to the affidavit — which likely contains a more detailed account of the reasons behind last week’s Mar-a-Lago search — and said he would rule after this. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division said they objected to the release of the affidavit “to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation involving national security.” That investigation is looking into Trump’s handling of presidential records after the National Archives and Records Administration said in January it had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records, some containing classified national security material, from Mar-a-Lago, and asked the Department of Justice to look into the matter. The Justice Department, with the approval of Attorney General Merrick Garland, sought the search warrant that resulted in the Aug. 6 law enforcement action at Trump’s resort. Reinhart, who has seen the affidavit and reviewed any evidence from investigators, approved the search warrant on Aug. 5. He told the court Thursday that in approving the government warrant, “all the information the court relied on is in the affidavit.” Recently unsealed court documents revealed more about the exact laws investigators say may have been violated: “18 USC § 793 Willful retention of national defense information, 18 USC § 2071 Concealment or removal of government records, and 18 USC § 1519 Obstructing a federal investigation.” “ Last week, the court unsealed the warrant itself with the consent of both Trump’s lawyers and federal prosecutors, an unusual move prompted by the former president’s public acknowledgment of the FBI investigation. The media argued that the affidavit and all other documents related to the investigation should be unsealed, based on the intense public interest in the case. In court Thursday, Jay Bratt, the top Justice Department official leading the investigation, responded: “There is another public interest: that criminal investigations can proceed.” Releasing the affidavit, he argued, would interfere with the investigation, which Bratt said is “in the very early stages.” However, the media argued that at least a revised version should be released because it could satisfy both the public interest in the case and the intention of investigators to continue the investigation without charge. “We the people are the ultimate stakeholders,” said Chuck Tobin on behalf of the media organizations. “Transparency serves the public interest in understanding outcomes. You can’t trust what you can’t see.” “You’re pro-public. You’re the gatekeeper,” Tobin told the judge, who has since received threats from far-right Internet trolls after finding “probable cause” to approve Trump’s warrant. “I’m inclined to say I’m not going to seal the entire document,” Reinhart revealed in court Thursday. He issued an order saying, “I find that on the present record the government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.” Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to propose amendments to the affidavit by next Thursday, after which “I will issue a decision accordingly,” Reinhart said.
“I may agree with the government and we may be done. I may not agree.” Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Trump mishandled classified information after improperly moving documents from the White House to his Florida estate. The former president also claimed he declassified the documents in question before leaving office and denies any wrongdoing. On Thursday, Trump released on social media an order from January 2021, shortly before he leaves office, in which he declassifies federal material linked to the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump and Russia. It’s unclear if those were among the documents found in the Aug. 8 search at Mar-a-Lago. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena related to the probe in the spring, according to sources familiar with the matter, and Trump’s lawyers met at Mar-a-Lago with Justice Department officials later in June. Online news outlet Just the News first reported the subpoena’s existence. A Trump lawyer later signed a document certifying that all classified materials had been removed from Mar-a-Lago, CBS News has learned, but the now-released search warrant inventory created after last week’s search showed that the signed document was incorrect — 11 more sets of classified documents retrieved.

Nicole Sganga

CBS News reporter covering homeland security and justice.

title: “Judge Suggests Parts Of Trump Probe Affidavit Could Be Hypothetically Unsealed Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-18” author: “Carol Zweifel”

Judge Bruce Rinehart said Thursday that he was “not inclined to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed,” during a court hearing between members of the media and the Justice Department. “There are parts of it that could, at least, possibly be unsealed.” Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart, August 18, 2022. Sketch by William Hennessy Jr. Media organizations such as The New York Times, CBS News and others asked the court to unseal the affidavit, arguing that releasing the affidavit would help the public determine whether the Justice Department had legitimate grounds for the investigation. Trump also requested the release of the unredacted affidavit, although his lawyers have not been named as interested parties in the lawsuit. The judge gave prosecutors a week to file their proposed amendments to the affidavit — which likely contains a more detailed account of the reasons behind last week’s Mar-a-Lago search — and said he would rule after this. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division said they objected to the release of the affidavit “to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation involving national security.” That investigation is looking into Trump’s handling of presidential records after the National Archives and Records Administration said in January it had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records, some containing classified national security material, from Mar-a-Lago, and asked the Department of Justice to look into the matter. The Justice Department, with the approval of Attorney General Merrick Garland, sought the search warrant that resulted in the Aug. 6 law enforcement action at Trump’s resort. Reinhart, who has seen the affidavit and reviewed any evidence from investigators, approved the search warrant on Aug. 5. He told the court Thursday that in approving the government warrant, “all the information the court relied on is in the affidavit.” Recently unsealed court documents revealed more about the exact laws investigators say may have been violated: “18 USC § 793 Willful retention of national defense information, 18 USC § 2071 Concealment or removal of government records, and 18 USC § 1519 Obstructing a federal investigation.” “ Last week, the court unsealed the warrant itself with the consent of both Trump’s lawyers and federal prosecutors, an unusual move prompted by the former president’s public acknowledgment of the FBI investigation. The media argued that the affidavit and all other documents related to the investigation should be unsealed, based on the intense public interest in the case. In court Thursday, Jay Bratt, the top Justice Department official leading the investigation, responded: “There is another public interest: that criminal investigations can proceed.” Releasing the affidavit, he argued, would interfere with the investigation, which Bratt said is “in the very early stages.” However, the media argued that at least a revised version should be released because it could satisfy both the public interest in the case and the intention of investigators to continue the investigation without charge. “We the people are the ultimate stakeholders,” said Chuck Tobin on behalf of the media organizations. “Transparency serves the public interest in understanding outcomes. You can’t trust what you can’t see.” “You’re pro-public. You’re the gatekeeper,” Tobin told the judge, who has since received threats from far-right Internet trolls after finding “probable cause” to approve Trump’s warrant. “I’m inclined to say I’m not going to seal the entire document,” Reinhart revealed in court Thursday. He issued an order saying, “I find that on the present record the government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.” Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to propose amendments to the affidavit by next Thursday, after which “I will issue a decision accordingly,” Reinhart said.
“I may agree with the government and we may be done. I may not agree.” Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Trump mishandled classified information after improperly moving documents from the White House to his Florida estate. The former president also claimed he declassified the documents in question before leaving office and denies any wrongdoing. On Thursday, Trump released on social media an order from January 2021, shortly before he leaves office, in which he declassifies federal material linked to the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump and Russia. It’s unclear if those were among the documents found in the Aug. 8 search at Mar-a-Lago. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena related to the probe in the spring, according to sources familiar with the matter, and Trump’s lawyers met at Mar-a-Lago with Justice Department officials later in June. Online news outlet Just the News first reported the subpoena’s existence. A Trump lawyer later signed a document certifying that all classified materials had been removed from Mar-a-Lago, CBS News has learned, but the now-released search warrant inventory created after last week’s search showed that the signed document was incorrect — 11 more sets of classified documents retrieved.

Nicole Sganga

CBS News reporter covering homeland security and justice.

title: “Judge Suggests Parts Of Trump Probe Affidavit Could Be Hypothetically Unsealed Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-10” author: “Julian Laroche”

Judge Bruce Rinehart said Thursday that he was “not inclined to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed,” during a court hearing between members of the media and the Justice Department. “There are parts of it that could, at least, possibly be unsealed.” Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart, August 18, 2022. Sketch by William Hennessy Jr. Media organizations such as The New York Times, CBS News and others asked the court to unseal the affidavit, arguing that releasing the affidavit would help the public determine whether the Justice Department had legitimate grounds for the investigation. Trump also requested the release of the unredacted affidavit, although his lawyers have not been named as interested parties in the lawsuit. The judge gave prosecutors a week to file their proposed amendments to the affidavit — which likely contains a more detailed account of the reasons behind last week’s Mar-a-Lago search — and said he would rule after this. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division said they objected to the release of the affidavit “to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation involving national security.” That investigation is looking into Trump’s handling of presidential records after the National Archives and Records Administration said in January it had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records, some containing classified national security material, from Mar-a-Lago, and asked the Department of Justice to look into the matter. The Justice Department, with the approval of Attorney General Merrick Garland, sought the search warrant that resulted in the Aug. 6 law enforcement action at Trump’s resort. Reinhart, who has seen the affidavit and reviewed any evidence from investigators, approved the search warrant on Aug. 5. He told the court Thursday that in approving the government warrant, “all the information the court relied on is in the affidavit.” Recently unsealed court documents revealed more about the exact laws investigators say may have been violated: “18 USC § 793 Willful retention of national defense information, 18 USC § 2071 Concealment or removal of government records, and 18 USC § 1519 Obstructing a federal investigation.” “ Last week, the court unsealed the warrant itself with the consent of both Trump’s lawyers and federal prosecutors, an unusual move prompted by the former president’s public acknowledgment of the FBI investigation. The media argued that the affidavit and all other documents related to the investigation should be unsealed, based on the intense public interest in the case. In court Thursday, Jay Bratt, the top Justice Department official leading the investigation, responded: “There is another public interest: that criminal investigations can proceed.” Releasing the affidavit, he argued, would interfere with the investigation, which Bratt said is “in the very early stages.” However, the media argued that at least a revised version should be released because it could satisfy both the public interest in the case and the intention of investigators to continue the investigation without charge. “We the people are the ultimate stakeholders,” said Chuck Tobin on behalf of the media organizations. “Transparency serves the public interest in understanding outcomes. You can’t trust what you can’t see.” “You’re pro-public. You’re the gatekeeper,” Tobin told the judge, who has since received threats from far-right Internet trolls after finding “probable cause” to approve Trump’s warrant. “I’m inclined to say I’m not going to seal the entire document,” Reinhart revealed in court Thursday. He issued an order saying, “I find that on the present record the government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.” Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to propose amendments to the affidavit by next Thursday, after which “I will issue a decision accordingly,” Reinhart said.
“I may agree with the government and we may be done. I may not agree.” Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Trump mishandled classified information after improperly moving documents from the White House to his Florida estate. The former president also claimed he declassified the documents in question before leaving office and denies any wrongdoing. On Thursday, Trump released on social media an order from January 2021, shortly before he leaves office, in which he declassifies federal material linked to the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump and Russia. It’s unclear if those were among the documents found in the Aug. 8 search at Mar-a-Lago. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena related to the probe in the spring, according to sources familiar with the matter, and Trump’s lawyers met at Mar-a-Lago with Justice Department officials later in June. Online news outlet Just the News first reported the subpoena’s existence. A Trump lawyer later signed a document certifying that all classified materials had been removed from Mar-a-Lago, CBS News has learned, but the now-released search warrant inventory created after last week’s search showed that the signed document was incorrect — 11 more sets of classified documents retrieved.

Nicole Sganga

CBS News reporter covering homeland security and justice.

title: “Judge Suggests Parts Of Trump Probe Affidavit Could Be Hypothetically Unsealed Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-12” author: “Barbara Desanctis”

Judge Bruce Rinehart said Thursday that he was “not inclined to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed,” during a court hearing between members of the media and the Justice Department. “There are parts of it that could, at least, possibly be unsealed.” Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart, August 18, 2022. Sketch by William Hennessy Jr. Media organizations such as The New York Times, CBS News and others asked the court to unseal the affidavit, arguing that releasing the affidavit would help the public determine whether the Justice Department had legitimate grounds for the investigation. Trump also requested the release of the unredacted affidavit, although his lawyers have not been named as interested parties in the lawsuit. The judge gave prosecutors a week to file their proposed amendments to the affidavit — which likely contains a more detailed account of the reasons behind last week’s Mar-a-Lago search — and said he would rule after this. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division said they objected to the release of the affidavit “to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation involving national security.” That investigation is looking into Trump’s handling of presidential records after the National Archives and Records Administration said in January it had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records, some containing classified national security material, from Mar-a-Lago, and asked the Department of Justice to look into the matter. The Justice Department, with the approval of Attorney General Merrick Garland, sought the search warrant that resulted in the Aug. 6 law enforcement action at Trump’s resort. Reinhart, who has seen the affidavit and reviewed any evidence from investigators, approved the search warrant on Aug. 5. He told the court Thursday that in approving the government warrant, “all the information the court relied on is in the affidavit.” Recently unsealed court documents revealed more about the exact laws investigators say may have been violated: “18 USC § 793 Willful retention of national defense information, 18 USC § 2071 Concealment or removal of government records, and 18 USC § 1519 Obstructing a federal investigation.” “ Last week, the court unsealed the warrant itself with the consent of both Trump’s lawyers and federal prosecutors, an unusual move prompted by the former president’s public acknowledgment of the FBI investigation. The media argued that the affidavit and all other documents related to the investigation should be unsealed, based on the intense public interest in the case. In court Thursday, Jay Bratt, the top Justice Department official leading the investigation, responded: “There is another public interest: that criminal investigations can proceed.” Releasing the affidavit, he argued, would interfere with the investigation, which Bratt said is “in the very early stages.” However, the media argued that at least a revised version should be released because it could satisfy both the public interest in the case and the intention of investigators to continue the investigation without charge. “We the people are the ultimate stakeholders,” said Chuck Tobin on behalf of the media organizations. “Transparency serves the public interest in understanding outcomes. You can’t trust what you can’t see.” “You’re pro-public. You’re the gatekeeper,” Tobin told the judge, who has since received threats from far-right Internet trolls after finding “probable cause” to approve Trump’s warrant. “I’m inclined to say I’m not going to seal the entire document,” Reinhart revealed in court Thursday. He issued an order saying, “I find that on the present record the government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.” Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to propose amendments to the affidavit by next Thursday, after which “I will issue a decision accordingly,” Reinhart said.
“I may agree with the government and we may be done. I may not agree.” Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Trump mishandled classified information after improperly moving documents from the White House to his Florida estate. The former president also claimed he declassified the documents in question before leaving office and denies any wrongdoing. On Thursday, Trump released on social media an order from January 2021, shortly before he leaves office, in which he declassifies federal material linked to the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump and Russia. It’s unclear if those were among the documents found in the Aug. 8 search at Mar-a-Lago. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena related to the probe in the spring, according to sources familiar with the matter, and Trump’s lawyers met at Mar-a-Lago with Justice Department officials later in June. Online news outlet Just the News first reported the subpoena’s existence. A Trump lawyer later signed a document certifying that all classified materials had been removed from Mar-a-Lago, CBS News has learned, but the now-released search warrant inventory created after last week’s search showed that the signed document was incorrect — 11 more sets of classified documents retrieved.

Nicole Sganga

CBS News reporter covering homeland security and justice.