Judge said he's willing to release further documents detailing Mar-a-Lago search

WEST PALM BEACH — A federal magistrate judge Thursday said he was willing to release parts of a document that details what information the Justice Department had that prompted last week’s court-approved search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach.

While acknowledging federal prosecutors’ concerns about national security and the need to make sure witnesses and federal agents are protected, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart sided with attorneys for more than a dozen news organizations.

The media attorneys argued that the public deserves as much information as possible about the unprecedented search of a former president’s home.

“I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be fully sealed,” Reinhart said at the conclusion of a roughly 75-minute hearing at U.S. District Court on Clematis Street.

“There are parts of it that can presumptively be unsealed.”

Search affidavit: Though Mar-a-Lago warrant released, Palm Beach Post asking court for entire documents

Mar-a-Lago search: Donald Trump knows what FBI agents took and why they took it, experts say

Media lawyers: Revealing affidavit related to Mar-a-Lago search would curb speculation

Echoing concerns voiced by federal prosecutors, he acknowledged that what is ultimately released could be “meaningless gibberish.”

Appeals could delay release for weeks

And, it is possible that appeals could delay the release of the probable cause affidavit release for weeks, if not months.

He gave federal prosecutors until next Thursday to give him a redacted version of the affidavit and to explain why they believe other parts of it should remain sealed.

Attorney Jay Bratt, chief of the Department of Justice's counterintelligence and export control section, said little information in the document could be released without compromising an investigation that involves national security.

Once necessary redactions are made, “there would be nothing of substance that would remain in the affidavit,” Bratt said.

“It serves no purpose,” he said of the release of a heavily redacted document. “It doesn’t edify the public in any way.”

Further, he said, it could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for others to pierce the secrecy and compromise ongoing investigations.

Reinhart, who read the affidavit Aug. 5 before signing off on the search warrant, said he would review the government’s proposed redactions. If he believes more can be released, he said he would alert the government lawyers.

He said he would either meet with them to discuss the redactions or send them his suggestions for review.

He promised to work quickly. “If I decide the media has a right to get it, I want to assure they get it in a timely fashion,” he said.

However, his decision wouldn’t be final. It can be appealed to a district court judge and then, if necessary, to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

His decision was a stunning victory for the media organizations and nonprofit government watchdog groups who joined the quest to have the affidavit released.

Trump lawyers not at hearing

Trump has used his social media platform to demand the government release the document. But, his lawyers didn’t intervene in the lawsuit and didn’t participate in the hearing. One of his attorneys, Christina Bobb, was in the courtroom.

With death threats directed at Reinhart on social media, security was tight. Federal law enforcement officers and local police patrolled outside the building where tents were set up by news crews. About six U.S. marshals stood watch in the wood-paneled courtroom that was filled with reporters.

Other than the media, only a handful of people watched the hearings. One man said he was just curious. “I’m not a Trumpster,” he said.

While encouraging Reinhart to keep the document sealed, Bratt emphasized that media lawyers couldn’t find one case in which a judge has ever authorized the release of a search warrant affidavit while an investigation was ongoing.

But, media attorneys countered, the circumstances were unprecedented.

“The raid on Mar-a-Lago is already one of the most significant events in our nation’s history,” said attorney Charles Tobin, who spoke on behalf of news organizations, including The Palm Beach Post, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and CNN and other national networks. “The public’s interest could not be greater.”

Further, he said, some of the information the Department of Justice gathered that spurred the search has already been widely reported.

Sources told The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and other news organizations that federal officials had reason to believe that documents, related to nuclear weapons and other classified information, were in boxes at Trump’s home that also serves as a private club.

News outlets have also reported that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) contacted the Justice Department after it in January removed 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago. They have also reported that a grand jury is looking into allegations that secret materials were taken to the estate after Trump left office.

Bratt said he wouldn’t confirm the accuracy of the reports. And, Reinhart said, he, too, wouldn’t accept the reports, most attributed to unnamed sources, as factual.

“No disrespect to your clients, but just because a newspaper says an anonymous source says the NARA says this … I’m not sure how much weight I can give that,” Reinhart said.

But, Tobin countered, the Justice Department has already taken the unusual step of allowing the public release of the search warrant and a list of the items taken from Mar-a-Lago.

Some documents removed from Mar-a-Lago labeled top secret by FBI

Those documents, released last week, showed that FBI agents labeled some of the materials they retrieved as top secret. The search warrant showed Trump is under investigation for possible violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

More transparency is needed to end speculation that has only increased the partisan divide in the country, Tobin said.

He suggested that Reinhart redact the affidavit so information that has already been reported is released to the public.

Reinhart said it would be a herculean task to chase down every news story that has been published about the search.

“It would be a dangerous path to go down,” he said. “I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of everything that’s been reported. It’s an endless spiral.”

Attorney James Moon, who represents the nonprofit conservative activist group Judicial Watch, suggested that Reinhart only address the 13 news items Tobin listed in his request and compare them to what prosecutors detailed in the affidavit.

“The public not only needs it but would be especially served by seeing justice performed,” Moon said.

While Reinhart offered no details of what he might ultimately release, the examples he offered were limited. For instance, he said he could release parts of the documents that explain what laws might have been violated or the credentials of the lead investigator.

He said some information, such as grand jury testimony or the names of undercover agents and witnesses, would be clearly off-limits.

Bratt said the information is sensitive. Witnesses could be easily identified.

“The court is aware of what several witnesses said. Only certain people would have that knowledge,” he said.

In addition to government officials, an army of online “amateur sleuths” could also learn their identities, Bratt said.

To underscore the danger, he pointed to last week’s attack on an FBI office in Cincinnati and mentioned death threats that were made to agents whose names weren’t redacted during an unofficial release of the search warrant.

“It’s a significant concern and a threat in this case,” Bratt said.

Reinhart said steps would be taken to make sure people were protected and the investigation isn’t compromised. But, he said, some of the information should be made public.

“I am inclined to say I’m not going to seal the entire affidavit,” he said.

Palm Beach Post staff reporter Stephany Matat contributed to this report.

Jane Musgrave covers federal and civil courts and occasionally ventures into criminal trials in state court. Contact her at jmusgrave@pbpost.com.

Hannah Phillips is a journalist covering public safety and criminal justice at The Palm Beach Post. You can reach her at hphillips@pbpost.com.

This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Judge Bruce Reinhart: Mar-a-Lago search affidavit parts can be public