Title: 7 Disturbing Things You Should Know About the Judge who Approved the Trump Raid
The judge that approved the unprecedented raid on Trump’s house is an anti-Trump, judicial activist.
Here are 7 disturbing things you should know about Magistrate Judge Reinhart:
1) The FBI picked the judge
After several failed attempts to get a warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-logo home from a federal judge, the FBI “shopped” around for a judge that would grant the warrant — They found him… Trump hating Florida magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart.
2) The judge is an anti-Trump, Democrat donor.
Reinhart is a lifelong Democrat and gave $1,000 to Obama’s campaign and another $1,000 to the Obama campaign’s fundraising arm, the Obama Victory Fund. He’s supported various Democrat candidates and often re-tweets his agreement with some of the most radical socialist politicians in the House and Senate, especially when they bash President Trump.
3) The judge is a local magistrate, not a federal judge
The FBI has never in its history used a local state magistrate to issue a warrant. They always use federal judges, because an FBI investigation is a federal matter. It’s telling that no federal judge would approve the warrant.
4) The judge should have recused himself because of his anti-Trump positions
Magistrate Judge Reinhart has a history of basing Trump on social media, supporting woke and anti-Trump rhetoric, and should have recused himself from hearing anything related to Trump.
In one of many anti-Trump posts, Reinhart, supported and reposted any comments that accused Trump of lacking “moral stature,” and sharing woke videos about “white privilege.”
On Facebook Reinhart attacked President Trump for his comments about former radical, socialist congressman John Lewis.
“I generally ignore the President-elect’s tweets, but not this one,” said Reinhart. “John Lewis arguably has done more to “make America great” than any living citizen. Last August, I took my son to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma so he could understand the kind of courage and sacrifice required to live in a democratic society. John Lewis embodies that spirit. Although I’ve never met him, he is one of my heroes.”
“Thank you, Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel, “John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.”
In fact, the magistrate acknowledged his bias toward Trump, 6 weeks before the Mar-a-Largo warrant, by recusing himself from President Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats for their involvement in creating the “Russian collusion” story that marred Trump’s presidency.
The Magistrate even cited that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned… They include, a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.”
5) The judge has questionable ethics
Reinhart raised a lot of eyebrows when he left the U.S. Attorney’s office to work on a case involving employees of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Why would Reinhart leave the US Attorney’s office to represent Epstein employees? It defies logic. Did Epstein have something on Reinhart?
6) The judge is a judicial activist appointed by Democrat candidate for governor, Charlie Christ
Reinhart was named in a civil lawsuit by two of Epstein’s victims. They accused him of switching sides in the middle of the Epstein investigation. They claim he supplied inside information about the investigation to the defendant’s attorneys. Reinhart denied the accusations, claiming he did nothing to “cause an ethics conflict.”
7) The judge should have rejected the overly broad DOJ warrant — A violation of Trump’s 4th Amendment rights
The warrant should have never been issued. The Founding Fathers were all too aware of the dangers of “open” warrants — That was the British system, and it was fraught with ways to “frame” innocent people by collecting everything they could with the hopes of finding something incriminating.
That’s why when they drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights they put in provisions that would stop such practices, including “open’ warrants, which they changed to specific warrants — warrants that must list what law enforcement is looking for; i.e. a gun used in a murder or Drugs or Illegal weapons.
The Mar-a-Logo warrant was and “open” warrant, clearly in violation of the 4th Amendment.
What do you think? Email me at craig@craighuey.com
Read another article: Trump’s DC Judge: Bias, Activist, Deep State Coordination.
Comments 2
Dear Craig,
You are so right to defend the Constitutional Right of Donald J. Trump, that forbids search and seizure of an American home in attempts to discover any evidential basis to charge a crime. This is how totalitarian governments have operated to imprison their opponents. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”, is their mantra.
If a desperate leader is willing to violate the 4th Amendment to the Constitution in order to harm an opponent, it is not a stretch to believe that they would also consider planting evidence and leaving unlawful surveillance devices. This is what has been attempted with President Trump and if unchecked might be done to any American as long as we have “magistrates” who are hand picked to serve government investigators.
From a USA Veteran who took the oath to defend the Constitution of the USA which others have died for.
I am wondering if the secret service could have denied entrance of the FBI on the grounds that they were presenting and unconstitutional open warrant?