Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against the Left: HERE.
After Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed off on the Biden administration’s illegal raid on Mar-a-Lago, conservatives flagged the former prosecutor’s work for Jeffrey Epstein.
Reinhart had begun setting up his legal practice while the Epstein plea deal was being negotiated and he went to work for Epstein the day after he left the U.S. Attorney’s office and approximately half a year after the dubious federal plea deal had been handed to Epstein.
A complaint filed by a lawyer for the victims to then U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer, a Janet Reno protege out of the Clinton administration, claimed that, “within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed”, Reinhart opened a criminal defense law office on the same floor as Epstein’s lead criminal defense lawyer that was located next door to Epstein’s ‘Florida Science Foundation’ which the sex offender used to bring in girls while on ‘work release’ from prison.
The letter charged that Reinhart’s work for Epstein involved “the exact same crimes and same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney’s office when he was employed there.”
But the media shot back that Reinhart was a “respected figure” and the former prosecutor claimed that he had not been involved in Epstein’s criminal case and had “never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter”. However the complaint cited statements from the U.S. Attorney’s office that he had “learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter” while working in the office and had “discussed the Epstein matter with another Assistant U.S. Attorney working on the Epstein matter.”
Reinhart told the Miami Herald that he didn’t represent Epstein, only Epstein’s employees, his pilot, and Sarah Kellen, Epstein’s ‘scheduler’, described as an ‘assistant’ to Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly kept the information of the girls being brought to Epstein, and Nadia Marcinkova, an Epstein associate who allegedly participated in sexual acts with at least one underage girl, and whom some have described as Epstein’s “sex slave.”.
Considering the nature of the ‘employees’, this wasn’t much of a defense. Kellen and Marcinkova had been listed as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the federal deal. A deposition in the Epstein Files of a woman whose name was redacted and was represented by Reinhart has him encouraging her to plead the Fifth to virtually any question about Epstein.
But it gets worse.
The release of the Epstein Files exposed a direct exchange between Epstein and Reinhart in which Epstein sent Reinhart an email asking him to find the probation officer of a “federal absconder”.Reinheart did not ask Epstein why he wanted to locate this particular woman.
Despite being well aware of Epstein’s history and legal troubles, Reinhart emailed the sex offender to say that “my inside source is waiting to hear back from knowledgeable people.”
Who was Reinhart’s “inside source”? The terminology implies that Reinhart wasn’t working through the conventional system, but relying on inside favors from people in the Justice Department. If the email is real, it also shows that Reinhart was actually working for Epstein directly and that he did not tell the truth when he claimed to only be representing his employees.
Whom was Epstein trying to locate?
The woman in question had been convicted of some unnamed offense in New York and then fled out west. Reinhart suspected that she was in Montana, while Epstein claimed that she was in Arizona. The name of the woman has been redacted, but one of the earliest complaints against Epstein came from two sisters, one of whom had been living in New York and another who had been living in Arizona, and were interviewed by the FBI during the first Epstein case.
By 2009, Epstein was less worried about local or federal charges, and was looking to stave off lawsuits by victims and to nail down the most lenient conditions for his parole.
In one email to Reinhart and his lawyer, Epstein set out what appeared to be an argument for favorable release conditions including “BARRY LANNA ( NO VICTIMS)”. This was a reference to his two Palm Beach prosecutors, Barry Krischer, who had aggressively gone after Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, while giving Epstein a pass, and Lanna Belohlavek.
In another email, Epstein mentioned that “the New York d.a. would like to talk to either barry or lanna to get their sense of the level of sex offender requirements.” The New York DA’s office under Cy Vance Jr, the son of a Carter administration figure, would shock the judge by illegally taking Epstein off the sex offender list.
The insistence that there were “no victims” was important. Any victims would push Epstein inescapably onto the sex offender list and destroy the comeback image he was working to cultivate. Some of the powerful men who would later associate with Epstein had repeated the argument that they believed that there were no victims and it was just a ‘prostitution’ issue.
Was Epstein trying to ‘nail down’ potential victims or witnesses or get them in trouble?
Seeking a location and a probation officer for a woman he was describing as a “federal absconder” suggests the latter is an unfortunately plausible interpretation. Whatever was going on, the future Judge Reinhart was telling a known sex offender and predator that he was using an “inside source” to track down the location and status of a woman.
Who was the source? Who was the victim? Was she an Epstein victim or associate?
When this story originally broke after the Mar-a-Lago raid on the Trump estate, the media rushed to defend the legitimacy of Biden’s illegal raid on his prospective political opponent.
USA Today put out a false ‘fact check’ based on Reinhart’s claim denying that he had been Epstein’s lawyer. The fact check was used to censor conservatives on Facebook. I have reached out to USA Today requesting a retraction of its false ‘fact check’.
The defenses used to cover for Reinhart no longer hold up in the wake of the Epstein Files.
Reinhart was acting as Epstein’s lawyer, at his beck and call, rushing to meet with him, and using supposed “inside sources” to help him, and had done so much work for him that by 2009, the former prosecutor had billed him for over $62,000 in legal work and by 2010, he was complaining that Epstein owed him $40,000 in unpaid legal bills. Lawyers have the right to represent their clients, no matter how terrible they are, but former prosecutors are expected to maintain a wall between their past work and their future clients. And judges are expected to tell the truth in public statements to the media. There are major issues in all of these areas.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center recently announced our new ‘Judicial Accountability Project’ whose goal is holding federal judges accountable. Reinhart is a federal magistrate Judge. Magistrate judges do not serve for life and can be removed by district judges. But if they choose not to do so, Congress can act to remove Judge Reinhart from his position.
The House Judiciary Committee can subpoena Judge Reinhart, force him to testify about his work for Epstein, and impeach him for ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ There is a misconception that this represents a high bar, but historically it does not. The first impeachment of a federal judge had him charged with ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ for drunkenness on the bench. If those charges could clear the bar under Madison and Jefferson, anything can.
Members of Congress should be given the opportunity to question Judge Reinhart and vote to remove him. An expedited process in which a Senate committee, rather than the full Senate, could hear charges and issue a recommendation to the Senate, could speed up the process.
If Congress won’t remove Epstein’s lawyer from a judgeship, whom would it remove?
Got a ‘Bad Judge’ who has violated the responsibilities and duties of his office? Send your evidence to the Judicial Accountability Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
