Taking “political persecution” to court, former President Donald Trump set a nine-figure target when his lawyer filed a notice to sue the Justice Department over the Mar-a-Lago attack.
Just over two years after the FBI took unprecedented action against a former president and raided Trump's home in Palm Beach, Florida, the dismissal of the case cleared the way for the GOP leader to strike back.
Following U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling that Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel in the documents case was illegal, and the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, Atty. of Trump, Daniel Epstein, filed claims that “the criminal acts against the President are rooted in intrusive seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process as a result of the August 8, 2022, attack on his home and of his family at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.”
reports note detailsFox News indicated that the DOJ had 180 days after receiving it to respond with a resolution or the case would be moved to a federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
“What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself, he's standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold government accountable when it hurts you.” Epstein told Fox Business' Lydia. Huh.
BREAKING: Donald Trump is suing the Justice Department for $100 million over the 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to Fox News.
Trump's lawyers argue that the attack was carried out with “clear intent to engage in political persecution.”
“What President Trump is doing here… pic.twitter.com/JLUcGsFH9C
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 12, 2024
Highlighting the roles of Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray in the decisions made about the attack, the court document stated that there was “a clear lack of constitutional principles, inconsistent rules applied to [Trump]” and a “clear intent to engage in political persecution, not to advance good law enforcement practices.”
“Garland and Wray should never have approved a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because the well-established protocol with former US presidents is to use non-coercive means to obtain US records,” Epstein wrote. “But despite the fact that the attack should never have happened, Garland and Wray should have made sure their agents sought President Trump's consent, notified his lawyers, and sought cooperation”.
“Garland and Wray decided to depart from established protocol to hurt President Trump,” he said.
Under Florida law, to qualify as trespassing an act “must occur in a manner that a reasonable person would find highly offensive,” and the president's lawyer argued that the DOJ and FBI decisions were “incompatible with protocols that require the consent of a research target.” , disclosure to that person's attorneys, and use by the local US Attorney's office.”
“The FBI's demonstrated activity was inconsistent with the protocols used in routine searches of an investigative target's facility,” the filing stated. “Worse still, the FBI's conduct in the raid, where established protocol was violated, constitutes a severe and unacceptable intrusion that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
Regarding malicious prosecution, Epstein stated, “As such, given the Supreme Court's immunity decision and Judge Cannon's dismissal of the prosecution on the grounds that the appointment of the special counsel violated the appointments clause and his office was funded through an improper appropriation, there was no constitutional basis for subsequent search or indictment.”
Trump's lawyer also pointed to $15 million in defense costs in the case that were dismissed as allegations of “abuse of process” and claimed the Justice Department's actions were “unconstitutional and intended to prosecute politically the former president, which led to significant and negative legal costs.” consequences for him”.
In additional comments to Fox Business, Epstein said: “You have clear evidence that the FBI did not follow protocols, and the failure to follow protocols shows that there was improper procedure. If the government is able to say, well, we don't like someone, we can raid their house, we can violate their privacy, we can break protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal cause – it's not a cause of justice – if someone doesn't opposes it in a very public way and seeks to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to screw up all Americans.”
“The entire investigation of the special counsel,” the lawyer added, “was about interfering with his ability to get elected.”
At the time of this publication, Trump had not yet publicly commented on the intention to sue, and Fox News indicated that the Department of Justice had declined to comment.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you're sick of letting radical tech execs, bogus fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals, and the lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news, consider donating to BPR to help us fight back them. Now is the time. The truth has never been more critical!
Success! Thanks for donating. Please share BPR content to help fight lies.
We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.
English 
Español de Venezuela 