Taking “political persecution” to the courts, former President Donald Trump set a nine-figure target as his attorney filed a notice to sue the Justice Department over the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Little more than two years after the FBI took unprecedented action against a former president and raided Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida home, the dismissal of the case paved the way for the GOP leader to strike back.
Following U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel in the documents case was unlawful, and the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, Trump’s attorney Daniel Epstein filed claims that “tortious acts against the president are rooted in intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process resulting from the August 8, 2022 raid of his and his family’s home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach Florida.”
Reporting details of the memo, Fox News indicated that the DOJ had 180 days following its receipt to respond with a resolution or the case would move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
“What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself — he is standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold the government accountable when it wrongs you,” Epstein told Fox Business’ Lydia Hu.
BREAKING: Donald Trump to sue the Department of Justice for $100 million for their raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in 2022 according to Fox News.
Trump’s lawyers argue the raid was done 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 both Attorney General Merrick Garland’s and FBI Director Christopher Wray’s roles in decisions made about the raid, the court document contended there was “clear dereliction of constitutional principles, inconsistent standards as applied to [Trump]” and a “clear intent to engage in political persecution — not to advance good law enforcement practices.”
“Garland and Wray should have never approved a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because the well-established protocol with former U.S. presidents is to use non-enforcement means to obtain records of the United States,” Epstein wrote. “But notwithstanding the fact that the raid should have never occurred, Garland and Wray should have ensured their agents sought consent from President Trump, notified his lawyers, and sought cooperation.”
“Garland and Wray decided to stray from established protocol to injure President Trump,” he contended.
According to Florida law, to qualify as intrusion an act “must occur in a manner that a reasonable person would find highly offensive,” and the president’s attorney argued decisions by the DOJ and FBI were “inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
“The FBI’s demonstrated activity was inconsistent with protocols used in routine searches of an investigative target’s premises,” asserted the filing. “Worse, 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.”
As to malicious prosecution, Epstein stated, “As such, given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel’s appointment violated the appointments clause and his office was funded through an improper appropriation, there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment.”
Trump’s attorney also noted $15 million in costs for defense in the case that was dismissed as allegations of “abuse of process” and contended the Justice Department’s actions were “unconstitutional and aimed at politically persecuting the former President, which led to extensive legal costs and negative consequences for him.”
In further comments to Fox Business, Epstein said, “You have clear evidence that the FBI failed to follow protocols, and the failure to follow protocols shows that there was an improper procedure. If the government is able to say, well, we don’t like someone, we can raid their home, we can violate their privacy, we can breach protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal motive–not a motive of justice–if someone doesn’t stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to roughshod over every American.”
“The entire special counsel investigation,” added the attorney, “was about interfering with his ability to get elected.”
At the time of this post, Trump had yet to comment publicly on the intent to sue and Fox News indicated that the Justice Department had declined to comment.
Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn't researching current events and their impacts, you'll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.
- Secret Service reportedly said they’d ‘take care of’ would-be Trump assassin’s perch - September 18, 2024
- CUNY’s Baruch College slammed for trying to block Jewish festival: ‘It’s appalling. It’s insane’ - September 18, 2024
- Elon Musk recounts SNL appearance, rejection of his skit idea to pull ‘baby rooster’ from his pants - September 18, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.