Entertainment
Trump threatens DOJ with $100 million lawsuit over FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago
Donald Trump threatens the US Department of Justice with $100 million court case about the Feds raid of Mar-A-Lago during the investigation into his alleged mishandling of classified documents, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
In a notice of intent to sue, the Republican candidate’s legal team argued that the DOJ acted with “the clear intent to engage in political persecution — and not to promote good law enforcement practices” when officers swarmed his opulent family home in Florida.
Trump was charged with 37 crimes as a result of the investigation, but the case was ultimately rejected after a judge issued a special opinion Jack Smith appointment was contrary to the Constitution.
Despite his victory, the 78-year-old presidential candidate is refusing to back down in his bid to exact retribution for the investigation: one of many instances in which he is characterized as a “witch hunt“.
Trump’s attorney, Daniel Epstein, claims the raid and subsequent indictment were unlawful and motivated by a desire to politically harm the former president.
Epstein told it Fox News: “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.”
His legal filing argued that the government’s actions were “rooted in the invasion of seclusion, malicious prosecution and abuse of process resulting from the August 8, 2022, raid on his and his family’s home” in Palm Beach.
Epstein also said the raid “violated protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that person’s attorneys and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
He further alleged that the Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI director Christopher Wray acted with “clear violation of constitutional principles, inconsistent norms” rather than out of concern for “social, economic and political policies”.
Epstein wrote: “Garland and Wray decided to deviate from established protocol to injure President Trump. Garland and Wray should never have authorized a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because established protocol with former U.S. presidents is the use of non-enforcement tools. to obtain data about the United States.
“But despite the fact that the raid should never have happened, Garland and Wray should have ensured that their agents sought permission from President Trump, notified his lawyers and sought cooperation.”
Epstein said: “The FBI’s demonstrated activity was inconsistent with the protocols used in routine searches of the premises of an investigative target.”
He also argued that Trump “had a clear expectation of privacy at Mar-a-Lago. Worse, the FBI’s conduct in the raid – which violated established protocol – constitutes a serious and unacceptable breach that is deeply offensive to a reasonable person”.
During the search, officials reportedly seized thousands of documents containing top secret information, and Trump was indicted on charges including willfully withholding national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements.
The case was dismissed in court last month Aileen Kanon ruled that the special counsel had been unlawfully appointed.
Epstein continued: “As such, given that of the Supreme Court immunity decision and Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the prosecutor on the grounds that the appointment of the special prosecutor violated the Appointments Clause and that his office was funded through misappropriation, there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment.”
Trump’s legal representative is seeking damages for alleged invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, claiming the DOJ’s actions caused his client $15 million in legal fees.
The department must respond to Epstein’s notice within 180 days or the case will be transferred to a federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
Epstein argued, “The special counsel’s entire investigation was about interfering with his ability to get elected. You have clear evidence that the FBI did not follow protocols, and failure to follow protocols shows that there was an improper purpose.
“If the government can say, we don’t like someone, we can invade their home, violate their privacy, violate protocols if we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal interests. “If someone doesn’t stand up against that in a very public way and try to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to raze every American to the ground.”
