Trump team to sue Justice Department over FBI’s raid for classified documents

[HARK!]

The filing says the “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.”

Trump team to sue Justice Department over FBI’s raid for classified documents

Former President Donald Trump will sue the Department of Justice over its documents raid of his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022, calling it “clear intent to engage in political persecution.”

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Paulos23]

It is his money to waste.

But I would not be surprised if it wasn't his money.

 

[HARK!]

It is his money to waste.

But I would not be surprised if it wasn't his money.

I think that he'll win; and hopefully he can at least recover all of his legal expenses associated with this egregious abuse of power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The filing says the “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.”

Trump team to sue Justice Department over FBI’s raid for classified documents

Former President Donald Trump will sue the Department of Justice over its documents raid of his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022, calling it “clear intent to engage in political persecution.”

www.washingtontimes.com

That's going to be a tough case....he did have the documents after all.

 

[HARK!]

That's going to be a tough case....he did have the documents after all.

Oh, that's right. They were in his garage next to his corvette.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not sure how he's going to claim malicious prosecution on this one.

There's only so many times they can ask nicely (over so long of a period) before they have to take more drastic action.

I've been one who's acknowledged that a lot of the legal stuff they're throwing at Trump has been flimsy litigation (and just efforts to get him at all costs)...but on this particular case, he brought this one on himself. If any of the legal cases against Trump have legitimacy, it's this one.

They made Trump and his crew aware that the documents were missing, they knew he had them, and requested their return starting in May 2021.

His team sat on the first request for 7 months before finally returning a portion of them. When asked subpoenaed for the remainder, records show that he instructed his lawyer (as well as a personal aide) either conceal or destroy the remaining ones.


Swap "Holding classified documents" with "Dealing Drugs" and see if the person in question still seems like as much of a victim.

"Hey, you have to stop dealing drugs"
7 months later "Okay, I stopped dealing some of the drugs"
"No, you have to stop dealing the drugs, period, and turn over the remainder to us"
2 months later "Hey Walt, hide part of the stash, and flush the rest down the toilet so they can't have it"

"Okay, well, you asked for it, we're charging you with this"

"This is a witch-hunt, I'm a victim!!!"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure how he's going to claim malicious prosecution on this one.

There's only so many times they can ask nicely (over so long of a period) before they have to take more drastic action.

I've been one who's acknowledged that a lot of the legal stuff they're throwing at Trump has been flimsy litigation (and just efforts to get him at all costs)...but on this particular case, he brought this one on himself. If any of the legal cases against Trump have legitimacy, it's this one.

This case was thrown out, wasn't it?

Just....I assumed that's why this lawsuit was filed.

They made Trump and his crew aware that the documents were missing, they knew he had them, and requested their return starting in May 2021.

His team sat on the first request for 7 months before finally returning a portion of them. When asked subpoenaed for the remainder, records show that he instructed his lawyer (as well as a personal aide) either conceal or destroy the remaining ones.


Swap "Holding classified documents" with "Dealing Drugs" and see if the person in question still seems like as much of a victim.

"Hey, you have to stop dealing drugs"
7 months later "Okay, I stopped dealing some of the drugs"
"No, you have to stop dealing the drugs, period, and turn over the remainder to us"
2 months later "Hey Walt, hide part of the stash, and flush the rest down the toilet so they can't have it"

"Okay, well, you asked for it, we're charging you with this"

"This is a witch-hunt, I'm a victim!!!"

In this case...a drug dealer, dealing drugs out of his home....accused the other guy of dealing drugs...which turned out to be true.

Because they're all dealing drugs.

 

[Gene2memE]

This case was thrown out, wasn't it?

Just....I assumed that's why this lawsuit was filed.

Not sure if the lawsuit and the raid are legally related.

While the lawsuit refers to Cannon's reason for dismissal of the case (that Jack Smith's appointment wasn't legal), as I understand it the legal action against Trump over retaining/withholding the classified documents and the FBI/DoJ raid to recover them are legally distinct entities.

Yes the former depends on the latter. However, I'd expect that even in a universe where there could be no prosecution of a former president, the raid on Mar-a-Largo would have taken place to recover national security documentation that Mr Trump had repeatedly refused to hand over (and was lying about having/retaining).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure if the lawsuit and the raid are legally related.

I don't know either...I just assumed.

While the lawsuit refers to Cannon's reason for dismissal of the case (that Jack Smith's appointment wasn't legal), as I understand it the legal action against Trump over retaining/withholding the classified documents and the FBI/DoJ raid to recover them are legally distinct entities.

You're drawing a distinction between proper legal procedure and the evidence itself?

Yes the former depends on the latter. However, I'd expect that even in a universe where there could be no prosecution of a former president, the raid on Mar-a-Largo would have taken place to recover national security documentation that Mr Trump had repeatedly refused to hand over (and was lying about having/retaining).

Right...I would like to agree.

Having a place working in the federal government myself....I would be more surprised if quite literally every single president in my lifetime (with the possibility of Biden as an exception and Reagan due to their....deficiencies) has not walked out of office with highly classified docs that they definitely shouldn't have.....intentionally.

 

[Gene2memE]

You're drawing a distinction between proper legal procedure and the evidence itself?

I'm not following you.

I'm drawing a distinction between 1) the execution of a search and seizure for national security information (NSI), which was authorized by a judge via a warrant, and 2) the subsequent grand jury indictment and Special Counsel prosecution of Donald Trump (and certain associates) for retaining that NSI, along with obstruction and conspiracy.

You said:

This case was thrown out, wasn't it?

Just....I assumed that's why this lawsuit was filed

I don't think this notice of intent to sue was filed because the USA vs Trump et al was "thrown out". I think that even if that case was still proceeding, this notification of intent to sue would have been filed by Trump et al because that's just how Trump operates in the legal sphere. Attack everywhere, all the time.

Legal scholars are saying this is an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act. That would make it a completely separate legal action to USA vs Trump et al and has zero to do with the fact that USA vs Trump et al. was dismissed.

Perhaps if USA vs Trump et al had been dismissed on different grounds (like malicious prosecution, tortious interference, or abuse of process via illegal search/seizure) then Trump could sue the DoJ on that basis and then the cases would be linked.


I'd argue this is for lack of better terms, legal grandstanding and campaigning-by-lawsuit. Given that Cannon's ruling on dismissing the Smith prosecution notes that Trump didn't make any meaningful challenges to the DoJ's warrant and search/seizures, it would appear to be dead in the water.

Another option is that this is a fishing expedition. Trump/his lawyers are hoping that the discovery process produces information on the whos/hows/whys of the DoJ/NARA/FBI co-operation that led to the warrant being executed, particularly identifying information on the redacted parts of the search warrant (including corroborating witnesses, FBI agents and members of the DoJ).

 

[HARK!]

Another option is that this is a fishing expedition. Trump/his lawyers are hoping that the discovery process produces information on the whos/hows/whys of the DoJ/NARA/FBI co-operation that led to the warrant being executed, particularly identifying information on the redacted parts of the search warrant (including corroborating witnesses, FBI agents and members of the DoJ).

It would be useful to gather intel on who else was involved in this witch hunt.

 

[Landon Caeli]

If we can learn to identify lawfare, for what it is, then that is the first step in preventing this kind of abuse from reoccurring in the future. Let's start the process by suing the system first.

Lawfare - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Servus]

It is his money to waste.

But I would not be surprised if it wasn't his money.

A guy with $200+ billion who thinks Trump has been treated unjustly has his back.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not following you.

Sorry.

I'm drawing a distinction between 1) the execution of a search and seizure for national security information (NSI), which was authorized by a judge via a warrant, and 2) the subsequent grand jury indictment and Special Counsel prosecution of Donald Trump (and certain associates) for retaining that NSI, along with obstruction and conspiracy.

Ok.

I don't think this notice of intent to sue was filed because the USA vs Trump et al was "thrown out".

Really?

I think that even if that case was still proceeding, this notification of intent to sue would have been filed by Trump et al because that's just how Trump operates in the legal sphere. Attack everywhere, all the time.

You think he would have sued for damages with the criminal case still pending?

Legal scholars are saying this is an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act. That would make it a completely separate legal action to USA vs Trump et al and has zero to do with the fact that USA vs Trump et al. was dismissed.

Not familiar with the Federal Torts Claims Act.

Perhaps if USA vs Trump et al had been dismissed on different grounds (like malicious prosecution, tortious interference, or abuse of process via illegal search/seizure) then Trump could sue the DoJ on that basis and then the cases would be linked.

Well the cases are linked, aren't they?

From the OP article...

The filing says the “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.”

I'd argue this is for lack of better terms, legal grandstanding and campaigning-by-lawsuit. Given that Cannon's ruling on dismissing the Smith prosecution notes that Trump didn't make any meaningful challenges to the DoJ's warrant and search/seizures, it would appear to be dead in the water.

Well I believe the process of special prosecution selection wasn't properly followed.

Another option is that this is a fishing expedition. Trump/his lawyers are hoping that the discovery process produces information on the whos/hows/whys of the DoJ/NARA/FBI co-operation that led to the warrant being executed, particularly identifying information on the redacted parts of the search warrant (including corroborating witnesses, FBI agents and members of the DoJ).

Could be.

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh, that's right. They were in his garage next to his corvette.

I continue to be amused how right wing talking points still seem so focused on a guy not even running for office.

 

[HARK!]

I continue to be amused how right wing talking points still seem so focused on a guy not even running for office.

Do you mean that guy who heads the Executive branch that is on a witch hunt for Trump?

 

[Servus]

I continue to be amused how right wing talking points still seem so focused on a guy not even running for office.

Yeah he's just the president of the united states for pete's sake.

 

[Paulos23]

A guy with $200+ billion who thinks Trump has been treated unjustly has his back.

View attachment 353194

It does nothing to add to his legal case. If Elon wants to give his money to Trump, he is welcome to do so.

Just make sure he gets a written receipt.

 

[BCP1928]

Oh, that's right. They were in his garage next to his corvette.

If he had just given them back like Biden and Pence did, none of this would have happened.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not following you.

I'm drawing a distinction between 1) the execution of a search and seizure for national security information (NSI), which was authorized by a judge via a warrant, and 2) the subsequent grand jury indictment and Special Counsel prosecution of Donald Trump (and certain associates) for retaining that NSI, along with obstruction and conspiracy.

You said:



I don't think this notice of intent to sue was filed because the USA vs Trump et al was "thrown out". I think that even if that case was still proceeding, this notification of intent to sue would have been filed by Trump et al because that's just how Trump operates in the legal sphere. Attack everywhere, all the time.

Legal scholars are saying this is an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act. That would make it a completely separate legal action to USA vs Trump et al and has zero to do with the fact that USA vs Trump et al. was dismissed.

Perhaps if USA vs Trump et al had been dismissed on different grounds (like malicious prosecution, tortious interference, or abuse of process via illegal search/seizure) then Trump could sue the DoJ on that basis and then the cases would be linked.


I'd argue this is for lack of better terms, legal grandstanding and campaigning-by-lawsuit. Given that Cannon's ruling on dismissing the Smith prosecution notes that Trump didn't make any meaningful challenges to the DoJ's warrant and search/seizures, it would appear to be dead in the water.

It's my understanding that the suit isn't even valid yet as the case is not resolved because of the pending appeal of the dismissal.

Another option is that this is a fishing expedition. Trump/his lawyers are hoping that the discovery process produces information on the whos/hows/whys of the DoJ/NARA/FBI co-operation that led to the warrant being executed, particularly identifying information on the redacted parts of the search warrant (including corroborating witnesses, FBI agents and members of the DoJ).

That sounds like they are not confident he will win the election. If elected, his AG (and the possessive is critical) would almost certainly root out anyone who'd gone after Trump for criminal prosecution.