Posted on 08/12/2024 11:02:10 AM PDT by airdalechief
Former President Donald Trump is set to sue the Justice Department for $100 million in damages over the government’s unprecedented 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida, with lawyers arguing it was done with "clear intent to engage in political persecution."
Fox News has obtained Trump’s memo claiming, "tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, last month, dismissed Smith’s case against Trump altogether. Cannon ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded, citing the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.
Trump attorney Daniel Epstein filed the notice to sue the Justice Department. The Justice Department has 180 days from the date of receipt to respond to Epstein's notice and come to a resolution. If no resolution is made, Trump's case will move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
The old chief says this is a damn good article to read)
tortious conduct? They behaved like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
It’s too bad he can’t sue Wray and Garland personally.
He should demand that the FBI return any of Melania’s underwear that they may have taken for “evidence”.
Pantie Raiders are still sniffing out evidence...
Good to see. The DOJ should be prosecuted criminally.
Part of the damages should be all associated legal fees. Is $100 million enough?
The demonut party should also be sued
Seeing the shenanigans of the SS and FBI when it comes to security cameras...
I would NEVER recommend dummy cameras in obvious places and have REAL cameras all over the place. All uploaded to a cloud account YOU own away from anything like google drive or drop box. Anytime any LEO is at your door I owuld never upload it immediately to the cloud “above our heads (ht kamalamomma)” and send it to every person in your email account.
The court(s) will rule “no standing.”
(I wish that was sarcasm)
Some of that democrat democracy going on.
Cannon ruled that **Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded**, citing the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.