Posted on 10/21/2025 2:29:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Senior department officials who were defense lawyers for the president and those in his orbit are now in jobs that typically must approve any such payout, underscoring potential ethical conflicts.
President Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.
The situation has no parallel in American history, as Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims. It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts created by installing the president’s former lawyers atop the Justice Department.
Mr. Trump submitted complaints through an administrative claim process that often is the precursor to lawsuits. The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.
The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the F.B.I. of violating Mr. Trump’s privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents. It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
Lawyers said the nature of the claims posed undeniable ethics challenges. “What a travesty,” said Bennett L. Gershman, an ethics professor at Pace University. “The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don’t need a law...”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Bill the dems. This was their fault
Payable to: E. Jean Carrol
‘Bout the same amount, ne c’est pas?
They just write this for the headline.
It appears to be old news anyway.
The narrative of the Left today is Trump is greedy for money, building opulent trashy ballrooms, wrecking the whole Whitehouse and we all just suffer in poverty just because the King has shut down the government and is kicking out our gardeners and he tweets out silly jets pooping on a douchbag like Harry Sisson. (a punk influencer)
I voted for the guy, he works awful dang hard pisses off the right people and I’m sticking with him.
Say his name, President Trump.
That there, is reason enough for President Trump to receive compensation from the (so-called) Justice Department. Unfairly targeted and damaged, should receive compensation so that it never happens again to someone else by other presidents who regarded themselves as kings (Obama, Biden, you listening?).
EVERY FREAKIN DIME.
Well at least this did NOT come from TMZ .... for the shallow freepers... all upset over the latest White House renovations .... Just got to snicker at those NC freepers ...
The government” DID inappropriately illegally harass him and his family. He should be reimbursed.
He should sue the individuals who persecuted him.
Not a log. She has an aspect ratio more like a blimp.
Numerous top legal minds have spoken out regarding the prosecutions of Donald Trump, with significant disagreement on the issues and proceedings. The commentary has occurred in books, legal journals, interviews, and during congressional testimony, covering a wide range of opinions on the validity, ethics, and potential consequences of the cases.
Legal experts who defended or criticized the prosecutions
Some legal experts have defended the legitimacy and importance of prosecuting Trump, arguing that it is essential for the rule of law.
Neal Katyal: The former Acting U.S. Solicitor General has publicly celebrated legal developments against Trump, including a federal appeals court ruling that most of Trump’s tariffs were illegal. Regarding the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s immunity claim, Katyal noted that the decision did not clear Trump of insurrection and left space for his criminal trials to proceed.
Jack Smith: The former special counsel responsible for the federal cases against Trump has repeatedly stressed the importance of process and the rule of law. In an interview after leaving office, he defended his team’s investigations as fact-based and apolitical. He contrasted his work with what he described as politically motivated prosecutions by the Trump administration.
Jonathan Turley: A George Washington University law professor and legal analyst, Turley has been critical of the cases against Trump. He has identified what he calls “a number of flaws” in the cases and called some proceedings, such as the New York trial, “outrageous”. During earlier impeachment hearings, he accused some lawmakers of pursuing a “boundless interpretation” of legal standards.
Alan Dershowitz: The retired Harvard law professor has consistently argued that various legal actions against Trump were political rather than criminal, particularly regarding earlier impeachment efforts. Dershowitz has contended that certain actions, even if motivated by self-interest, were not unlawful and that defending a person’s civil liberties, like Trump’s, should not be conflated with supporting their policies.
Jack Goldsmith: The Harvard Law professor has written about the “terrible consequences” of the Trump prosecutions, even if legally justified. He has also raised concerns about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “rush to trial,” suggesting it could damage public faith in the legitimacy of the electoral process and the integrity of the Justice Department.
Rule of Law vs. Political Motivation: A central point of contention is whether the prosecutions represent a faithful application of the rule of law or are primarily driven by political opposition to a former president.
The debate has featured extensive legal analysis of the scope of presidential immunity, particularly concerning President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his actions while in office.
Some experts have focused on how the prosecutions and Trump’s retaliatory rhetoric could erode post-Watergate norms intended to shield the Justice Department from White House meddling.
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.