Trump to Sue DOJ for $100 Million Over Mar-a-Lago Raid, Alleging Political Prosecution

Former President Donald Trump is set to file a $100 million lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) over the execution of a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022.

Trump alleges that the search was part of a “malicious political prosecution” orchestrated by Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray to influence the electoral process and prevent his re-election.

The lawsuit, filed by Trump’s attorney, Daniel Epstein, accuses Garland and Wray of applying “inconsistent standards” and neglecting “constitutional principles” in approving the search at Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida residence.

According to a copy of the claim obtained by The Post, Epstein argues that the DOJ and FBI disregarded established protocols for dealing with former U.S. presidents, which typically involve non-enforcement methods for retrieving official records.

Epstein contends that Garland and Wray should never have approved the raid or the subsequent indictment of Trump.

He further argues that, even if the raid was deemed necessary, they should have sought Trump’s consent, informed his legal team, and attempted to secure his cooperation.

Epstein asserts that the decision to deviate from these protocols was intended to harm Trump deliberately.

The DOJ has six months to respond to the claim. The case may proceed to federal court if no settlement is reached within that period.

The FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago on August 8 resulted in over 100 classified documents being seized.

This led to a 37-count felony indictment against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith.

Trump, who pleaded not guilty to all charges, saw U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika dismiss the case last month. The dismissal was based on the conclusion that the appointment violated the U.S. CConstitution’sAppointments Clause, which mandates that certain officials, including special counsels, must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had previously argued that special counsel appointments lacking congressional confirmation might be unconstitutional, a view that influenced the court’s decision to grant U.S. presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Epstein and Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung condemned the legal action as “election interference.”Cheung stated that Trump is fighting against the “weaponised” Department of Justice under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Cheung also criticised the raid on Mar-a-Lago, labelling it illegal and unconstitutional, and called for the dismissal of all legal actions against Trump to restore unity in the nation.

The tort claim highlights the unconstitutional nature of SSmith’sappointment. It includes testimony from FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Steven DD’Antuono, who suggested that the FBI should have sought TTrump’sconsent before searching Mar-a-Lago.

The claim also references internal FBI communications indicating that some agents doubted the existence of probable cause for the search and believed the bureau was being influenced by “democrat political hacks.”The claim also draws comparisons with other former presidents, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and former Vice President Joe Biden, none of whom faced similar raids on their residences despite having classified documents.