Trump To Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Mar-a-Lago Raid

Former President Donald Trump is set to sue the DOJ for $100 million in damages over the 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida – arguing that it was done “clear intent to engage in political persecution.”

According to a memo obtained by Fox News, the lawsuit will claim “tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump.”

Trump and his legal team intend to sue the Justice Department for its conduct during the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, 2022, amid the federal investigation into his alleged improper retention of classified records.

After the raid, Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed to investigate. Smith ultimately brought 37 felony counts against Trump, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Last month, US District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the DOJ’s case against Trump – ruling that Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded, citing the Appointments Clause in the constitution.

The notice to sue was filed by Trump attorney Daniel Epstein, and gives the DOJ 180 days from the date of receipt to respond and come to a resolution. If no agreement is made, Trump’s case will move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.

“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,” Epstein told Fox Business’ Lydia Hu.

Former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.  (Charles Trainor Jr./Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

According to the filing, 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,” adding that decisions made by the DOJ and FBI in conducting the raid were “inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.”

Epstein further argues that decisions made by Attorney General Merrick Garland as well as FBI Director Christopher Wray were not based on “social, economic, and political policy,” but instead were in “clear dereliction of constitutional principles, inconsistent standards as applied to” Trump and a “clear intent to engage in political persecution – not to advance good law enforcement practices.”

“Garland and Wray should have never approved a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because the well-established protocol with former U.S. presidents is to use non-enforcement means to obtain records of the United States,” wrote Epstein. “But notwithstanding the fact that the raid should have never occurred, Garland and Wray should have ensured their agents sought consent from President Trump, notified his lawyers, and sought cooperation.”

“Garland and Wray decided to stray from established protocol to injure President Trump,” the filing continues.

Epstein argued that the DOJ violated Florida law, intrusion upon seclusion, which is recognized as a form of invasion of privacy. Intrusion upon seclusion includes “an intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, into the private quarters of another person” and the intrusion “must occur in a manner that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.” -Fox News

“The FBI’s demonstrated activity was inconsistent with protocols used in routine searches of an investigative target’s premises,” the filing continues, adding that Trump “had a clear expectation of privacy at Mar-a-Lago. Worse, the FBI’s conduct in the raid – where established protocol was violated – constitutes a severe and unacceptable intrusion that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

The filing also argues that the DOJ and special counsel’s office “brought a lawless criminal indictment,” which constitutes “malicious prosecution.”

“As such, given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel’s appointment violated the appointments clause and his office was funded through an improper appropriation, there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment.”

Trump is also planning to sue for punitive damages.

“For these harms to President Trump, the respondents must pay punitive damages of $100 million,” Epstein wrote, adding that there was an “abuse of process,” and that the methods used against Trump were “unconstitutional and aimed at politically persecuting the former President, which led to extensive legal costs and negative consequences for him.”

In a statement to Fox Business, Epstein said: “You have clear evidence that the FBI failed to follow protocols, and the failure to follow protocols shows that there was an improper purpose,” adding “f the government is able to say, well, we don’t like someone, we can raid their home, we can violate their privacy, we can breach protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal motive–not a motive of justice–if someone doesn’t stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to roughshod over every American.”