Trump Sues DOJ For 100 Million

[Chobham]

I said a short while back that this might be coming.

So far it's just a statement of intent. Whether the suit actually gets filed will be interesting. Even more interesting will be what claims are made. At the least I think there will be a section 1987 claim and an attempt to pierce Smith's immunity.

Even if piercing his immunity ends up being unsuccessful, the outcome will be an admission of liability - because it has to be in order for the immunity to attach.

Apparently the paperwork has been filed. If you get a chance read through it, it's a damning indictment.

 

[HisArpy]

Cannon drew and based her decision on law perfessors paper, ignoring longstanding precedent


You’re being pretty inscrutable here


Fair question. In this case I’d like to think I’d ask the same questions since it’s a law issue and not a political issue on the whole, Cannon’s ruling notwithstanding.

Cannon made her decision based on the concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Trump immunity case. You can deny it if you want, but that's the bare reality. Read the concurrence then read Cannon's decision. The two arguments track very well. Not 100% but enough that the reasoning is clear and that Cannon is following the guidance** from the SCOTUS.


** interestingly enough, SCOTUS refuses to give advisory opinions on matters not before it. Yet here we are with something so close as to be nearly indistinguishable. It makes me wonder if the rabid anti-Trump lawfare is what is responsible for the change. To me it seems as if SCOTUS was faced with the choice of stepping in or watching from the sidelines as a wrecking ball was taken to the judicial system.

 

[HisArpy]

Apparently the paperwork has been filed. If you get a chance read through it, it's a damning indictment.

I'll look for it.

 

[Chobham]

I'll look for it.

It covers all bases starting with the raid on Mar a Lago.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Apparently

Interesting, did you read it?

it's a damning indictment

Have you read it or not?

 

[Chobham]

Interesting, did you read it?

Have you read it or not?

Yes, it's available online.

 

[ll74]

It's going to be thrown out on the merits and the right is gonna claim preferential treatment.

That's why he filed.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Yes, it's available online.

You said, "apparently" as if you didn't read it and then you said it was a damning indictment which means you did.

Which is it?

 

[Chobham]

You said, "apparently" as if you didn't read it and then you said it was a damning indictment which means you did.

Which is it?

I did, you're a moron. Time stops for no man.

 

[HisArpy]

All I found in a search was that Trump filed a Tort Claims Act notice with a lot of allegations of Government wrongdoing in it. Under the Act, the Government has 6 months to decide to settle or defend against the claim in court.

Anyone have a linky to something else?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

All I found in a search was that Trump filed a Tort Claims Act notice with a lot of allegations of Government wrongdoing in it. Under the Act, the Government has 6 months to decide to settle or defend against the claim in court.

Anyone have a linky to something else?

Sounds very damning.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I did, you're a moron. Time stops for no man.

You lied.

 

[SmokingFap]

Ideology is a poor bet when it comes to the law. Often those who believe so are left wondering what happened and blaming everyone else for their refusal to face reality and the truth.

I literally can't believe that self-unaware irony hasn't killed you yet.

 

[dmallord]

You misunderstand.

A JUDGE can decide differently than another JUDGE, even one in his own circuit, jurisdiction, or courthouse.

A JUDGE cannot decide differently than an appellate JUSTICE, unless that justice is in a different circuit/jurisdiction. Even when the decision is from a different circuit/jurisdiction, the decision is often considered advisory because it's a prior determination on the law.

No judge can decide differently than SCOTUS on a comparable issue. If they do, the judge risks being overturned on appeal. Too many of those regarding one (or a few) issue indicates that the judge isn't neutral and not really fit to be on the bench.

Happened to Judge Cannon, I believe. Made her gun shy it's said.

 

[dmallord]

All I found in a search was that Trump filed a Tort Claims Act notice with a lot of allegations of Government wrongdoing in it. Under the Act, the Government has 6 months to decide to settle or defend against the claim in court.

Anyone have a linky to something else?

No link only this from NBC. Maybe the filing has not been made yet.

"An attorney for former President Donald Trump has filed a legal notice announcing that his client plans to sue the Justice Department and the FBI for $115 million for alleged "malicious political prosecution" and "abuse of process."

"The notice, a copy of which NBC News obtained Monday, baselessly accuses DOJ leadership and special counsel Jack Smith of having perpetrated a "malicious political prosecution aimed at affecting an electoral outcome to prevent President Trump from being re-elected" — a frequent accusation that Trump makes online and during campaign events.


"This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation," Trump attorney Daniel Z. Epstein wrote in a notice of claim against the department. Epstein is a former Trump White House lawyer who is now vice-president of America First Legal, the legal group founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

"The filing complains that the FBI's court-approved search for classified documents at Trump's Florida estate in August of 2022 was improper, as was Trump's subsequent indictment for the scores of sensitive classified documents that agents turned up during the search. Trump had pleaded not guilty."

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Somebody has too many lawyers with too much time on their hands.


Can we just set up a Thunderdome and televise it now?

 

[jomar]

Cannon made her decision based on the concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Trump immunity case. You can deny it if you want, but that's the bare reality. Read the concurrence then read Cannon's decision. The two arguments track very well. Not 100% but enough that the reasoning is clear and that Cannon is following the guidance** from the SCOTUS.

Unless you have a link everything I’ve read said Cannon dismissed the case on the “unconstitutional” appointment of Smith. The immunity gift came later as icing on the cake.

** interestingly enough, SCOTUS refuses to give advisory opinions on matters not before it. Yet here we are with something so close as to be nearly indistinguishable. It makes me wonder if the rabid anti-Trump lawfare is what is responsible for the change. To me it seems as if SCOTUS was faced with the choice of stepping in or watching from the sidelines as a wrecking ball was taken to the judicial system.

More like the trump heavy SCOTUS putting its finger on the scale so the felon wouldn’t be held accountable for breaking laws like having top secret material scattered about and refusing to give them back, and a couple of not so perfect phone calls and such. And trump claimed to be the bestest law and order president ever.

 

[HisArpy]

Unless you have a link everything I’ve read said Cannon dismissed the case on the “unconstitutional” appointment of Smith. The immunity gift came later as icing on the cake.


More like the trump heavy SCOTUS putting its finger on the scale so the felon wouldn’t be held accountable for breaking laws like having top secret material scattered about and refusing to give them back, and a couple of not so perfect phone calls and such. And trump claimed to be the bestest law and order president ever.

You should read both the immunity decision concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and then Cannon's dismissal decision.

Thomas literally created a roadmap for her to follow. Which she did. (For the most part.)



The ideological makeup of the court swings as time and political ascension change. Saying that it's "Trump heavy" is nothing more than ideology and sour grapes talking and you know it. Worse, it's provably incorrect, as a review of the SCOTUS decisions shows there are unanimous decisions on politically sensitive and divisive issues in this last term.

 

[Chobham]

You should read both the immunity decision concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and then Cannon's dismissal decision.

Thomas literally created a roadmap for her to follow. Which she did. (For the most part.)



The ideological makeup of the court swings as time and political ascension change. Saying that it's "Trump heavy" is nothing more than ideology and sour grapes talking and you know it. Worse, it's provably incorrect, as a review of the SCOTUS decisions shows there are unanimous decisions on politically sensitive and divisive issues in this last term.

What they can't stand is watching their "lawfare" fall apart. What they don't seem to understand is that the attorneys that have filed all those charges had no expectation of surviving appeals. It's all about the timing WRT the election. Election interference masquerading as 'justice.'

 

[HisArpy]

What they can't stand is watching their "lawfare" fall apart. What they don't seem to understand is that the attorneys that have filed all those charges had no expectation of surviving appeals. It's all about the timing WRT the election. Election interference masquerading as 'justice.'

I truly believe that the SCOTUS allowed Thomas' concurrence to be part of the Immunity decision because the court felt it needed to step in and stop the lawfare. It's bad for the judicial system as well as the country and it needs to end. The concurrence is a huge hint about that.

Unfortunately Smith doesn't seem to take hints well, as his past history as a prosecutor seems to show. Hopefully wiser heads will understand and hand him his walking papers without the issue needing to go to the SCOTUS for yet another Smith smackdown.


Here's an interesting thing; Trump filed his tort claims act notice. The government has 6 months from the date of filing to either settle or decide to defend against the claim in court. That deadline is in February of 2025. Should Trump win in November, he'll be sworn in and in control of the Dept which decided to defend against his tort claim. Even more odd than that is the fact that he'll be in a position in which he's suing himself in his Presidential capacity for the claimed injuries to himself in his private person capacity.

 

[Chobham]

I truly believe that the SCOTUS allowed Thomas' concurrence to be part of the Immunity decision because the court felt it needed to step in and stop the lawfare. It's bad for the judicial system as well as the country and it needs to end. The concurrence is a huge hint about that.

Unfortunately Smith doesn't seem to take hints well, as his past history as a prosecutor seems to show. Hopefully wiser heads will understand and hand him his walking papers without the issue needing to go to the SCOTUS for yet another Smith smackdown.


Here's an interesting thing; Trump filed his tort claims act notice. The government has 6 months from the date of filing to either settle or decide to defend against the claim in court. That deadline is in February of 2025. Should Trump win in November, he'll be sworn in and in control of the Dept which decided to defend against his tort claim. Even more odd than that is the fact that he'll be in a position in which he's suing himself in his Presidential capacity for the claimed injuries to himself in his private person capacity.

*chuckle* The obvious solution is to put Smith in charge of defending the claim. He's lost virtually every case he's ever handled.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Someone threatening to sue doesn't mean they have a viable case.

I would love to read that filing. I would love to see the discovery in this “case” even more.

 

[Rightguide]

All I found in a search was that Trump filed a Tort Claims Act notice with a lot of allegations of Government wrongdoing in it. Under the Act, the Government has 6 months to decide to settle or defend against the claim in court.

Anyone have a linky to something else?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...100-million-suit-against-doj-mar-a-lago-raid/

 

[HisArpy]

I would love to read that filing. I would love to see the discovery in this “case” even more.

So far it's a cease and desist demand. If Trump doesn't comply, then the estate has the option to sue.

So far they haven't done so.

The court will by necessity limit discovery to only the narrow issues and not the broader intrusion into Trump's affairs which you clearly seem to desire.

 

[HisArpy]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...100-million-suit-against-doj-mar-a-lago-raid/

Count 1 goes nowhere.
Everything else has a rational basis in law and fact.


I would think that someone would also consider the harm done to Melania in her own right. She's a known phobic about strangers touching her or her things. No consideration was made in this regard and her personal possessions were searched even though she clearly had no method or ability to have the items being searched for. That the warrant allowed this search and intrusion only shows that the warrant was excessively overbroad.

In such a matter I would name not only those named in Trump's FTCA claim but also the judge who approved the warrant because a neutral and detached magistrate would have seen that the warrant request was overbroad and not granted it or narrowed the scope. That the judge did not do so is indicative that he also exhibited improper bias and animas against those named in the warrant application.