Trump Sues DOJ For 100 Million

[Rightguide]

BREAKING: Trump to Sue Joe Biden’s DOJ Over Unprecedented Mar-a-Lago Raid for $100 Million​

by Jim Hoft Aug. 12, 2024 8:00 am

President Trump announced on Monday that his legal team will sue the Biden Department of Justice for $100 million over the unprecedented raid on his home in 2022. Last month, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the high-profile classified documents case, citing the unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

This decision comes as a significant blow to the Biden regime and the Department of Justice, raising questions about the integrity of the entire investigation.


Attorney General Garland violated the Constitution by appointing Jack Smith to conduct this politically motivated persecution against President Trump.

The decision effectively halts the prosecution led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The rest here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/breaking-trump-sue-doj-mar-lago-raid-100/

Serves them right.

 

[jomar]

Womp womp

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/07/1...should-not-have-been-dismissed-says-law-prof/

 

[HisArpy]

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.

 

[Bray123]

Jim Hoft's opinion on the value of that weird, silly case is worth less than Derpy's.

 

[HisArpy]

Womp womp

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/07/1...should-not-have-been-dismissed-says-law-prof/

An opinion by one "law professor" can be countered by another "law professor" who has a different take.

That doesn't mean that the one you choose to believe is correct. IMO, you should be listening to the opinion on the issue which was delivered by a sitting SCOTUS justice. Because where's there's one, there are usually others of the same mindset and that mindset isn't the one you or you're preferred "law professor's opinion" are believing in.

 

[Lazaran]

Jim Hoft's opinion on the value of that weird, silly case is worth less than Derpy's.

How is that even possible???

 

[Lazaran]

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.

So "Right"guide’s thread title is ANOTHER LIE. (So much LYING.)

Thanks for confirming, Derpy.



"Right"guide and Derpy

 

[jomar]

An opinion by one "law professor" can be countered by another "law professor" who has a different take.

That doesn't mean that the one you choose to believe is correct. IMO, you should be listening to the opinion on the issue which was delivered by a sitting SCOTUS justice. Because where's there's one, there are usually others of the same mindset and that mindset isn't the one you or you're preferred "law professor's opinion" are believing in.

Correct sir. Just like a ruling by one judge can be countered by another judge who has a different take. And if Cannon’s take gets before the current politicized SCOTUS, which it likely will in this tit for tat space we’re in, we all know how they’ll rule.

 

[HisArpy]

Correct sir. Just like a ruling by one judge can be countered by another judge who has a different take. And if Cannon’s take gets before the current politicized SCOTUS, which it likely will in this tit for tat space we’re in, we all know how they’ll rule.

Not really.

A judge in a different case may rule differently because he's not bound by other trial judges even in his own courthouse AND because his case may contain different facts and circumstances.

However, the other decision can be deemed highly advisory because it already examined the precedent and law of the issue. A judge who goes against that will need more than "I disagree." Not that a judge can't get over that hurdle without half trying.

And again, smart money will stop listening to partisan opinions merely because they agree with them, and start reading the decisions handed down by a SCOTUS justice who will eventually be one of the ones deciding the issue on point rather than peripherally.

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.

 

[jomar]

Not really.

No? How is it then that a judges decision gets overturned upon appeal?

A judge in a different case may rule differently because he's not bound by other trial judges even in his own courthouse AND because his case may contain different facts and circumstances.

However, the other decision can be deemed highly advisory because it already examined the precedent and law of the issue. A judge who goes against that will need more than "I disagree." Not that a judge can't get over that hurdle without half trying.

And again, smart money will stop listening to partisan opinions merely because they agree with them, and start reading the decisions handed down by a SCOTUS justice who will eventually be one of the ones deciding the issue on point rather than peripherally.

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.

Objection! Obfuscation and not germane to the point at hand.

Sustained.

 

[HisArpy]

No? How is it then that a judges decision gets overturned upon appeal?


Objection! Obfuscation and not germane to the point at hand.

Sustained.

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.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Whoa…..Trump is going to pay attorneys????

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Another thing Trump won't win.

 

[BeawulfAR]

BREAKING: Trump to Sue Joe Biden’s DOJ Over Unprecedented Mar-a-Lago Raid for $100 Million​

by Jim Hoft Aug. 12, 2024 8:00 am

President Trump announced on Monday that his legal team will sue the Biden Department of Justice for $100 million over the unprecedented raid on his home in 2022. Last month, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the high-profile classified documents case, citing the unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

This decision comes as a significant blow to the Biden regime and the Department of Justice, raising questions about the integrity of the entire investigation.


Attorney General Garland violated the Constitution by appointing Jack Smith to conduct this politically motivated persecution against President Trump.

The decision effectively halts the prosecution led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The rest here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/breaking-trump-sue-doj-mar-lago-raid-100/

Serves them right.

Trump neglected to cite the obvious intent to incite a confrontation between the FBI, aka the Federal Bureau of Incineration, and Secret Service that might have resulted in him getting killed.

 

[jomar]

You misunderstand.

Wouldn’t be the first time

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.

But as you have more legal knowledge than I do, perhaps you’re getting sidetracked and getting into the weeds a bit, or perhaps we’re talking crosswise.

The issue is can a judges decision be overturned. As I understand it the answer is yes. Specifically, Cannon’s decision will be appealed and could be overturned by a higher court. Then that decision will be appealed up the line and either upheld or overturned again. I haven’t googled what options there are if a decision is upheld, but if the case gets to the Supreme Court I have no doubt how it would fall.

 

[Rotadom]

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.

one you choose to believe is correct. IMO, you should be listening to the opinion on the issue which

Not really.

A judge in a different case may rule differently because he's not bound by other trial judges even in his own courthouse AND because his case may contain different facts and circumstances.

However, the other decision can be deemed highly advisory because it already examined the precedent and law of the issue. A judge who goes against that will need more than "I disagree." Not that a judge can't get over that hurdle without half trying.

And again, smart money will stop listening to partisan opinions merely because they agree with them, and start reading the decisions handed down by a SCOTUS justice who will eventually be one of the ones deciding the issue on point rather than peripherally.

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.

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.

You should seek assistance from a lawyer to help you out with this.

 

[Lazaran]

Wouldn’t be the first time


But as you have more legal knowledge than I do, perhaps you’re getting sidetracked and getting into the weeds a bit, or perhaps we’re talking crosswise.

The issue is can a judges decision be overturned. As I understand it the answer is yes. Specifically, Cannon’s decision will be appealed and could be overturned by a higher court. Then that decision will be appealed up the line and either upheld or overturned again. I haven’t googled what options there are if a decision is upheld, but if the case gets to the Supreme Court I have no doubt how it would fall.

Well, considering that one of the corrupt rulings by Aileen Cannon WAS ALREADY overturned by an appellate court with no change in evidence or circumstances, I would submit that Derpy, etc, are talking out their asses. (Typical)



And yes, the corrupt right wing majority on the SCOTUS can ultimately decide on a ruling, but that in no way diminishes the fact that a lower court overruled Aileen Cannon’s corrupt ruling(s).

 

[HisArpy]

Wouldn’t be the first time


But as you have more legal knowledge than I do, perhaps you’re getting sidetracked and getting into the weeds a bit.

The issue is can a judges decision be overturned. As I understand it the answer is yes. Specifically, Cannon’s decision will be appealed and could be overturned by a higher court. Then that decision will be appealed up the line and either upheld or overturned again. I haven’t googled what options there are if a decision is upheld, but if the case gets to the Supreme Court I have no doubt how it would fall.

The judicial system is just that, a system. It has rules and procedures which are supposed to be followed. But, like anything which involves people and personal beliefs/opinions, it can sometimes get out of whack.


Cannon's decision can indeed be appealed. It could be overturned or reversed by the appellate court. At which point that reversal would be appealed (called a request for certiorari) to the US Supreme Court. That would be how the system is supposed to work.

Now let's add in some of the reality I mentioned above. Cannon made her decision in response to a concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case. Some say that she was given a "roadmap" for that decision to dismiss but what's wrong with that? The justice who created that "roadmap" is on the US Supreme Court and his opinions shouldn't ever be disregarded even if they're only incidental to the majority opinion in the case before him.

Any appellate justice who does disregard that concurring decision's "roadmap" risks being overturned because an appeal of that court's decision goes directly to the court where one who wrote the "roadmap" decision sits. And, while the lower appellate justice can draft an opinion which discusses the "roadmap" and comes to a different conclusion, it's difficult to justify that different path even if it's based on prior precedent because SCOTUS does occasionally overrule itself. Something which a concurring opinion in a published case indicates is a possibility merely by the presence of that concurring opinion since the court can refuse to include it in the decision if it believes it to be improper. That the Chief Justice allowed the concurrence to be part of the decision, shows that the court views the analysis favorably and, should the direct issue be put before the court, might follow that analysis and overrule it's prior decisions on the matter. Not that are any directly on point because the court's silence on an issue isn't assent or agreement.

More of that reality rears its ugly head when you consider that the appellate courts are distinctly liberal in nature. That means they'll look unfavorably on Cannon's dismissal merely because of their ideology and personal biases. While that might result in a divergent decision in the face of the "roadmap" concurrence, the analysis must be without any flaw. Any flaw, no matter how minor will result in that reversal decision being viewed as politically motivated. And that view wouldn't be wrong, because liberal ideology. Which makes the decision suspect and it might anger (not the right word but the flavor is correct) the Supreme court that the lower court flouted what appeared to be a rather simple decision on the issue. Not a smart play but one we've seen time and time again. The Trump immunity case being the perfect example of this - the lower courts consistently denied Trump's motions and appeals until the Supreme court reversed all of those decisions. Why? Because it was obvious that bias and ideology were in play rather than adherence to the law.

Cannon's dismissal is on the same wavelength and any appeal will have to run that gauntlet. Since Trump has prevailed at SCOTUS many times on issues like this, the likelihood is that he will prevail once more. Especially since the high court provided the "roadmap" to the lower courts fopr them to follow.

Finally, the DC case doesn't have to go along with Cannon's decision. They are both trial courts but are in different circuits. Cannon's reasoning can be considered advisory but it is not binding on the DC trial court. but, should the DC court decide differently, that is a basis upon which Trump can appeal citing to a "split" among the circuits.

 

[jomar]

Well, considering that one of the corrupt rulings by Aileen Cannon WAS ALREADY overturned by an appellate court with no change in evidence or circumstances, I would submit that Derpy, etc, are talking out their asses. (Typical)

Huh, I’ll see which one

And yes, the corrupt right wing majority on the SCOTUS can ultimately decide on a ruling, but that in no way diminishes the fact that a lower court overruled Aileen Cannon’s corrupt ruling(s).

 

[HisArpy]

Huh, I’ll see which one

It was the decision where she appointed a special master to review the evidence seized in the Mar a Lago raid. The appeals court overturned that decision and the supreme court decided not to hear it as an interlocutory appeal. Something which isn't unusual for the High Court to do because they prefer to deal only with cases which are fully litigated to a final verdict/appeal.

 

[jomar]

The judicial system is just that, a system. It has rules and procedures which are supposed to be followed. But, like anything which involves people and personal beliefs/opinions, it can sometimes get out of whack.

Ok

Cannon's decision can indeed be appealed. It could be overturned or reversed by the appellate court. At which point that reversal would be appealed (called a request for certiorari) to the US Supreme Court. That would be how the system is supposed to work.

Yes, that was the whole point of what I said

Now let's add in some of the reality I mentioned above. Cannon made her decision in response to a concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case. Some say that she was given a "roadmap" for that decision to dismiss but what's wrong with that? The justice who created that "roadmap" is on the US Supreme Court and his opinions shouldn't ever be disregarded even if they're only incidental to the majority opinion in the case before him.

In my link that you didn’t read it was noted Cannon latched onto a couple of pointy head academics who wrote a paper arguing the assignment of smith was a nuh uh constitutional-wise, and who then went against decades plus of how things got done

Any appellate justice who does disregard that concurring decision's "roadmap" risks being overturned because an appeal of that court's decision goes directly to the court where one who wrote the "roadmap" decision sits. And, while the lower appellate justice can draft an opinion which discusses the "roadmap" and comes to a different conclusion, it's difficult to justify that different path even if it's based on prior precedent because SCOTUS does occasionally overrule itself. Something which a concurring opinion in a published case indicates is a possibility merely by the presence of that concurring opinion since the court can refuse to include it in the decision if it believes it to be improper. That the Chief Justice allowed the concurrence to be part of the decision, shows that the court views the analysis favorably and, should the direct issue be put before the court, might follow that analysis and overrule it's prior decisions on the matter. Not that are any directly on point because the court's silence on an issue isn't assent or agreement.

More of that reality rears its ugly head when you consider that the appellate courts are distinctly liberal in nature. That means they'll look unfavorably on Cannon's dismissal merely because of their ideology and personal biases. While that might result in a divergent decision in the face of the "roadmap" concurrence, the analysis must be without any flaw. Any flaw, no matter how minor will result in that reversal decision being viewed as politically motivated. And that view wouldn't be wrong, because liberal ideology. Which makes the decision suspect and it might anger (not the right word but the flavor is correct) the Supreme court that the lower court flouted what appeared to be a rather simple decision on the issue. Not a smart play but one we've seen time and time again. The Trump immunity case being the perfect example of this - the lower courts consistently denied Trump's motions and appeals until the Supreme court reversed all of those decisions. Why? Because it was obvious that bias and ideology were in play rather than adherence to the law.

Cannon's dismissal is on the same wavelength and any appeal will have to run that gauntlet. Since Trump has prevailed at SCOTUS many times on issues like this, the likelihood is that he will prevail once more. Especially since the high court provided the "roadmap" to the lower courts fopr them to follow.

Finally, the DC case doesn't have to go along with Cannon's decision. They are both trial courts but are in different circuits. Cannon's reasoning can be considered advisory but it is not binding on the DC trial court. but, should the DC court decide differently, that is a basis upon which Trump can appeal citing to a "split" among the circuits.

Thanks for the info

 

[jomar]

It was the decision where she appointed a special master to review the evidence seized in the Mar a Lago raid. The appeals court overturned that decision and the supreme court decided not to hear it as an interlocutory appeal. Something which isn't unusual for the High Court to do because they prefer to deal only with cases which are fully litigated to a final verdict/appeal.

Sure would be nice if you linked your claims up. But as I recall, the special master thing blew up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...nds-special-masters-review-seized-m-rcna59714

 

[HisArpy]

In my link that you didn’t read it was noted Cannon latched onto a couple of pointy head academics who wrote a paper arguing the assignment of smith was a nuh uh constitutional-wise, and who then went against decades plus of how things got done

There aren't any prior decisions on the issue. At best what we have is silence from the courts and that's not considered precedent regardless of how business as usual was conducted. Opinions from talking heads and "law professors" be damned, there's still no actual precedent to support the theory of "how things have always been done."

OTOH, what we now have is the "roadmap" concurrence which is precedent of a sort which can be cited. One which goes against the unsupported theory.

So, it's business as usual with silence as the supporting basis versus a real judicial decision providing "guidance" on what at least 1 SCOTUS justice believes.

What would you do if the matter didn't involve Trump at all?

 

[jomar]

There aren't any prior decisions on the issue. At best what we have is silence from the courts and that's not considered precedent regardless of how business as usual was conducted. Opinions from talking heads and "law professors" be damned, there's still no actual precedent to support the theory of "how things have always been done."

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

OTOH, what we now have is the "roadmap" concurrence which is precedent of a sort which can be cited. One which goes against the unsupported theory.

So, it's business as usual with silence as the supporting basis versus a real judicial decision providing "guidance" on what at least 1 SCOTUS justice believes.

You’re being pretty inscrutable here

What would you do if the matter didn't involve Trump at all?

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.

 

[LLCox]

Good luck suing the Government.