Inspection of confiscated files
US Department of Justice meets Trump
09/13/2022 03:38 am
The search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence is followed by a protracted legal battle. The ex-president defends himself against the actions of the authorities. There could soon be movement in one place.
In the legal dispute over the appointment of a neutral examiner after the search of ex-President Donald Trump’s property, the Justice Department is approaching the opposite side. In a document released Monday evening (local time), the ministry was open to accepting one of the two candidates proposed by Trump’s attorneys.
After both sides had previously nominated two people each for the role of independent examiner, the ministry now appealed to the court to either appoint the two ex-judges it had proposed for the role or to appoint a judge who Trump’s lawyers had named : Raymond Dearie from New York. All three have sufficient legal experience. The second candidate named by Trump’s representatives – who is a lawyer but not a judge – does not have that experience, the ministry argued. The government therefore rejects his appointment.
Trump’s lawyers, in turn, spoke out against both candidates proposed by the Justice Department and only gave “specific reasons” for their objections, but without becoming more specific. So the choice could end up being Dearie.
In early August, the FBI searched Trump’s Florida mansion. The FBI confiscated various classified documents, some of which had the highest level of secrecy. Since Trump kept the records at his private estate after his term in office, he may have broken the law. This is now being investigated.
Trump and his lawyers criticize the authorities’ actions as politically motivated. They demanded the appointment of a neutral auditor and filed a corresponding lawsuit. A court granted Trump’s request: The confiscated documents should therefore be checked by such a special representative and the inspection of the documents by the authorities stopped until then. The Ministry of Justice criticized this and appealed parts of the court’s decision.