BREAKING: Trump sues Biden regime over 'unreasonable search and seizure' during Mar-a-Lago raid

by American News

The lawsuit comes as a Florida magistrate prepares to decide whether to unseal the affidavit that led to the raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

BREAKING Trump sues Biden regime over unreasonable search and seizure during Mar-a-Lago raid

Former President Donald Trump is sueing the government and asking that a special master to determine what materials from the Mar-a-Lago raid can be used against him in the investigation.

Trump filed the lawsuit in the US District Court in the Southern District of Florida on Monday afternoon, claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the raid and the subsequent seizure of certain documents, including two of his passports. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lawsuit comes as a Florida magistrate prepares to decide whether to unseal the affidavit that led to the raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

"Politics cannot be allowed to impact the administration of justice. President Donald Trump is the clear frontrunner in the 2024 Republican Presidential Primary and in the 2024 General Election, should he decide to run", the lawsuit reads, according to the Daily Mail.

It states that the raid was "shockingly aggressive" and shows that "no understanding of the distress that it would cause most Americans."

"Like all citizens, (Trump) is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Property seized in violation of his constitutional rights musty be returned forthwith."

The lawsuit switches between constitutional arguments over "rights to protection from unreasonable search and seizure to some of Trump's long-held grievances," Daily Mail reports.

"The Government has long treated President Donald J. Trump Unfairly," says one heading in the lawsuit, claiming that the DOJ and the FBI have treated the former president "differently than any other citizen."

"Two years of noisy 'Russian collusion' investigations led to a Special Counsel's finding of biased FBI agents and officials," the suit says.

Source:  https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-trump-sues-biden-regime-over-unreasonable-search-and-seizure-during-mar-a-lago-raid




Fusion GPS loses its fight in Durham's Sussmann case over "privileged" documents and MUST Release

by Techno Fog


We’ve documented the ongoing battle to obtain Fusion GPS e-mails and documents in the Michael Sussmann case. At issue in the Sussmann case are 38 e-mails and attachments between and among Fusion GPS, Rodney Joffe, and Perkins Coie. These 38 e-mails and attachments are among approximately 1,500 documents that Fusion GPS withheld from production to the grand jury based on “privilege.”

What Fusion GPS has to produce.

Today, the court in the Sussmann case made an important ruling and rejected, in large measure, Fusion’s assertion of attorney-client or work-product privilege:

Fusion GPS will have to produce these documents to Special Counsel Durham by May 16, 2022. What do these e-mails and documents contain? The court’s order provides guidance, stating they relate to:

Internal Fusion GPS e-mails discussing the Alfa Bank data and e-mails circulating draft versions of the Alfa Bank white papers that were “ultimately provided to the press and the FBI.”

Here are some examples of what these e-mails might include. These are privilege logs in Fusion GPS’s other litigation relating to the Alfa Bank hoax.



The other emails.

This leaves 16 e-mails and documents remaining. For now, Durham will not get them. These are divided into two categories:

  1. Eight of the e-mails involve internal communications among Fusion GPS employees. The court was “unable to tell from the emails or the surrounding circumstances whether they were prepared for a purpose other than assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice to the Clinton Campaign in anticipation of litigaiton.” Coming from the court, that’s a long way of saying that the sworn declarations of Fusion/Clinton lawyers (Levy and Elias) were sufficient to meet the “privilege” burden. This doesn’t mean that Durham can’t overcome this hurdle - just that it hasn’t been overcome yet.

  2. The other eight e-mails and attachments include those among Fusion GPS’s Laura Seago, Sussmann, and Rodney Joffe. The court observed that the e-mails are consistent with Joffe’s assertion of privilege.

With respect to the Joffe e-mails, we note that he is still a subject - perhaps a target - of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Here’s a portion of the transcript from an evidentiary hearing in the Sussmann case that discusses their ongoing investigation into Joffe:


Because the investigation into Joffe is ongoing, it makes sense that the Special Counsel is hesitant to disclose to the court information that could overcome this purported “privilege.” Keep in mind the crime-fraud exception, where communications are not considered privileged where they “are made in furtherance of a crime, fraud, or other misconduct” (citation omitted). In other words, the Special Counsel may still be able to get Joffe’s e-mails - assuming Joffe is charged under 18 USC 1031. He can also get them through the grand jury process, as we saw with Mueller’s investigation of Paul Manafort.1

I’ll also add that the fact that privilege applies to some of these documents strengthens the Special Counsel’s argument that Sussmann was representing a client when he met with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016.

As to the e-mails and documents Durham will obtain, he cannot use them during trial. The court considered Durham’s efforts to be too close to the May 16, 2022 trial date to allow these e-mails and documents into trial. I’m not sure that matters. Sussmann is facing a false statement charge, and the court observed these e-mails are not “particularly revelatory.”

Finally, while “Court takes no position on the other approximately 1500 documents that Fusion GPS withheld as privileged,” we can assume based on this ruling that the majority of those documents would not be privileged. Durham will likely get most of them.

For those interested: After I wrote this post, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau filed this request for a protective order. Lichtblau will be called as a witness by Sussmann’s attorneys to discuss “communications between Mr. Sussmann and Mr. Lichtblau” - meetings at which Rodney Joffe was present (that confidentiality privilege was waived).

The Special Counsel has refused to limit Lichtblau’s testimony to that narrow topic:

Durham is taking this position because Lichtblau was in contact with Peter Fritsch (and Glenn Simpson) of Fusion GPS leading up to the 2016 election. Fritsch was feeding Lichtblau Fusion “opposition research” (what we might accurately call bullshit), and Lichtblau was at least somewhat receptive, though not salivating like Franklin Foer. These are relevant to the broader “media relations” strategy that Sussmann and Fusion GPS pursued on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Here are the e-mails:


Courts Are Ruling in Favor of Trump in Election Lawsuits

by Bob Adelmann


Courts Are Ruling in Favor of Trump in Election Lawsuits

A careful analysis of 81 lawsuits related to election fraud have been filed. Of those that have been ruled upon, President Trump has won two-thirds of them.  

An extensive report issued by John Droz and his team of fellow scientists and engineers is being totally ignored by the mainstream media. Instead, the media narrative is this: “There was no election fraud because the courts have said so.” 

Wrong on both counts, according to Droz’s analysis. Said Droz:

To counter the later part of that false narrative, a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a list of lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election. In it we identified the issues at stake, how each case was treated by the courts, what evidence was objectively analyzed, who won and lost, etc…. 

We tried to walk a narrow line of not only having a comprehensive list, but also information easy enough for the public to understand. (For example, since none of us are attorneys, we consciously tried to avoid unnecessary legal jargon.)

To further assist in the understanding of this important list, we simplified 20+ pages of filings and decisions on each case into a one or two sentence summary…. 

Lastly, we passed this list by over a dozen lawyers involved with election-related lawsuits. The typical response we received was “Excellent!”

Of the 81 lawsuits filed so far, 11 have either been withdrawn or combined with another lawsuit. Twenty-three cases were dismissed due to lack of standing, timing of the suit, or jurisdiction. 

the remaining 47 lawsuits, 25 are still pending. That leaves 22 lawsuits that have been ruled upon. These are cases where the court heard the arguments, examined the evidence, and then formally ruled on the matter. Fifteen of them were decided in favor of President Donald Trump, while seven were lost. 

“So,” wrote Droz, “Trump (et al) has WON the majority of the 2020 election cases [that were] fully heard and then decided upon on their merits!”  

Nothing but silence is heard from the mainstream media — they’ve simply stopped reporting on them. Instead, when pressed, they will repeat the canard that “Trump has lost all the lawsuits that have come before the courts.”  

There remain 25 lawsuits pending. It’s more than likely that at least 15 of them will be decided in favor of Trump, concluding that there was massive election fraud.