investigation of seized files
US Justice Department meets with Trump
09/13/2022, 03:38 am
A protracted legal battle follows a search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. The former president defends himself against the actions of the officials. There may be movement at one place soon.
The Justice Department is contacting the other side in a legal dispute over the appointment of a neutral examiner after a search of former President Donald Trump’s property. In a document released Monday evening (local time), the ministry was set to accept one of two candidates proposed by Trump’s lawyers.
After the earlier two persons were nominated by both the parties for the role of independent examiner, the ministry has now appealed to the court to either appoint two former judges who had proposed for the role or appoint a judge. To whom Trump’s attorneys nominated: Raymond Deary from New York. All three have substantial legal experience. The second candidate nominated by Trump’s representatives – who is an attorney but not a judge – does not have that experience, the ministry argued. Therefore the government rejects his appointment.
In return, Trump’s lawyers spoke out against both candidates proposed by the Justice Department and gave only “specific reasons” for their objections, but without becoming more specific. So the election may end up being diary.
In early August, the FBI searched Trump’s Florida mansion. The FBI confiscated various classified documents, some of which contained the highest level of secrecy. Since Trump kept records in his personal property after his term in office, he must have broken the law. Now it is being investigated.
Trump and his lawyers criticize the officials’ actions as politically motivated. He demanded the appointment of a neutral examiner and filed suit. A court accepted Trump’s request: therefore the seized documents should be examined by such a special representative and until then the inspection of the documents by the authorities should be withheld. The Ministry of Justice criticized this and appealed parts of the court’s decision.
