A federal judge in Brooklyn, who is responsible for reviewing 11,000 documents that the FBI seized from the home of former President Donald Trump during an Aug. 8 search, ordered the former president’s legal team to say whether they believed agents planted evidence to incriminate the former president.
Since it was announced that his Mar-a-Lago home and office – a Palm Beach, Florida mansion turned private club where he maintains his main residence – had been searched by FBI agents, Mr. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the FBI would go even further. Fabricating evidence to make it appear as if he committed crimes.
Trump’s lawyers also noted that more than 100 documents marked as classified and retrieved from his home and office by agents were not actually classified. But a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed such allegations in an opinion released Wednesday that overturned a Florida judge’s order prohibiting the Justice Department from using classified documents to advance its “criminal investigation of Trump.”Read:West sees Xi and Modi critique of Putin as shift in view of Ukraine war
The New York-based judge who has been appointed as a “special master” per Florida judge’s order, District Judge Raymond Deere, took a similar grim view of the claims of the former president’s attorney.
In an order issued Thursday, Judge Deere gave Trump’s legal team until September 30 to say whether any of the items in the 11-page inventory provided by the department were incorrectly labeled.
In particular, it requested “a list of any specific items provided in the detailed property inventory that the plaintiff asserts were not confiscated from the building on August 8, 2022” and a separate list of “identified items… confirming that the detailed property inventory description of the contents or location within the building where Invalid item was found.
Trump’s team must file a sworn declaration certifying either list, which means his attorneys will say the FBI planted evidence under oath if they provide the lists.
“This submission should be the plaintiff’s last opportunity to raise any factual dispute regarding the completeness and accuracy of the detailed property inventory,” he added.Read:Why is Amnesty International feeding Russian propaganda? | News