Search at ex-president
US Department of Justice approaches Trump in legal dispute over neutral auditor
Donald Trump, former President of the USA
© Mary Altaffer/AP/DPA
There have been legal disputes since the search of ex-US President Donald Trump’s villa. Trump defends himself against the actions of the authorities. In one place there is now movement.
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 just released, 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.
Search at Donald Trump
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.