Trump following Mar-a-Lago raid
Trump following Mar-a-Lago raidReuters

Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master appointed to review documents seized by federal agents at former US President Donald Trump’s Florida estate, has given Trump until Friday of next week to back up his allegation that the FBI planted evidence in the August 8 search, NBC News reported.

Trump and his lawyers have publicly insinuated on multiple occasions that the agents who carried out the raid planted evidence during the search.

In a filing Thursday, Dearie, the court-appointed special master, ordered the government to turn over copies of all non-classified items seized in the case to Trump's lawyers by Monday.

He then ordered Trump's team to submit a "declaration or affidavit" of any items in the inventory that were removed from Mar-a-Lago that the "Plaintiff asserts were not seized from the Premises," meaning items that were put there by someone else.

Dearie also asked Trump's lawyers to identify any items that were seized by agents but not listed in the inventory. "This submission shall be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory," he wrote.

Both sides were ordered to appear for a status conference on Oct. 6, according to NBC News.

Dearie was selected just last week to serve as an independent arbiter to review the materials seized in the Mar-a-Lago search.

On Wednesday, a three-judge appeals court panel granted the Department of Justice’s request to continue its review of classified documents seized in the Mar-a-Lago search.

The judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump and the third by former President Barack Obama, also indicated in their opinion that there appeared to be no evidence that Trump declassified the documents while he was still President and that his legal team “resisted” in providing any evidence that he did so using official channels.

The panel questioned why Trump would “have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings.”

“Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents,” they wrote in the opinion.