It has been just over two years since the FBI's August 2022 raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida in search of classified documents that he allegedly retained unlawfully after leaving the White House in January 2021.

Trump's attorneys have now filed notice of their intent to sue the Biden-Harris Department of Justice for $100 million in damages in response to the Mar-a-Lago raid that they claim was conducted with the "clear intent to engage in political persecution," according to Fox News.

That raid led to the now-dismissed criminal indictment from Special Counsel Jack Smith over the alleged illegal retention of classified documents -- charges that Trump has long insisted were politically motivated and a form of election interference intended to prevent his re-election to the White House.

Trump "standing up" against political persecution and "election interference"

In a statement to Fox Business about the lawsuit, Trump's attorney Daniel Epstein said, "What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself -- he is standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold the government accountable when it wrongs you."

"You have clear evidence that the FBI failed to follow protocols, and the failure to follow protocols shows that there was an improper purpose," the attorney continued. "If the government is able to say, well, we don't like someone, we can raid their home, we can violate their privacy, we can breach protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal motive -- not a motive of justice -- if someone doesn't stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to [run] roughshod over every American."

Epstein said the case against Trump was "very accurate and precise election interference," and added, "The entire special counsel investigation was about interfering with his ability to get elected."

Raid deemed an unnecessary and "malicious" act

According to Fox News, the lawsuit against the DOJ claims that the "tortious acts against the president are rooted in intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process resulting from" the FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago residence and that high-level decisions about the raid were "inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office."

The suit specifically accuses Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray of a "clear dereliction of constitutional principles, inconsistent standards as applied to" Trump, as well as a "clear intent to engage in political persecution -- not to advance good law enforcement practices."

Trump's attorneys further argued that the raid never should have occurred, that it was an unlawful invasion of his privacy, that it was done with malicious intent for partisan purposes, and that normal processes were abused in a way that was "unconstitutional and aimed at politically persecuting the former President, which led to extensive legal costs and negative consequences for him."

In a statement to The Center Square, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said of the $100 million DOJ lawsuit, "President Trump is continuing to fight against blatant Election Interference by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice."

"As the complaint powerfully details, the raid on Mar-a-Lago was Illegal and Unconstitutional, as are all of the Democrat Witch Hunts that are now falling apart like the rotten house of cards that they are, and which should be immediately dismissed in order to bring unity back to our Nation," he added.

Critics are critical

Of course, Trump's critics in the legal realm were quick to push back against the lawsuit, according to Newsweek, with claims that it could potentially backfire on him -- if it isn't simply dismissed outright as frivolous.

According to some legal experts, the suit could result in a discovery process or even a deposition of Trump himself that could expose information that the former president would prefer to remain secret, such as how his mounting legal fees are being paid.

Others asserted that there is no legitimate basis for the suit, not to mention that the federal government generally has immunity from such civil suits unless it can be clearly shown that constitutional rights were violated.