Donald Trump Jr. took to Twitter and uploaded a photo that pointed out that his father’s name was not logged once on the Epstein flight logs while Joe Biden was multiple times.
Don’t forget it!!!! pic.twitter.com/XYBpHQq2Zx
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 7, 2024
In a recent submission to the Fulton County Superior Court addressed to presiding Judge Scott McAfee, legal representatives of Donald Trump contended that the former president was not sufficiently warned that his actions could be deemed criminal. The argument posited that the United States has a longstanding tradition of vigorous political advocacy concerning widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in numerous presidential elections throughout its history. Consequently, Trump’s legal team asserted that he lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the context of the 2020 Presidential Election could be subject to criminalization.
Citing legal precedent, the filing emphasized the importance of individuals, including the President, being entitled to clear guidance on where the boundary lies between permissible activity and potentially criminal conduct. Quoting the United States v. Lanier case, the argument underscored that no individual should be held criminally responsible for actions that they could not reasonably understand to be prohibited.
The filing invoked the principle of due process, contending that courts should refrain from applying a novel interpretation of a criminal statute to conduct not clearly disclosed by the statute or prior judicial decisions to be within its scope. Referring to Boddie v. Connecticut, it emphasized that a statute or rule may be deemed constitutionally invalid as applied if it deprives an individual of a protected right, even if its general validity as a legitimate exercise of state power is not in question.
Furthermore, the filing addressed each count in the indictment against Trump, outlining refutations for the charges he faces, such as Violation of the Georgia RICO Act, Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a Public Officer, Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree, Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings, Conspiracy to Commit Filing False Documents, and others. The submission provided the maximum penalties associated with each count.
