Georgia Judge Refuses to Revoke Bail for Trump Co-Defendant, but Bans Him from Talking About Trump, Witnesses

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee refused to revoke the bail of former Black Voices for Trump director Harrison Floyd in a Tuesday hearing, and instead adopted a modified bond order submitted by District Attorney Fani Willis in court. Floyd is a co-defendant in Willis’ racketeering case against former President Donald Trump.

Willis asked McAfee to revoke Floyd’s bond in a filing last week, citing Floyd’s posts to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Floyd made posts referencing former Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman and tagging other defendants, including former attorney Jenna Ellis, who accepted a plea deal from Willis in October and publicly apologized to Georgia for participating in Trump’s contest of the 2020 election.

During a PowerPoint presentation, Willis showed a text message sent by Ellis regarding the post Floyd published that mentioned her. Ellis told Fulton County prosecutors Floyd’s posts were “meant to both intimidate and harass me and also encourage others to harass me.”

In response to Willis’ filing, Floyd’s attorneys argued Willis’ team was attempting to revoke his bond in retaliation after he refused Willis’ offer of a plea agreement.

After a hearing that lasted over four hours, McAfee determined Floyd technically violated the terms of his bond by mentioning or tagging Ellis and others on social media, despite Floyd’s attorney arguing that tagging another user does not constitute contact.

“I do think that in several instances here, there has been a technical violation of Mr. Floyd’s bond and communications he made wound up before the eyes and ears of potential witnesses and co-defendants,” said McAfee, “but not every violation compels revocation.”

After declaring that Floyd’s technical violation of the bond order does not justify pretrial incarceration and acknowledging the original bond order did not adequately contemplate how social media is used, McAfee asked Willis to submit amended conditions for the bond at its earliest opportunity.

Yes, Every Kid

Willis claimed to have immediate concerns about Freeman and urged McAfee to incarcerate Floyd until such an agreement is made. McAfee instead gave Willis time to create an amended bond order, which he adopted Tuesday.

The amended bond order created by Willis prevents Floyd from communicating with co-defendants or witnesses in the case. McAfee questioned Willis about whether it could curtail Floyd’s ability to support Trump in the 2024 election, as it forbids any mention.

Willis was willing to create a “carve out” that would allow Floyd to support Trump’s candidacy, but McAfee determined to accept Willis’ order as written, and instead invited the defense to voice its objections, adding that the court is willing to accept a second modified bond order in the future, suggesting it may only be weeks away.

Additionally, Floyd is required to remove the social media posts that provoked the bond revocation hearing within 12 hours.

In her August indictment, Willis accused Floyd of attempting to coerce false testimony from Freeman. His attorneys previously claimed they will present evidence that proves the 2020 election results in Georgia were invalid, maintaining Willis’ case will fall apart if the defendants were acting in good faith.

Willis has asked to begin the trial on August 5, 2024.

Watch the full hearing:

– – –
Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Georgia Star News, The Virginia Star, and The Arizona Sun Times. Follow Tom on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].

 

 

 

Related posts

One Thought to “Georgia Judge Refuses to Revoke Bail for Trump Co-Defendant, but Bans Him from Talking About Trump, Witnesses”

  1. levelheadedconservative

    The fear and intimidation tactics I see are coming from the prosecution. And, by not specifically “carving out” Floyd’s ability to support whoever he wants in a Presidential election cycle, and specifically forbidding mention of President Trump – prior to any potential conviction or finding of wrongdoing – is a blatant violation of his 1st Amendment rights. I believe the judge knows this or he would not have asked the question. This sham trial is ripe for appeal even before its apparent pre-ordained disposition is formally delivered.

Comments