Trump Georgia Bond Restricts His Communications With Witnesses and Initimidation, Including Through Social Media
No witness intimidation or communications with witnesses about the facts of the case including through “posts on social media or reposts of
posts made by another individual on social media.”
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump worked out a bond deal with Fani Willis rather than waiting for an arraignment in court. The monetary terms of the deal are fairly simple – $200,000.
The restrictions on communications are interesting:
(2) The Defendant shall not violate the laws of this State, the laws of any other state, the laws of the United States of America, or any other local laws. Ayala v. State, 262 Ga. 704, 705 (1993).
(3) The Defendant shall appear in court as directed by the Court. Id.
(4) The Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.
Id. This shall include, but is not limited to, the following:a. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any
codefendant;
b. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any
witness including, but not limited to, the individuals designated in the Indictment
as an unindicated co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30;
c. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any
victim;
d. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against the
community or to any property in the community;
e. The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of
posts made by another individual on social media;(5) The Defendant shall not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, about the facts of
this case with any person known to him to be a codefendant in this case except through
his or her counsel.(6) The Defendant shall not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, about the facts of
this case with any person known to him to be a witness in this case except through his or
her counsel.
.
Some of these terms are sufficiently broad that Trump’s usual banter and rants on Truth Social could be an issue.
It’s unclear to me if Trump still needs to attend an in-person arraignment, and the terms of release for the other defendants. I’ll add information as it becomse available.
MORE TO FOLLOW
Per CNN (I know, I know):
Former President Donald Trump plans to turn himself in and be processed at the Fulton County jail on Thursday, two sources familiar with the plan tell CNN.
That date was set during negotiations with the district attorney’s office today over his consent bond and release conditions.
JUST IN: John EASTMAN has submitted to pretrial release conditions in Georgia, including $100,000 bond. https://t.co/JgriTeQ908 pic.twitter.com/HCt1xbrikg
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 21, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So, it clearly intends to put a gag on Trump where he can’t make any comments about the pResident of the white house – his political opponent.
Trump could reject these terms but if he agrees to them instead of fighting them they can’t truly be called a gag.
Could put a crimp in his plan to upstage the Republican debate, though.
So if I consent to a gag, it is no longer a gag??? Interesting
Art of the Deal
If you consent then it is no longer being imposed upon you. This is a very simple distinction and I don’t understand why you need help grasping the point but here goes.
Take the example of some kinky folks into BDSM who voluntarily agree to participate v someone who is grabbed up off the street and involuntary tied up and gag put into their mouth.
Voluntary v Involuntary is as simple as it gets.
“If you consent then it is no longer being imposed upon you. This is a very simple distinction and I don’t understand why you need help grasping the point but here goes.”
If you are truly this stupid, I expect that my time is being wasted here –but for those that can be saved, I’ll go on.
The choice between one punishment (censorship) and a worse punishment (imprisonment) does not suggested that either is consented to. Both are imposed..
And then to suggest that accepting such a punishment is akin to engaging in happy BDSM?
I suspect you’ve managed to get your head through your rectum twice now. Going for a third?
If you don’t understand the distinction between voluntary and involuntary you should stay away from dating and most other social interactions.
That said, Trump and his Attorneys could have filed motions and requested that briefs and oral arguments be presented to alter the parts of this agreement they found burdensome. They chose not to do so. It wouldn’t be a big deal to have done so. I can’t tell you why but I suspect it was a ploy to gain sympathy from folks easily confused about this.
As much as you have mischaracterized it this isn’t a situation with a true dilemma to be resolved. They chose not to fight the conditions but they could have chosen to do so without any issues. It would be routine to have a hearing and request further argument before the judge made the final ruling.
If Trump and his Attorneys are ok with it (and since they didn’t choose to fight about it that means they ain’t too upset over it) then why can’t you accept the decision and the consequences that Trump and his Attorneys have already made peace with?
“So if I consent to a gag, it is no longer a gag??? Interesting”
Understand, it’s Trump, okay?
These people will twist their own heads through their rectums to rationalize that anything done to Trump is deserved.
This seems like a gross infringement of the First Amendment.
Nope. He waived his rights.
under duress
And. That’s a function of his behaviour with respect to legal proceedings. If he hadnt a strong tendency to incite violence from his supporters he wouldnt have this issue.
It doesn’t matter. Waived is waived.
With three other judges it should be possible to shut Trump up entirely.
I would not bet on that outcome 😉
It’s not Trump that gagged, it’s the public ears that are deafened.
Rather seems like these political prosecutions by democrats is interfering with a federal election. About time for some higher court to put the breaks on this concerted abuse of process.
People need to realize that the permanent Democrat DOJ along with Soros state DA’s can, have and will persecute and convict any political opponent they choose to..
Ted Stevens was convicted by Andrew Weismann later head hunter for the Russia collusion hoax.
Bob McDonnell former VA Governor and GOP presidential material, was convicted by Jack Smith now special prosecutor against Trump.
Both those convictions were later overturned but their political careers were ruined. The same thing happened with Tom Delay but don’t recall who prosecuted.
Some folks have convinced themselves that it is only Trump targeted but that is delusional.
I love how you miss out the fact that Smith also went after John Edwards, a Democrat. Your claim is devoid of context and when placed in it your comment looks pretty silly.
Bless your heart.
The only common denominator is that all 3 were prosecuted. The 3 GOP pols had never committed a crime and had their verdicts overturned.
Broadly worded so it will come back to bite DJT cause anything he says will be used against him.
He should already know that anything he says will be used against him. If he’s made a bond agreement, he’s been informed of his rights — including the right to remain silent — same as if he’d been arrested and read his Miranda rights.
Even if he wasn’t informed of his Miranda rights, after the past four years of vitriol and hate from the Left, and a three-year investigation into “Russian collusion” over an off-hand remark made over the phone one time, he should know damn well anything he says will be used against him!
With all due respect to a certain scary green ogre, “He HAS the right to remain silent. What he lacks is the capacity.”
All that said, this order/agreement is very broad, and could be read to include ANYTHING that could possibly be seen to pertain to the investigation, investigators, or any of his political opponents (read: all Democrats and half of Republicans), in any context.
What, then, is he still allowed to comment on, I wonder? Will he be able to participate in a debate, since on the surface it sounds like he won’t be able to answer most questions without violating this agreement/order?
The notion that Trump could be jailed for debating republican primary opponents should be put to the test.
And Trump is the man to test the theory.
He’s consented to these terms, so he’s waived his first amendment rights.
Still, I don’t see how this prevents him from debating them on matters of policy. He just can’t threaten them in any way, which puts a crimp on his personal style, but that’s a good thing. Maybe he’ll be forced to actually debate them on policy grounds like any normal candidate.
So, you agree with me, but feel the need to dispute.. something .. because my unlawyerly and commonsensical approach to life annoys and confounds you.
When does that ever happen? (That’s sarcasm – to forestall the inevitable counter argument citing case law which I’ve no interest in.)
No, I don’t agree with you. You wrote that the notion that Trump could be jailed for debating republican primary opponents should be put to the test. Nobody has such a notion. He’s not forbidden from debating them, he’s just restricted in how he debates them, and those restrictions can’t be tested because he agreed to them.
My comment is in response to:
“he should know damn well anything he says will be used against him!”
And:
“What, then, is he still allowed to comment on, I wonder? Will he be able to participate in a debate, since on the surface it sounds like he won’t be able to answer most questions without violating this agreement/order?”
My comment is part of an ongoing comment thread narrative, not a stand alone statement.
I want Trump to debate and don’t care if he argues policy or behaves like a “normal” candidate. I want the left to overstep their authority and throw him into jail.
We need this resolved now. Not next summer or fall. We either live in a democratic republic or we don’t.
Wow there Republicans don’t have any policy
You surely can’t be stupid enough to believe this order will be interpreted to only include what an ordinary person would call an actual threat.
“I want the left to overstep their authority and throw him into jail.”
Oh! I thought you meant test Trump to see if he could last through a debate without violating his bond.
Still would like a lawyer here to tell me how Trump could commit a crime in GA when he wasn’t even in the state?…..ie. MD is a two party consent state to record a phone call, NJ is a one party state,..If I’m in NJ and call and record someone in MD, I cannot be charged in MD
Ty Mark.. there is also this whole issue about state crimes and federal crimes that is all muddled together. But I guess that is the whole point.
Very simple example. If you call someone in another State and offer them $ in exchange for committing murder in that State then when they commit the murder you can be charged in that State. Even if he doesn’t commit the murder both of you could be charged if the person you called took steps ‘in furtherance of the crime’. It must be said that charging is easy, proving it in CT is something entirely different.
Bottom line is if you conspire to commit a crime in State A then State A can charge you even if y’all did the discussion and planning over Facebook, y’all never met in person and you never set foot in State A in your entire life.
Complaining that one was robbed in an election, and talking with one’s legal and political advisors about how to reverse that, is neither a crime nor a conspiracy to commit a crime. It might be bad politics as most Americans don’t like sore losers. But if what he did was a crime in Georgia, Stacey Adams needs to be indicted — she still doesn’t accept the 2018 gubernatorial election that she lost, and she complained loud and long.
I happen to agree with you but that’s not germane to the question asked by markS which was:
‘How could Trump be charged with a crime in GA when he wasn’t even in the State?’
I provided a very simple example of how that hypothetical situation could occur.
By all means go after Abrams if you have enough influence over a DA in GA to swing one into action.
Danny, he did not ask “major officials to rig the 2020 election for him”, he asked them to unrig it for him. And that is neither illegal nor disgusting, nor even fattening.
Your hypothetical concerning Mrs Clinton is ridiculous because it could only happen in an alternative universe where Dems don’t routinely rig elections and Reps do. in this universe Clinton could not have asked the PA SoS in good faith to “unrig” the election for her, because she could not have believed it was rigged against her. Trump not only could believe GA had been rigged against him, he manifestly did so believe.
And there’s good reason to suppose he might have been right; where he was wrong is that he imagined the evidence of this rigging was so ubiquitous that Raffensperger couldn’t fail to find it if only he’d make the effort. That was clearly an error of fact.
What he is being charged with is a series of three calls where he the loser of the election tried to persuade state elected officials to annul the election and give him the electoral votes anyway.
The claim is that was trying to get a public official to break his oath.
Those three charges are the heart of it with all of the rest going away if those aren’t proven.
I have said it before and will say it again I do not know if Trump crossed legal lines with his phone calls asking major officials to rig the 2020 election for him (the loser of the state popular vote getting that states electoral votes is the definition of a rigged election) but I do know it is disgusting and had Hillary Clinton called her Democrat buddies like than PA SoS Cortez to ask for him to annul the election and give PA to her everyone here would be up in arms.
I wish none of these indictments happened but because they did I am going to be honest about what I think of them.
@Milhouse
Your statement is plain wrong. It’s factually the case that Trump asked for votes to be found.
Its funny that you claim Dems rig elections when the factual record demonstrates the opposite.
The notion that Trump can claim he sincerely believed the election was stolen is fatally flawed. Firstly given his propensity to lie (as demonstrated within the indictment) and secondly even if he believed it to be the case that doesn’t negate the fact that his conduct was illegal. You cant seriously claim that despite being told by multiple authoritative sources he was wrong about ALL the fraud claims that he was entitled to continue in his conduct
Fatkins:
Yes. What’s wrong with that? How does it support Danny’s claim that he wanted Raffensperger to rig the election, rather than to unrig it?
ROTFL. Now I know you are either joking or delusional. Or you come from some alternative universe where Aaron Burr was the third president, or where the bullet missed Lincoln, or something. In this universe, that Dems routinely engage in large-scale election fraud is an established fact.
No, it wasn’t. Name the law he broke.
Sure I can. What made them more “authoritative” than the ones telling him the opposite? Why should he have believed what some people were telling him and not what others were? Out of the wide spectrum of conflicting information he was receiving, he was 100% entitled to accept the version that was good for him, and to act on it even if he was unsure whether it was true, let alone if he actually did think it was the truth. Which, for all we now know, it may well have been; the only thing we can be sure he was wrong about is that if it was true, it was not nearly as easy to prove as he thought it was.
Well according to a number of lawyers what the indictment lacks is an actual crime 🤔🙄😂
Yes. But his not being present in the state isn’t relevant. If he had committed a crime in GA without being there, GA would be completely within its rights to charge him.
Once again, you seem to be under this weird idea that you can’t commit a crime in a state without being physically present there. That is simply not true.
Look at all the people who are routinely extradited to the USA to face criminal charges even if they’ve never set foot here in their lives.
He’s not a sore loser, his Presidency was stolen
STOLEN
Well, in Georgia, there’s a pretty good chance that Kemp stole his first election from Abrams, then got with the program after they killed his future son-in-law and threatened to out his previous election rigging.
I’m happy he got us constitutional carry, and has been giving some bones to the anti-groomers, but he’s a broken, compromised man on elections.
I would bet my left ________ that both sides in Georgia cheat. Not sure which cheats more though
No, there is no credible case that Kemp stole his election. There is zero doubt that he won the election and Abrams lost it.
There is a zero percent chance you idiot.
Congratulations on becoming a Democrat out of support for Donald J Trump.
Where do you get that Kemp may have stole the election from Abrams?
I agree that his future son-in-law was murdered but I see that as a warning from the national Dems not to mess with how they count votes here. He has gotten with the program as they laid out. I also read his angry overreaction to Colton Moore’s threat to request he call a special session as a reaction out of fear …again resulting from the fiance’s murder.
Bring on the evidence.
I agree with you that there were shenanigans and anomalies in 2020, but “shenanigans and anomalies” doesn’t automatically equal “stolen election”, any more than a bank teller’s drawer not exactly matching the deposit/withdrawal books automatically equals “embezzlement”.
Yea, it’s possible, and yea, there should have been some serious investigation into how those shenanigans and anomalies were allowed to happen in one of the most closely-watched elections in U.S. history — because you know damn well if that hypothetical bank drawer held $20 more OR less than the deposit/withdrawal books said, the manager would be looking into it …
… and the stakes are decidedly higher in a presidential election!
But at the end of the day, right or wrong, there was no investigation, and as such there is insufficient evidence to conclude the election was stolen.
I’m not happy about it, either, but constantly yelling “The election was STOLEN!!!” to everyone doesn’t change it.
The Dems were certainly doing everything they could to steal the election. The only question is whether they actually stole it, or they won it even without the stealing.
And that’s not including all the legal shenanigans, such as the news industry’s conspiracy to turn public opinion away from Trump, and the Zuckbucks program, which do not count as “stealing” but were certainly not fair. Without those I don’t think there’s any doubt that Trump would have won.
” The only question is whether they actually stole it, or they won it even without the stealing.”
No. There is no question.
If the issue could have been investigated and shown to be nothing more than Trumpian blather it would have been.
But the left knows that it’s far more likely that an investigation would show the scope of their world class vote fraud organization.
So those who question must be demonized and persecuted.
Which to this day you have ZERO evidence for and every claim made about it has simply been debunked.
Exactly. And all the Leftists, NeverTrumpers and SomewhatTrumpers know it, which is why they can’t quit Trump.
If they would not have orchestrated the stealing of his second term they would have been nearly done with having to deal with Trump. Instead, here we are in year seven of the Trump era, where they are continually stuck in the past because they can’t deal with one man being involved in politics.
And if it’s stolen again they know there will be hell to pay. But, now they are in the midst of criminalizing one man be abuse he refuses to bow to them. I am constantly surprised that all these so-called “conservative” news sites keep playing the game, but here we are.
He was never allowed to be President
Every legal attack against President Trump from the day he was inaugurated in 2017 is based on the theory he isn’t REALLY the President. Sure, he was elected by the people and sure, his electors were certified by Congress and he was sworn into office by the Chief Justice. But he isn’t LEGITIMATE, so therefore he isn’t allowed to president.
But it’s amazing that such education minds here are so blind
That isn’t a persuasive argument for putting Trump back into the WH since you are telling us he won’t be ‘allowed to be POTUS’.
That was not the argument, however. It was the rationale used by seditionists.
26,
Yes it was the argument made by implication. Where Trump wasn’t ‘allowed’ (by the deep state?) to preform the duties as POTUS in his 1st term why then would we anticipate that Trump would be ‘allowed’ to do so in a hypothetical 2nd term?
One consistent trend among many MAGADONIANS is using overly simplistic arguments or making claims that are far too broad that don’t hold up under even mild scrutiny. It makes sense in a fashion b/c that’s how Trump communicates as well so that sort of communication style would be expected to resonate more strongly with those in the public audience that also use the same style of exaggerated communication.
No it wasn’t. It was the way you interpreted it and now overanalyze and label, trying to communicate to others what they think and how you prefer they go about it.
Logic isn’t the strong suit of MAGADONIANS. Apparently you don’t understand what implication means either.
You are proving the point I made in the second paragraph above with your comment.
Oh for heaven’s sake. Speaking about being uneducated, there you go again. Trump was duly elected, sworn into office, had a Republican House and Senate, and could appoint anyone he wanted to fill cabinet positions. If you’re telling us he “wasn’t allowed to (be) president” with those advantages, he definitely shouldn’t be elected again.
To say this, you have to be disingenuous. When the Republican House and Senate had a chance to repeal Obamacare did it do it? I seem to recall a certain John McCain very publicly voting against Obamacare just so he could stick it to Trump.
When Trump proposed building the border wall did the Republican Congress fully fund it from the beginning?
And let’s not forget it wasn’t the Democrats who launched the Mueller investigation, it was the Republicans.
You can call gonzotx uneducated all you want, but don’t you and those six likes of yours try to blow smoke up our asses that the Republicans were not just as much against Trump as the Democrats were.
When presented a budget lacking funding for his central campaign promise ‘build a big beautiful wall’ did Trump use his Presidential VETO power?
He did not. He chose in that moment not to fight using all the tools at his disposal to deliver on his promise to the voters.
Did the DC establishment of both parties oppose Trump and building a border wall? Absolutely. The establishment was 100% against the idea which is why Trump was able to make the case for building a border wall in the campaign. If the DC establishment wanted a wall they would have chosen to fund the construction long ago. It was no surprise to anyone paying attention that the DC establishment would continue that opposition.
Whether he used his veto power or not is irrelevant. The fact remains both parties were against Trump. He shouldn’t have had to use the veto power AGAINST HIS OWN PARTY.
Next time, just say I was right and the prior poster I was responding to was blowing smoke up our asses.
But you’re not right. Had Trump vetoed that bill for not including border wall funding, he would have been a national hero, and he would have (most importantly) WON. There was no way the Senate could rouse a 2/3 vote to override his veto with a 52-48 split, right? He would have WON. And the funding for the wall would have been in place.
I do find it rather odd that you are claiming here that Trump didn’t want to veto his own party. Where have you been? All Trump does is trash his own party (when he’s not endorsing or flouncing around with the worst of its swamp creatures). Do you think Trump was afraid to use his veto power? That he, in that pivotal moment, mysteriously had the single and solitary moment of being a team player in his entire life? That he shied away from doing what he thought was right in deference to the Party? Really? That’s your guy? Because he sounds like a chump to me.
The Republican Congress didn’t abolish 0bamacare because Trump didn’t want it to. He made that very clear from the beginning. When he won the presidency, that was the end of abolishing 0bamacare.
Likewise his attempt to end DACA and DAPA failed because he explicitly said he didn’t want to. He pretended he was ordering them ended only because he thought he had to, so the court “helpfully” told him he didn’t have to and therefore his doing so was arbitrary and capricious. Had he said he was ending them as a matter of policy, because he thought that was the right thing to do, it would have been upheld.
Blow smoke all you want. We all live through the Trump presidency. Both parties were against Trump. No amount of rationalization on your part will change that. Take that overeducated, dumb nonsense elsewhere.
As the country crumbles, and evidence of actual Constitutional crimes grows, it must be asked just why this is happening and if it will finally be recognized for what it is, the actions of an autocrat and his ruling party.
Biden is the most blatantly corrupt of the bunch. But they are all anti-democrats that have created an administrative state that protects their wrongdoing and quashes any threat, to protect itself and “rule of law.”
The damage to the legal system since 2008 is incalculable. It’s hard to recognize America anymore.
It’s a lot more broad than Biden, the Rich men North of Richmond have been at this for a long time.
Yes, since at least 1910, the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments, the act that limited the size of the House of Representatives, etc., …
Much further back. Try the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. The Rich men North of Richmond label isn’t limited to just DC. It encompasses a broader region who’s arrogance and condescension towards the rest of the Nation has a deep history.
Who said it wasn’t? Your comment is superfluous.
“Every legal attack against President Trump from the day he was inaugurated in 2017 is based on the theory he isn’t REALLY the President.”
Every legal attack was, and is, based on the fact Trump was fairly elected. Those same anti-democratic forces within the US want to overthrow our electoral system and install a totalitarian one in its place. A Putinesque “sovereign democracy.”
This is why I will vote for whoever wins the republican primary. I hate the notion of it – I find voting for the “lesser of two evils” repugnant. It’s extortionate on the face of it.
Why isn’t Trump’s team puling a Mark Meadows and moving this matter to Federal court?
Because Trump wasn’t acting in his official capacity as president, but in his capacity as a political candidate. Meadows claims everything he did was purely within his job description.
Because if Meadows is successful, they won’t have to as ALL the defendants – the entire case – will be moved to federal court together. If Meadows’ fails, then Trump – and the other co-defendant’s – have 30-days to file their own motion for removal. The weird part is if Trump (or any other person) succeeds, they still all get moved, even Meadows.
The criminal procedure for removal is odd, esoteric and RARELY used in criminal cases. But, lawyers who have real world experience with the strategy seem reasonably confident this case ends up in federal court, sooner rather than later.
The removal process is rare (as I understand) because prosecutors *know* that indicting a Federal official for doing his job is a no-brainer move to Federal court and dismissal, so they don’t do it very often. In this case, Trump-as-candidate was over as of election day, and Trump-the Executive was doing his job in attempting to make right obvious (in his sight) election laws broken. Remember, Georgia Sec of State and Governor and courts did everything they could to keep the ballots from being reviewed, the processes from being examined, and the end results challenged. That does not seem to be the mark of an honest election.
Nope. He was still a candidate until Dec 14, when the actual election was held, and after that he was still a candidate until Jan 6 when the votes were counted. President Trump had no legitimate interest in ensuring that he would be the next president as well; that was a concern of Candidate Trump only. So when he made the (completely legitimate) call he was acting as Candidate Trump, not as President Trump. Meadows, however, acted at all times as the President’s chief of staff, arranging calls and meetings for him, for both governmental and political reasons, as his job description called for.
If Trump went to the debate, and was asked about it, imagine if he would have to pull a Biden and say, “no comment.” Then again, Biden really had none, such an empty, greedy man that produced nothing of much value in his life, without a real shred of empathy for others.
On the other had, with Trump, it’s a violation of his First Amendment rights by the State, and an intererence in the election. Doubtful he would smirk.
It can’t be a violation of his first amendment rights if he’s voluntarily waived those.
Sure it can be, if applied in an overbroad manner.
You claimed he could only say no comment.
Which would mean you are looking at what the state claims as his victims or codefendants on the stage.
In order to be a jackass and have a snarky comment you walked into either
1. You are denying claiming what you claimed (which is Trump would have to say no comment)
2. You are admitting you don’t actually read the professors articles and had no idea the terms listed categories of people.
You are so easily triggered. It’s comical.
An overbroad manner? Oh, that could never happen. Again. For the fiftieth time or so.
We know from it being released he had nothing to do with the SoS call, there is nothing to imply he had anything to do with pressuring the governor or state speaker either.
There is nothing illegal about trying to disqualify electoral votes.
There is something illegal about trying to get a public official to break their oath of office, and where the line between free speech vs that exists is different state by state.
However for Mike Pence to testify would mean he is testifying to something he did not witness (hearsay) or he is testifying about something that isn’t a crime.
Either way there would need to be more indictments for him to testify.
He may have to testify in other cases, but in context the agreement is only binding on the case in Georgia which hinges on three phone calls Pence had nothing to do with.
But he didn’t ‘voluntarily waive those’. He was given a choice of punishments and was made to choose between them.
Either way he remains under duress..
While being accused of no actual crime.
So which of his debate rivals are either codefendants or victims listed in the indictment?
I would like to know because you seem to be of the belief they are.
Well off the top of my head, Mike Pence.
Speaking for others AGAIN? Don’t you know when to quit? It seems that your only intent is to find something to argue about, even if you have to make it up!
You forgot “witnesses”. Pence is a potential witness.
Any practicing crim lawyers on here know what will happen to this arrangement if/when the case is removed to federal court? Will the federal judge simply carry-over the terms of bail or will Trump et al. all have to be re-arraigned?
Another question, if the case gets removed to Federal court can the DA office argue the case? Don’t you need a different licensure to argue in Federal Court?
In fact, only the Fulton County DAs office can prosecute the case. She and her staff are all members of the Georgia State bar, so there’s no impediment to litigating cases in that particular federal district court. However, litigating a federal case with no federal experience would be supremely stupid (not an impassibility for this woman). The more likely avenue would be for her office to hire lawyers who have ample federal criminal prosecution experience.
Not sure how this situation would apply, let’s say he pre recorded some audio or video prior to the agreement, these were outside the restrictions and somehow the recordings get released by a third party.
Would he be in violation of the agreement?
That amounts to publishing, which is a form of communication I believe.
He would have to make sure it couldn’t be traced back to him or he would be in violation. Dems would probably hunt the person releasing it too in an attempt to tie back to him.
Regardless, why does he need communication with potential witnesses to campaign?