The Fulton County judge presiding over Donald Trump’s racketeering and election interference case refused to revoke co-defendant Harrison Floyd’s bond on Tuesday, despite prosecutors claiming that his social media posts were threatening witnesses.
Revoking Floyd’s bond may have put the former head of Black Voices for Trump behind bars for over a year, as District Attorney Fani Willis has proposed a trial start date of August 5, 2024.
On Wednesday, Willis called Floyd’s posts on X, formerly Twitter, “an effort to intimidate codefendants and witnesses, to communicate directly and indirectly with codefendants and witnesses, and to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Willis pointed to several of Floyd’s “intentional and flagrant” posts that targeted Ruby Freeman—a Fulton County election worker who was falsely accused by Trump of election fraud—and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Both are likely to serve as witnesses in the case, along with fellow co-defendant and former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis.
Floyd’s lawyers countered on Monday, arguing that none of the posts were threats and that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.
In explaining his ruling, McAfee said there was little evidence of intimidation, citing that there was no direct messaging to witnesses, releasing of personal information, or “explicit indication” that they should be targeted.
McAfee declared there was “a technical violation” of Floyd’s bond, but “not every violation compels revocation.”
The judge then raised concerns that the conditions written in the bond were not specific enough to address the complexities of social media, and should be amended to improve protections.
At Tuesday's hearing, the first witness, Mike Hill, an investigator at the district attorney’s office, said he spoke to Jenna Ellis’ defense counsel, Michael Melito, who asked his client what she thought about Floyd’s posts, which had tagged her. Ellis responded that she “felt it was meant to intimidate and harass me.”
But Floyd’s defense asserted that tagging in a post doesn’t equate to an attack. They questioned Hill on whether he believed the posts threatened violence, to which Hill replied no.
Gabriel Sterling, the second witness and chief operating officer of the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, was shown a post in which Floyd called him and Raffesnperger “pieces of [poo emoji].”
Willis asked, “Do you enjoy being called a piece of fecal matter?”
Sterling replied, “No ma’am.”
The third witness, Freeman’s attorney Von Dubose, said a firm that performed social media tests for his client found that threats “spiked” after Floyd’s posts.
In closing arguments, Floyd’s defense again argued that none of the posts could be considered threats or intimidation to “a reasonable person.” They also said that X posts don’t equate to communicating with witnesses even if tags are used.
But Willis whipped out a PowerPoint presentation, saying that Floyd consented to speech restrictions when he took up the bond. She then addressed McAfee directly, saying that it was his job to keep potential witnesses safe and that Floyd was fully aware that Freeman, Sterling, and Ellis were key to the case.
“He was given the benefit of the doubt ... he was given an opportunity to cooperate with the rules of the case, and what he really did was spit on the court and refuse to oblige by three of the seven conditions of his bond order," Willis said.
“It is unfair to those witnesses. And there are real consequences for allowing defendants to intimidate witnesses,” he added.
