Made a surprising ruling for a Trump co-defendant in the Georgia election interference case, and it could have significant implications for Trump himself. A judge actually refused to revoke bond for Harrison Floyd. Harrison Floyd is the head of Black Voices for Trump, and Floyd was accused of intimidating co-defendants and witnesses with his social media posts. Sound familiar? Well, of course it does, right? And Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis is personally arguing the case. It is the first time she has appeared in court to do so. Here's an investigator on Willis' team reading in court a tweet from Floyd. This is what Floyd wrote about the Georgia Secretary of state and a top election official. Both are Republicans, well-known to viewers of this show, who stood up against Trump's election lies.

The content is as follows: Black American dems want the black Trump guy to tell on the racist white Republicans, but only if it's President Trump? L-o-l. Look, the truth is that at Georgia Secretary of State and at Gabriel Sterling are the pieces of—and it's a- Emoji. Can you just spell that word as opposed to profanity in the record? Yes, ma'am. It's an emoji of poop or fecal matter emoji. They are the pieces of that emoji you should be mad at.

All right, I want to go to Evan Perez. He's been following this hearing all day. And Evan saying, Go straight after these pieces of you know what? The similarities in this case, though, to what has been happening with Trump, cannot be overstated, but it appears that the bar now is very high to prove that someone intimidated witnesses or threatened them through social media posts.

Yeah, look, what you saw from Scott McAfee today, the judge in this case, Aaron, is an example of how far judges are going to bend over backwards to try to accommodate defendants who do have a right to criticize their prosecution, of course, they have a right to free speech, and they're very reluctant to shut down a witness. And in this case, Fannie Willis, the DA there in Atlanta, in Fulton County was seeking to have his bail revoked for him to go back to jail because of the violation of the terms of his release. And what the judge said was that this was a technical violation, but he said that what he wanted instead was for some adjustments to be made to the release terms. Here's Fannie Willis arguing strenuously for this for him to be sent back to jail. He was.

Given an opportunity to cooperate with the rules of this case, and what he really did was spit on the.

Court and.

Refused to oblige by three of.

The seven conditions of.

This bond order. Right. And what.

You're seeing there, certainly from what the judge did in Atlanta today, Aaron, is also what you're seeing a little bit from the appeals court that we watched us yesterday, where there was a great reluctance to really shut down the former President and his freedom of speech, but also understanding that you need to protect witnesses, you need to protect witnesses from intimidation, and of course, you want to protect the trial, which is coming up.

All right, Evan, thank you very much. And I want to go to Ryan Goodman now at Front League, Alanis. Ryan, on its face, just to take a step back, it looks like it could be a victory for Trump, right? If it's okay for this guy to do this, does that set the standard for what is witness intimidation or threats? On that, though, I want to play one other important thing that appeared to happen in court today. Here it is.

I think that it also is very much dependent on the specific facts of the tweets and communications at issue here, and it can't be so broadly defined to cover all other co-defendants. So on the issue of modification, I think that's something that we can revisit and let time to consider, unless there's something the parties would like to address now and want the court to be able to consider specifically what they would like to see as a modification.

Okay, so can't be so broadly defined as to cover all other co-defendants and then talking about modifications. What do you read into this?

I thought the judge's cadence actually signaled something. He nearly swallow his words, just as he's about to say other co-defendants. I think that's Trump. Trump is very present in the room, though not necessarily mentioned as much. He's the elephant in the room. I do also think that that's maybe why the judge was so forgiving on where he draws the line on intimidation, because if he draws the line against this particular defendant, then he's basically drawing that same line against Donald Trump. I do think judges are bending over backwards to be more solicitors.

They're not giving everybody a longer leash.

That's right. And then I think Mr. Floyd might have benefited from the fact that his co-defendant is Mr.

Trump. Does this change, though, the line for Trump? I mean, that the things that he says are now going to be considered a crime?

I think that the Trump legal team is going to look very closely at what the judge said today. The judge did say some words about what he thinks is the line of intimidation. He said, Oh, it wasn't crossed here because Mr. Floyd didn't do direct messages. He didn't post personal information about these individuals. And then he said, and Mr. Floyd didn't say what should happen to them. Well, Trump has said what should happen to Chairman Millions, then the idea that he should be executed. So if Trump were to say those kinds of things in Judge McAfee's courtroom, that's intimidation.

Now, Trump just moments ago attacked the New York attorney general and the judge in the business fraud case. Now, he does this all the time, but this is where there's been this back and forth on a gag order. Moments ago, went after the law clerk again, and as went on, he referred to Trump pating judge, horrendous, seething with anger, law clerk, refers to rig trial, racist and corrupt attorney general, Trump pating judge, goes on and on. Based on today's ruling, is that all fine?

Unfortunately, it actually seems like it might be fine. I think, unfortunately, because it does really raise the threat level against these individuals, and he's engaging in very degrading statements about the law clerk in particular, somebody who should otherwise remain anonymous. He's obsessed with this person. Yeah, and I can only assume that the death threats against her and the like spike when he says things like this. What Judge McAfee said today is, Oh, you can say degrading statements, but they aren't necessarily intimidating. I think that's a problem.

Right. Then, of course, just to state the obvious for I hope anybody watching, just to speak like that is unconscionable, and it's sad that's now going to be perceived as fine.