I keep seeing Trump's bond conditions misrepresented as a true 'negotiation' or discussion

[bigtree]

...but it's not clear the Defendant would have any good options if he chose to object to the conditions.

I wouldn't think Fani Willis or the judge would be willing to change any of the language in their order just because the Trump legal team objected. Their answer would likely be to remand him into custody if he didn't agree, and keep him there until he was able to take his objections to an appeals court - a venue which doesn't alter bond agreements unless appeals judges (rarely) find misconduct on the part of the prosecution or judge in question.

In short, appeals to bond decisions get adjudicated in an entirely new court. This isn't a negotiation.

[brush]

1. Thanks for this clarification. Also, trump on his truth social site...

complained about the 200k bail bond amount. Doesn't the mean 10 percent of that has to be paid to not be remanded? And with him allegedly being a billionaire, $20,000 should be less even than chump change.

[former9thward]

2. There is negotiation whether you want to believe it or not.

He is a leading presidential candidate and a former president with SS protection. Of course there is going to be negotiation. The judge in the case has only been on the job six months and this is far beyond anything he has done in the past.

[bigtree]

3. not on the bond terms

...I really doubt there was any serious thought given to changing any of the conditions without an appeal.

Judges, alone, set those, and I'd be surprised if this knife's edge document was influenced at all by the defense. THAT's why they agreed to the first real gag order they've been presented with.

Exactly what in this order do you think was altered, or even alterable by 'negotiation' because of SS concerns?

So far, there haven't been any reported concessions from prosecutors or the courts, outside of the arraignment process, having to do with SS concerns.

[FBaggins]

4. Why discount "without an appeal"?

The possibility of an appeal (which would delay other steps and might be lost) is the whole reason behind negotiating in the first place.

[bigtree]

6. because all of the meaningful language is still in the gag order

...essentially poison for their harassment addicted client.

What meaningful provisions of the gag order do you believe they may have 'negotiated' out from their absolute defenseless position?

Appeals judges (appeals occurring in an entirely different court proceeding) don't change bond orders unless there's something as serious as a finding of misconduct against the judge.

And there's no indication Fani Willis isn't willing to endure some delays, unlike Jack Smith's election interference case.

[FBaggins]

11. You're misunderstanding the process

The "negotiation" isn't between the defendant and a combined judge/prosecution. The judge is a neutral party weighing the suggestions of both parties. It isn't "their order" as you implied in the OP.

The negotiation is between defense and prosecution prior to coming before the judge. It's common for the judge to ask the prosecutor for recommended bond conditions and then to ask the defense for a response. When both parties have had the negotiation ahead of time, it smooths things out. You can't say "TFG didn't get anything so there must not have been a negotiation". For all we know, the prosecution's initial position was fair and there wasn't anything to negotiate. If they had instead insisted on no bond and immediate pretrial confinement (as many here advocated), it would have looked very different. Maybe all TFG was looking for was timing/"optics" that help him in taking the news cycle back after the RNC debate.

Appeals judges (appeals occurring in an entirely different court proceeding) don't change bond orders unless there's something as serious as a finding of misconduct against the judge.

That's entirely untrue. A gag order that violates a defendant's speech rights could certainly be overturned without any finding of misconduct.

[bigtree]

12. okay, also rare for appeals judges to find 'free speech' right violated

...I didn't misunderstand anything.

AJC reporter on Deadline WH with Nicolle Wallace said the defendants have said that virtually no negotiation was offered them. They were basically handed the terms and told 'take it or leave it.'

Exactly what I wrote above.

You can claim that Trump thought the terms were 'fair' but that strains credulity. He was more than likely, as were these defendants, offered no fucking choice, except to appeal it in another court. As Fani told Meadows, he's just like any other criminal defendant charged with multiple RICO counts.

X O’B @npanxx 17h
@TamarHallerman reports trump’s bond was take-it-or-leave it, not a negotiation, which is the term of art every other journo is using 🤷‍♂️

[bigtree]

10. just fyi

...Atlanta Constitutional Journal reporter on Deadline WH with Nicolle Wallace said the defendants have said that virtually no negotiation was offered them. They were basically handed the terms and told 'take it or leave it.'

Exactly what I wrote above.

[Ms. Toad]

5. It is the standard legal term used

for talks between someone for whom an arrest warrant has been issued who wishes to voluntarily surrender rather than have the arrest warrant executed at the time and choosing of law enforcement.

So it isn't being wrongly represented, even if the term used isn't familiar in that context to those outside of legal circles.

[bigtree]

7. I get that

...but it gives an impression of control by the defendant that I labored here to dispel.

[Ms. Toad]

8. It is people's misunderstanding of how the word is used in this context -

that is the issue, though, not a wrongful representation being made by those properly using the word.

[bigtree]

9. thanks.

...