Exactly.
Would it be jury tampering if when they reached out to jurors, Admiral Ackbar would pop in and yell, “It’s a trap!”
So what then if these lawyers know of a single Trumpist juror who would not decline, and interview that one. I mean the juror could not possibly claim things that weren’t true.
I’m just wondering if a juror friendly to the defense could fucker things up.
We know there is at least one such juror. Chesebro/Powell teams will probably try to amp that up into some kind of misconduct assertion. So there will be a hearing and a ruling. I don’t expect the ruling to favor Chesebro/Powell in the end. I trust Fani Willis knows her job and would not have risked her case on a problematic juror issue.
But you can’t blame them for trying.
It’s sort of like getting a lottery ticket for your birthday, right? You know you don’t really have much of a chance to win, and it’s pretty much a waste of time. And yet, what if you did win? You’d feel stupid for not at least making the attempt to cash in. And it’s not costing you anything to do so, but your own time.
Me as well.
My reaction is — this is outrageous. I’ve always heard that grand jury proceedings are secret. So if I was on the grand jury, I would have been freely asking questions, as allowed, without worrying how the questions might sound if taken out of context and publicized. And I would now be worried that one of my fellow grand jurors, who voted differently (unanimity not required in a grand jury), would mischaracterize what I asked or said.
If I was on the grand jury, I would, to the extent my finances allow, be seeking legal counsel.
P.S. Was there a foreman on this jury? If so, they should issue some sort of public statement requesting their follow grand jurors not to appear.
Is there any precedent in Georgia where failure to do this resulted in a verdict being overturned? I doubt it but would like to be corrected if wrong.
The judge is young, new, and a GOP appointee:
On the other hand, he is up for election, in heavily Democratic Fulton County, next May. You wouldn’t think he would be making pro-Trump rulings, in that jurisdiction, if he wants to keep his job.
So am I missing something big here?
P.S. Is it terrible to suggest that a judge will rule the way voters wish on the one case voters are most likely to consider when they vote? Maybe, but, the logic of electing judges suggests this.
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that cases criminally trying a former president and current leading candidate for a major political party is commonly done? There’s no precedent for it.
There may be other cases where motions were made to interview grand jurors, and since the policy in Georgia is to publish their names – as was done in this case, too – those motions may even have been occasionally granted. But I can’t see how anyone is harmed for a judge to rule, “Well, you defendants can ask, and if the grand jurors agree, you can ask them questions I have pre-screened and approved. Or they can tell you to go pound sand. Their choice.”
What you’re missing is that this case will for sure go up on appeal for every imaginable issue if there is a conviction. The more issues this judge can put to rest in advance of a trial is a good thing for him. This is commonly done by judges all over the country.
I don’t see any evidence that Judge McAfee is taking politics into consideration at all. And I am a bit leery of Judge McAfee due his having been a Kemp appointee. But so far, in my opinion he’s handling this case well.
Empirical evidence is that for Trump and associates, “not costing you anything” has a very different meaning. 
As for the judge, I lean slightly towards @Aspenglow’s direction - the judge is allowing more leeway than for your average crook, but is doing so to show evenhandedness, while retaining control (voluntary and under the judge’s guidance).
And I would bet if we get seriously leading / conspiracy based questions or badgering, they’ll stop the whole thing right there and state that they gave the defense the option which was abused. And if it isn’t abused and entirely factual, they … I’m sorry, I couldn’t finish that sentence seriously, of course it’ll be abused.
Just shootin’ the breeze, but I would have thought that for non-merkins there were a host of red flags about that precis of judicial modus operandi stateside.
Indubitably! But since I already hijacked a Trumpy thread by getting drawn into that discussion, better you start a new thread. 
So it’s the “give them more rope” theory. I think that’ll work well with this particular set.
Here’s the text of the order permitting interviews:
Defense counsel, either individually or in consolidated form, are directed to file a list of proposed grand juror questions within three business days following entry of this Order. The State will then have three business days following the Defendants’ submission(s) to object to any particular question. The Court will file an order listing all approved and rejected questions, and should any question survive, the State must provide contact information for each grand juror ex parte and in camera. The Court will then independently contact each juror to inquire whether he or she is willing to submit to an interview, either remotely or in-person. Such interviews will be conducted on the record in the presence of the Court and counsel for all parties at a time agreeable to each juror.
Given all that (and note my bolding) I’d say the defense has very little wiggle room to get any benefit out of this.
ETA: I didn’t see any language in the order allowing any followup questioning after each approved question is answered, further cutting off room for shenanigans.
should it be this judge, shenanigans will be shut down quickly.
DA Willis has moved for an inquiry into the conflict of interest of several of the current defence lawyers, pointing out that they previously acted for several of the proposed prosecution witnesses, and therefore cannot cross-examine them without raising a concern that they are relying on previous confidential information to assist in their cross-exams.
wow! that is quite a few conflicts. this case just keeps giving.
Just a fantasy, and improbable from a variety of legal perspectives, but it would be great if the judge had added that if a grand juror agrees, he or she may be questioned by the defendant’s lawyers outside of the judge’s and prosecutors’ presence, in accordance with certain spelled-out limitations on the questioning, but instead send FBI agents posing as grand jurors instead to see how the questions would intimidate, threaten, bully etc the grand jurors.
I realize this fantasy is illegal, but it’s funny to imagine what it might turn up.
Oh, my. Lin Wood has flipped? Wonder what his former client will rant on Truth Social in response? Naw, I’m not going to try to come up with a sample; takes too much work to reverse the brain rot afterwards.
What are the chances that this is going to start a stampede?
j