About those leaked plea deal videos...

You were right to suspect the defense.

"In being transparent with the court, and to make sure that nobody else gets blamed for what happened, and so I can go to sleep well tonight, judge, I did release those videos to one outlet. And in all candor to the court, I need the court to know that," said Jonathan Miller, an attorney for former Coffee County election supervisor Misty Hampton.

[...]

Most of the 45-minute hearing — conducted live in Georgia and via Zoom for all of the attorneys — was devoted to a discussion of proposals for a protective order governing evidence exchanged between the parties in the case going forward.

Willis’ prosecutors wanted a blanket order on all the evidence. Co-defendant David Shafer’s legal team proposed an alternative in which the state would specifically designate certain evidence as sensitive. Prosecutors agreed with Shafer’s counter-proposal, as did most of the defense attorneys for the other indicted co-conspirators, including Trump attorney Steve Sadow.

  The Messenger

Still waiting for the judge to rule.  Will post here as an update.

UPDATE:

"The release of these confidential video recordings is clearly intended to intimidate witnesses in this case, subjecting them to harassment and threats prior to trial," the Fulton County District Attorney's Office said in a motion on Tuesday.

[...]

At the hearing on Wednesday, the district attorney's office consented to a protective order drafted by attorneys for defendant David Shafer.

McAfee said he would draft the order based on Shafer's proposal.

  Raw Story

Miller says he released the videos because he thought his client was helped by it, and the public should know.  The judge questioned whether there was any reason to release it before trial.

A representative of the media in general objected to a protective order at all.  The judge acknowledged the need for public transparency in court proceedings but suggested that pretrial discovery does not fit into that category, and he expresses concern for keeping a jury pool unprejudiced by it.

The only thing wrong with Joyce's analysis, in my opinion, is that she makes it sound like the judge chastised Miller.  In essence, I suppose he did, but the judge's bearing and comments are always respectful and not a challenge, but an invitation to the attorneys to examine their point and show them his.

From what I understand, this is a judge new to the top tier on the Georgia bench, but I'd say he earned it.  I like him.  He always seems to know a lot about the law, and he always seems amiable and respectful in his comments.  

Final order to be posted here as an update.

UPDATE 03:55 pm:  The order

Can't argue with that.

The order requires prosecutors to physically label evidence it seeks to protect as “sensitive material” and gives defense attorneys 14 days to contest any designations they disagree with.

[...]

“The Court has an interest in ensuring that all parties retain their right to a fair trial before an unbiased jury, a process that could become unattainable should the public be allowed to vet every piece of unfiltered evidence months before trial,” McAfee wrote in the filing.

  NBC