case and may not be in others, right? >> yes, your honor. >> so i guess some of the things i think we need to think through, to me also, it's more this position that we still need to have all 19 people at the table 47 days from now. and maybe this is something -- if you need to tag team with somebody else on the counsel. i want to talk about how removal affects this. so i know you're a state -- your state is currently litigating this issue with multiple co-defendants in federal court. and while that's happening, until it's a decision -- a decision is made, we can't issue a judgment of conviction here, right? >> yes, judge. >> now, no matter how judge jones rules, isn't either party going to have the right to appeal that ruling? >> that is correct, judge. our positions would be both sides have the right to appeal. >> the 11th circuit could take any idea of how long to weigh? >> as long as they need to. >> right. could potentially even optimistically be a six-month turnaround for the 11th circuit to come up with a decision. >> yes, sir. >> if it's a four-month trial that starts in october, we're potentially sitting at a point where we presented the entire state's case, maybe the jury has returned a verdict, but we can't enter that judgment of conviction until the 11th circuit comes to a decision, is that kind of the scenario where we're playing out here? >> judge, i think -- >> excuse me, if we could have a moment, judge. >> your honor -- >> by the way, let me add, i know this wasn't something i highlighted. if this is something we need to submit for post hearing briefing, we can do that. but this is something that i think is a consideration we ought to be taking into mind. >> sure, and that may be d best route, judge. our kind of position on that is it depends on what the scope of judge jones' order is. if he takes the position that he removes everyone or that he just removes those who may have, you know, some entitlement to removal, the law is a little unclear on how that works in a criminal case. >> you can see what happened. no matter how he rules, let's say he says that some aspects of the case stay behind with us here in fulton county in the 11th circuit changes their mind and reverses that entirely and says, no, the entire case has to get removed to federal court, where does that leave us in the middle of the trial, have you risked your prosecution because the case has been removed to federal court and it's been presenting evidence against all the other co-defendants. >> judge, again, i think for those very complex kind of fine-tuned details, we may need the opportunity to brief those issues -- >> it's not easy. and we've got, again, low pressure -- less than two months to figure this out. to charge ahead without coming to some thoughts on this very soon, it might be risky. so -- and then the other issue here is even if -- even if we say that the three prongs aren't met, dealing with the logistical issues, the state's case may take four months. but voir dire with 19 defense attorneys is going to be a different animal than voir dire with two. so i don't think saying they're both going to equally be four months no matter how many defendants involved would be completely accurate, is that fair, in terms of who can object at any particular question that's asked, the side bars that are requested, just the sheer physical limitations if one attorney gets sick, is it really so -- can we so confidently say that each trial is going to be exactly four months no matter who is involved? >> i don't think we can say exactly. but i think it kind of cuts both ways, judge. if we had, for example, 19 -- 19 people tried at one time, you have a witness up and let's say they're subject to 19 contractions, each of those 19 is going to be the same full-length cross-examination. you would have kind of a shorter -- if you took them all together, you might have a shorter time for that witness on the stand with 19 people versus if you have 19 trials of one person. i'm going to the extremes just to demonstrate the point. if you have 19 trials with one defendant each, then each of those would be fully -- each of those witnesses would be fully cross-examined 19 times. there's a give and a take. some things might take longer and some things might take quicker. >> this is going to be a case with a lot of pretrial motions, again, i don't know how many hearings we're going to need to have to sort through all of those. if we compress our time line to 40-something days, our ability to even be able to really weigh those and think through these issues, again, is -- it just seems a bit unrealistic that we can handle all 19 in 40-something days. that's my initial reaction thinking of just how to get this -- and aren't we -- are we even delaying the inevitable. if we say there's no severance, are we going to have 17 defense attorneys get up here and file motions for continuums saying they're not ready. i think we've had some council indicating they're on trial in other cases in federal court. if we're going to be sitting in a position where we're having to consider a continuance motion in 40 days, why delay the inevitable. >> sure, judge. the state's position is here we're on two defendants. at this juncture, other defendants may raise those issues. and it would be appropriate for the court to consider all of these issues in making its decision. but for today's purposes, we're here on two defendants. do we pull these two defendants out? not do we pull defendant 13 out or whatever the case may be. the state's position is until those are raised by those parties once we have hearings on those, that they shouldn't affect the court's decision as it relates to these two defendants. >> at a minimum i think what i'm hearing here is that it might be appropriate at this time to consider whether mr. chesebro and ms. powell proceed alone together? >> whether they have provided the court and met the burden to show that they should come out. not that the other 17 should come out. but they should come out of the pot is the state's position. >> okay. all right. >> your honor, may i -- >> sure. >> i have two minutes to respond. >> last word from the defense. this is your motion. >> judge, i will take this down just -- >> your honor, i'm not trying to oversimplify this because it is a complicated case both factually and procedurally. however, as to the 19, your honor, there's not going -- there can't be a trial of 19 people. and it has nothing to do with the length of time. it has to do with the fact that two defendants exercised their statutory right to a speedy trial and 17 other defendants, many of whom lawyer's didn't. and that's their right to do and our right to do. i don't know that there's truly a reason to spend much time -- of course, i can answer any questions. but really much time talking about 19. so really i think the question here today to wrap up is whether it's a style of state versus powell and chesebro or two trials. all of the cases -- and we would like an opportunity since there will be some post hearing briefing to read those cases the court state sided and may be respond to them. i looked at one. it's the one that says, where there's sufficient evidence of a common scheme or plan to commit a criminal offense joinders authorized, joinder is authorized. that doesn't mean that severance is inappropriate. those are -- those are not the same thing. just because joinders is authorized doesn't mean the court shouldn't sever. let me be clear about something, your honor, the state wants this case -- and i think it's absolutely clear in the proceedings -- the case wants a case against donald trump and all these people together, the state wants to make this case about donald trump. donald trump is one of 19 defendants. ken chesebro is another one. ken chesebro is not a politician. before six, seven months ago, he was probably unknown to 99.999% of the population. you get all those nines? and so now to force him to sit here in a trial where there's evidence of all these other things is just not fair. and i'm sorry, your honor, you know, they have a slight here. rico is different. sure, it's different. i acknowledge that in my opening. but what this slide does not say is that rico overrides the rules governing fundamental fairness, institution and statutory protection that are designed to protect defendants. this willingham case and upon information and belief, i believe most of the other cases cited by the government are cases like murder. the willingham case is a murder case, it's a murder conspiracy case. certainly the state understands the difference between three and four people being charged with one single conspiracy versus 19 people being charged with three or four different conspiracies and, your honor, if the court were to take the state's arguments at face value, there would almost never, if ever, be a rico case that can ever be severed. and think about what that means. it means that the state of georgia and the various district attorneys throughout the state can use the rico statute, can take three, four, five, six, seven different conspiracies and at their sole discretion with no oversight by any court say that they're one, bring them in indictment and then we're all stuck together. and quite frankly, your honor, let's compare and contrast this to the wls case going down a few -- i don't know if it's floors down or up. i think down. that wsl case, i don't know much about it, but i've known enough, it's a common conspiracy. yeah, there were different overt acts being done towards the same conspiracy and, therefore, the state can try them together, but it's one conspiracy. and that's where i think if you read that willingham case, where there is sufficient evidence of a common scheme or plan. how, your honor, is the plan down in coffee county, if it's a plan, the alleged plan, have any commonality other than electing donald trump, your honor? half of the united states took some act towards electing donald trump. if that were the only thing that mattered in terms of connecting all these as a common conspiracy, there would be no rules of due process and the last thing i'll say, your honor, is i will go back to what we said at the beginning, i think it's perfectly clear here that this trial does not have to last four months. because what the state is assuming is that, let's say, your honor, grants our severance motion and allowstous try our case just chesebro and powell separately, well, they're saying, well, it's all going to be the same evidence. not necessarily. obviously the time hasn't come to file motions in limine, but we will, obviously, file motions in limine regarding the admissibility of certain evidence of other acts that we don't think are relevant, and we have the other motion to sever the counts. and no one motion, i don't think, your honor, should be -- they all -- i know the court has to rule on all of them independently. but i would argue, judge, that you should consider them jointly in terms of figuring out the big picture here, which is it is within the court's control to -- >> let me clarify something because i think the argument of the motion to sever the counts really wasn't so much as a ruling on the -- >> yes, your honor. >> -- limiting the evidence, just as a logistical -- >> let's say your honor was to grant that, it would be a significantly paired down indictment. then assuming that we're going to file motions in limine, that kind of track the same type of arguments, right, the things that -- i know your honor is not going to rule on this until we follow it. but you might expect that if your honor grants a motion that says, all right, these 50 things in the indictment don't get read to the jury, it's probably a pretty good chance either way that we're also going to file a motion -- motions in limine to say that evidence of those things that have nothing to do with mr. chesebro also can't come in. your honor, the bottom line is the state cannot be allowed to call something rico and the rules are out the window. i can't -- it wasn't what the general assembly attended. it wasn't -- it's not consistent which has basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness. with that, your honor, unless the court has any questions, i appreciate it and i serve the remaining of my time to the extent there is any. >> i just want to -- we've beaten the dead horse as it relates to your discretion about granting a severance between mr. chesebro and ms. powell. but the first point i made remains. that is, ms. powell has filed a demand for a speedy trial much in the way as mr. chesebro. many of the defendants as counsel has indicated today, their lawyers have filed motions to sever. i don't think any of the case law or anything that the government has cited here today trumps my client's right to a speedy trial. she has asked for a speedy trial. she filed it timely just like mr. chesebro. therefore, i think, at a minimum, her case is severed from the remaining 17. it must be severed because none of the cases that the government cited point to the idea that all of those considerations trump -- the statutory rights of my client to a speedy trial. we can see what post briefing comes in about severing mr. chesebro from ms. powell, but i don't think there's dispute that they are severed from the remaining 17 based on the demands for a speed ji trial. >> thank you. >> your honor, just briefly, just for the purpose of the record. i want to make clear that there is a dispute about severing the two from the 17. i think the state's made that clear. i want to make sure that's cleared up for the record. just before we depart, we would ask if there's a briefing, what that briefing schedule is. >> of course, i think we have plenty to talk about before we wrap up for today. obviously it's been clear we're on an expedited time line with these statutory speedy trial demands and we're certainly here ready and willing to provide both defendants that right and we need -- we plan to make that october 23rd trial date stick. with that in mind, i don't know if we're always going to have the luxury of prehearing briefing and post hearing briefing and some of these issues may require a little more exploration than others. this one i don't think is one of those. when it comes to the question of whether to sever ms. powell and mr. chesebro, i certainly agree that there are always guardrails and that rico as indicted can't just be used to do anything. but it is broadly construed and we do -- those guardrails are found in those three factors. and the three factors that we've gone through really don't seem to be at play here. we don't -- for one, the antagonistic defense issue is conceded. both parties are going to be claiming they have no idea who the other is and will be pointing the finger at each other. the argument that they're charged in two separate kind of silo of charges strengthens the idea that there won't be confusion amongst the jurors and there won't be spillover evidence. the strongest thing i'm hearing is that it's going to be kind of a matter of inconvenience and potential added expense to have both defendants sit together and that's certainly true. but there's also other judicial economy aspects to consider and issues of inconvenience as well. we talk about the jurors, i don't think it's -- we can take for granted that these would both be two equally four-month-long trials. i think it could easily be twice that with multiple defendants and i think we need to take into account the fact that one docket goes entirely on hold while this case is going. instead of -- if we're purely considering aspects of judicial economy which is the only valid argument here, i think taking up two dockets and -- for a period of four months also weighs into that as well as the voir dire process and the inconvenience to the jurors. so based on what's been presented today, i'm not finding the severance from mr. chesebro or powell as necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence for either defendant in this case. and so i'll deny mr. chesebro's motions to sever from ms. powell. ms. powell's motion to sever from mr. chesebro and the plan will be to order a scheduling order with the october 23rd date holding. it sounds like the state is still sticking to the position that all of these defendants should remain and they want to address some of these removal issues. i'll -- i'm willing to hear that. i remain very sceptical. but we can -- i'm willing to hear what you have to say on it. and so -- because we're on a limited time frame, i don't think we have the luxury of waiting. how long do you think the state needs to respond to that issue? >> two weeks, judge? >> i don't think we can do that. there's going to be motions deadlines for the other defendants and we need to get scheduling orders entered. >> i had to ask. >> that's fine. and i had to deny. >> understood, understood. ten days? >> i think the ten-day mark from today -- i know -- again, i'm sending the indicator that folks are going to have more than ten days to file their standard post arraignment motions. let's see if we can have that by tuesday of next week. again, this is limited to how you think logistically we could possibly keep these defendants together and i think we can limit that to pages. if anyone else wants to respond, they can to that issue. >> this is -- if you're still going on this issue, i did have a quick other issue just so we have your attention to bring up. we have a pending motion to talk to the grand jurors -- >> right. let me get to that. so again knowing that mr. chez whic chesebro and ms. powell are hurdling forward, i think it makes sense to have these file up. we would pretty much keep having these weekly sessions together and handle them one at a time. to that end, i believe we're starting another trial next week. i think it's a murder trial we're doing next week. looking at thursday or friday of next week, how is everyone's availability? i only saw motions from mrs. chesebro. so i guess the question is directed towards you. i'm looking at thursday or friday morning. >> we're here whenever the court instructs us to be. >> got it. >> friday morning, i've got a sentencing. >> on thursday morning? >> in the afternoon. >> thursday afternoon. >> depending on the motion -- >> well, so far you've got -- i believe it's the two related to the grand jury and then one more related to the supremacy clause -- >> maybe we limit it since the grand jury issue is something that might take more time to flesh out if it's granted. maybe we limit it to those two for next week. and we can save the constitutional arguments for another day. can we still do that thursday morning, though? i assume if it's just those two related to the grand jury -- >> that's the plan. >> thursday morning or friday morning. >> thursday morning sounds like -- we'll do those two grand jury motions and if you want to jump on board and adopt them, we can obviously work you in. >> yes, your honor. clarification, the briefing from the state by tuesday, is that going to be on the question of whether it's going to be a trial of 19 or 2? >> that's right. >> thank you. >> nothing else from mr. chesebro at this time, your honor. >> thank you. anything else we should address since we're all here together? yes, sir. >> lawyers for some of the other defendants are in the courtroom and they have an interest in the issues that the government makes about whether it's a trial of 19 or two. and so those other lawyers can submit a briefing in response to the -- >> i think -- that would be fine. i think some already have. i think folks have already been submitting severance motions saying they're not ready, there are conflicts. that might very well suffice. but certainly, i'm not going to foreclose that opportunity if they want to be heard in more detail. we'll send out an email to everyone indicating as much. >> and thursday morning, we will have some discussion of that motion as well? >> we can. again, i think by then i'm hoping to have already ruled and issued scheduling orders because we need to get that clarity so we can focus on what lies ahead. anything else? >> no, yaour honor. >> anything from the state? >> no. >> thank you, all. see you next week. >> thank you, judge. >> relatively quickly for the fulton county superior court judge scott mcfee to come down with some major, major decisions. we have significant news in the course of this hearing that just wrapped up. i think most significantly we know that kenneth chesebro and sidney powell wanted to separate their cases from the others. apparently the judge denied that. >> think about efficiency, we saw a ruling, a hearing happening today because there are briefing in advance to suggest the reasons why they wanted. the big picture here was, look, sidney powell and ken chesebro said we do not want the stink and the stain of the other defendants on us. or on one another. we have a very discreet portion of what this allegation is, we don't want it mixed. we might spend weeks and weeks and months having to sit through evidence that has nothing to do with the charges against us. let us separate from everyone else and also from each other. the judge looked at three factors here, the first factor was there was antagonistic defenses. are you going to sit there at trial and point to each other and say it wasn't me, it was her. the second thing was, whether -- how much are these siloed? how much are the charges against both people going to be so distinct that a jury was not going to be confused that -- are you talking about chesebro right now or sidney powell? on those two points, the judge said, you conceded there's not a lot of confusion here or the issue about antagonistic defenses. it was the final thing about efficiency. how many times do you have to have a jury impanelled, witness testify to hear all of this evidence. and that was the only valid argument he heard that day. he said, it's not enough for me. it's not enough to have severed trials and you're going to have to be tried together. the real question will be going from here is that a trial of these two people on october 23rd alone or is the da going to be able to have the other 17 join in. the big picture and the big elephant in the room, of course, is, there's still a federal motion pending about whether at least one named mark meadows is going to be a part of this 19 or not. this is a very quick decision. it shows that this judge wants to have efficiency really rule the day. and at the end of it, the notion that you don't want to be associated with your codefendant, that's out the window. >> there was a buit of a hint from the judge about what he is going to do down the road next week, maybe when he decides whether or not all the defendants, including and especially the former president, will be tried together as the prosecutors want, the judge said, it is unrealistic that we could do all 19 in 47 days. i mean, that was, like, a -- to me, shouting from the rooftops, he could be persuaded to change his mind once he hears from lawyers next week. but that to me was very indicative of the way this might be going if it stays in the georgia court. >> i think that's exactly right. from the time that sarah asked the district attorney if she was going to try everyone together and she said yes, there were a lot of questions about how would that work? how would you handle all of these 19 defendants including one who is running for the presidency again. this appears to be an initial win for prosecutors. it would be a lot at stake for them if they were able to sever -- think of that. you have one defendant, it's one or two defendants. it's televised. you're previewing all of your evidence for all of the other attorneys. here it appears this is at least an initial win. but we'll be back in court next week with new questions, we'll see how it goes. i'm really curious to see how they explain exactly how they would do this with 19 people. >> it was interesting to watch the convenience defense play out. because it backfired for them to argue it would be inconvenient for their clients to sit there and hear evidence that doesn't necessarily pertain to crimes they were accused of. you have to consider the judicial convenience. we are going to need to pick a jury for each of these trials. we need to think about the efficiency on the court, not just the efficiency for the defendant and i'm sure that that is something that's going to come up as he's considering how to handle the rest of the 17. he may not ultimately be persuaded by the district attorney's office that the other 17 should go with ken chesebro and with sidney powell and move ahead toward this october 23rd trial date. but it seems like he could potentially be convinced that a large chunk of them should move together at a later date in part because it does take awhile. i mean, they're talking about a four-month trial. that's what the district attorney's team suggested they were going to do with 150 witnesses and that does not include jury selection and the judge pointed out it wouldn't surprise him if it took twice as long for a trial like this to play out. >> you can imagine, too, you're talking about conspiracy. that's the nature of a conspiracy charge. that there's a whole group of people who have been involved in behavior that is criminal, and under rico, the question here was whether or not the da was using it as a catch-all, umbrella, let's see if it works as opposed to what she intends to use it for which is, i'm charging rico intentionally because it was a criminal enterprise. in order for me to prove that as a jury, i need the members and the people involved at the actual trial. that's going to be the real lift for her and her team to do at this point to say, all of these people here -- the great benefit of rico is, no matter what you are charged with, that actually is applied to other people in the case as well. that's a really important part for the prosecution in this case, but at the end of the day i mean the logistics will be king, you can imagine, 19 defense attorneys cross-examining one witness, they mentioned the trauma and the repetition of a witness testifying, what if it's someone like ruby freeman or her daughter who have already had to endure this 19 times. 19 people will cross-examine here and come back separate times. that's part of the consideration, not whether you don't feel like coming to trial today, defendant. >> i just want to add one thing because, yes, there are a lot of co-defendants here, but the most predominant one, of course, is the former president who is trying to allegedly stay in power after the election that he lost. he was just on hugh hewitt's radio show and in this interview, he says explicitly that his daughtlawyers are goin ask that they dismisses the charges against him and he said if it came to the idea that he could be called to testify, he wouldn't mind doing it. that's a big shock. >> in fact, we have that clip and i think we can play it for our viewers. let's listen in. >> if you have to go to trial, will you testify in your own defense? >> oh, yes, absolutely. >> you'll take the stand. >> that i look forward to. >> i mean, do you believe it, though? >> he's said this in the past. >> he always says he's willing to be under oath -- >> mueller, e. jean carroll. none of them think it's a great idea to have the former president of the united states on the stand. not only because of what he could say when they ask him questions, but the greater risk is, of course, what the prosecutors could ask, the cross-examination. to them, that would be a nightmare in any of these criminal cases. while he says that's something he would be open to, his lawyers likely have a different viewpoint on that. >> does he listen to his lawyers? >> not always. that we know for sure. >> we know that for sure. >> it's interesting and i think some of the major headlines out of what we learned in the course of this hearing today, that they estimate that this trial could go on for some four months once it actually begins and right now the district attorney wants all 19 to start the trial on october 23rd. and they predict there will be at least 150 witnesses who will be called. this will be very, very huge, indeed. katelyn? >> absolutely, wolf. but a heavy dose of skepticism from the judge on having them all go on trial together. i also want to bring in former democratic state senator jen jordan who is here with us from the state of georgia. listening to what the judge was saying there and then kenneth chesebro's attorney was making this argument in his view saying he believes this is the case where the state wants a case against donald trump and saying all of these people together, they're making this about donald trump, while he was saying he's just one of 19 defendants. my client is another one of those defendants, but he was arguing that the state, the prosecutors who were sitting right there are trying to make this solely about the former president. >> well, it is about the former president, right? i mean, the whole point of this and specifically with the rico allegations and the conspiracy allegations are that really all of these other actors, all of these indicted co-conspirators, they were acting or marching to the orders that were coming from the top. it's kind of a waterfall effect. yeah, i mean, it is all about donald trump and that's the whole point. you can't separate it out. as much as chesebro's lawyers were trying to minimize what he did, they kept calling it a paperwork case, it was so boring, and then we heard the same thing with powell like powell's attorney was basically like, oh, it's not a big deal. it's just about coffee county. it's going to take a couple of days. it was really interesting because their approach was effectively the same and pointing to the other saying, but that guy sitting next to me has bigger problems. i don't think that the judge bought that apparently and so it will be really interesting as we move forward. but at the end of the day, it is all about donald trump. >> yeah, but given the role -- and the view that you had of this as all of this was going on, what did you make of their attorneys really downplaying the actions of sidney powell and the actions of kenneth chesebro who obviously kenneth chesebro wrote the memos and was at the center of that fake elector scheme which notice they weren't saying the word fake electors today. they kept saying alternate electors. and then sidney powell's attorney down playing her role in coffee county. what prosecutors are alleging here, she helped fund that and helped coordinate the breach of this voting software there. >> well, and what's interesting to me as someone who was here watching, listening, and present, all of the things that sidney powell did and was a part of, they're not part of the indictment. i mean, she was involved in some of the federal court cases, she appeared with various other, you know, indicted and unindicted cosponsor co-conspirators in media and pushing theories that she knew were lies and untruths like everybody else. and the same with mr. chesebro. they want to take their just little piece of it and say, look, you know, it's not that big of a deal, right? we're just talking about some false statements or maybe some conspiracies around that. but we weren't really the bad actors. but that's the problem when you get caught up in a rico conspiracy like that, you are part of it because the only way that the conspiracy works or the only way that you can really move forward to get to the ultimate aim of the conspiracy is through the actors. and for better or worse, mr. chesebro and ms. powell were two of the ones on the front lines and they did everything that they possibly could to overturn an election. and the whole use of kind of this alternate electors really kind of shows an alternate telling of the truth too because at the end of the day what we were talking about were fake electors, right? that's what we were talking about. and we were not talking about just getting donald trump elected. i heard that a lot from the defense attorneys. it was literally about overturning a lawful election. and that's really, really important for us to always kind of come back to no matter what the lawyers say in court. >> yeah, jen, stand by. michael moore is still here with us. referencing what jen just noted there, that was one of the biggest moments i think that stood out which was the argument from scott grubman who is kenneth chesebro's attorney, and he was saying if the crime here, what the purpose was was electing donald trump, that millions of people could have indicted here. what went through your head when you heard that? >> well, it's an argument he's going to make. he's representing his client zealously and that's what he's supposed to do. i think he could make the argument that everybody that tried to storm the capitol that day could also have been charged somewhere in the conspiracy. there's some tenets of truth. they've got their case severed. he all been severed their case from the other defendants. he said, file your brief by tuesday and i'm going to be scheduling orders going out by the end of the week. he's not giving a lot of consideration to the idea that the 19 will be tried today. it looked like an effort to try to, you know, see what they could get out of the case and get out of the court and save time. had they really intended to file or to have their cases severed, sidney powell could have filed her motion under the speedy trial act in september, october after the chesebro case had been moving forward. so i think this was a win for the defendants. think about, too, think about how ridiculous the state looked in this case to ask for 14 days to write a ten-page paper. they asked for 14 days to write a ten-page paper. they're suggesting that these 19 defendants need to be prepared to go to trial to question 150 witnesses in six weeks. they need two weeks to write a little paper, but everybody else needs to be ready in six weeks to try a case. and that's -- i think the judge sees that. i was impressed that he ruled from the bench fairly quickly and i was also impressed that he was very candid in his concerns about the continued effort to somehow suggest that it's possible or even feasible or constitutional to try this case with all 19 defendants in october. >> yeah, he basically laughed at that and the prosecutor said, well, i got to ask. he said, well, i got to deny it. and jennifer rodgers -- go ahead, michael. >> we're at a point when we're serious. i would have thought that the da would have said that we will have this by close of business tomorrow. these aren't novel issues. when you bring a rico case like this, you should have had these things briefed and in the can and ready to file with the court. so i'm not sure what the delay was. i thought it kind of went over as somehow -- we need two weeks to try it. i just -- i just thought it flew in the face of their suggestion to the court and i think the court saw that. look, we're not going to have time for this back and forth briefing. what are we going to do about removal, the court of appeals, what are we going to do about the possible supreme court? this is serious business and i think the judge saw it. i was impressed with it. >> yeah, the time line is clearly key here. jennifer rodgers, from what we heard from our colleagues in the room, fani willis was not there today. she wasn't there. what do you think of what she makes of how hear team did today? >> i think she should have been there and agree with michael. they need to get busy. they got a lot of work to do. this notion of taking 14 days to brief something that the judge has said he's going to deny is silliness. they need to get cracking. i was impressed with the judge. he seemed comfortable. he's 34 years old and pretty much brand-new to the bench. but he seemed to be in control. i think he could be a little more blunt, even, with the parties as we proceed, especially when you get upwards of 10, 12, 19 defendants in the room with their lawyers. you're going to have to move things along even more quickly. but i'm impressed with how he did his homework and raised these issues. so he seemed good. i look forward to seeing him handle his case going forward. >> this is a judge, he's the reason we're able to see this play out. the big question is whether or not that is going to remain the case in the big question we still don't know the answer to is whether or not this will get moved to federal court. >> we're waiting on that ruling -- from mark meadows team. he argued to get this moved to federal court and obviously if indeed it does get moved to federal court, others are going to go rather quickly to try to make that move as well. this will change the context for americans assessing this, though. seeing this on television play out from here on out is going to be a totally different experience than the federal cases that jack smith is in charge of right now and that can change the context were voters. you heard dana reference donald trump today to hugh hewitt, he said he's working to get this totally dismissed from him. whether or not that's successful remains to be seen. but he is -- he says not at all concerned that this is going to play out on television. of course, that's donald trump's preferred medium when he's trying to convince people to his cause. >> yeah, and he's not concerned until potentially he is when this evidence is there. i mean, the judge was very, very sceptical of the idea of trying all of these defendants. the concern about this becoming a federal case, what if they start trying it this way and it does all get moved to federal court and you're in the middle of this. >> the two most important words we heard today were, quote, very sceptical. the top-line takeaways, chesebro and powell will be tried together. they're effort to get apart from each other was denied from the bench. but much more importantly, it is 99.9% clear, they are going to be tried separately from the other 17 and most importantly for their purpose, donald trump. people say why did they invoke their speedy trial rights? my guess would be to get away from donald trump and it looks like they won on that. the only point you raised, this one caught the da flat-footed. the judge said how can we force everyone to go to trial when we have this separate issue pending. mark meadows is trying to get into the federal court. whoever wins or loses, that's getting appealed and the judge said that could easily take six months, right and the da had to say, yeah, it could. after that, they're going to try to get it to the supreme court and the judge said how can we plow ahead here without that issue being resolved. the da's office had no answer. they said, can we spend you a brief on that. not a good moment for the da. >> and the judge said it would be risky to do that, raise the question of double jeopardy. what was your question? >> that's the biggest open question about whether these two actually go or not on october 23rd. really the mark meadows' case that's pending, we don't know if the judge will say, yes, the whole case should come to federal court or just mark meadows. and either side is going to appeal no matter what the ruling is, and what the judge was saying here in court was that you can't get -- you can't -- even if you put the whole trial on and you get a jury verdict. we can't enter the conviction until that's resolved. what are we doing here and could double jeopardy attach. and then the judge -- and then the supreme court rules, oh, no, this was supposed to happen in federal court. i'm removing the whole thing. what happens? do you try the whole case over again? do you not? i think there's a big open question about whether this trial can go on october 23rd even though the judge is clearly signaled he's separating the two out. >> we are hearing from an attorney -- kenneth chesebro's attorney, he's speaking to reporters outside the courtroom. >> how do you feel about the decision? >> we're a little disappointed. we filed a motion and it was denied. however, we respect the court's ruling. we're preparing for our trial in october. we have a lot of other pretrial motions that we have filed and that we will file and there's a common purpose of all of these pretrial motions. it's to continue to ensure that mr. chesebro has not only a speedy trial, which we've demanded, but a fair trial. and it's pretty clear that the state is trying to use rico in order to connect three or four different alleged conspiracies into one. folks who have never met each other, folks who are in no way associated as a matter of fact or law. we respect the court's decision. clearly we're going to be tried alongside ms. powell. but we will file additional motions to make sure that the trial that we have with ms. powell is fair and that mr. chesebro is judged on the evidence that's tribattributabl him. >> reporter: do you think it's realistic that the prosecution would get their case through in four months. you're looking at rico case, they're still in jury selection. >> four months is just for the trial and not jury selection. that's additional on top of it. frankly, there's going to be probably about 20 or 30 more motions that will need to be litigated. they're wrong on the facts when it's rico, everything goes, and that's not just to case. the trial will be narrowly in scope. >> let me say something about rico. it's not just this case. we have seen several examples of what i would say is the weaponization of the georgia rico statute. not only this case, but the trial -- the case that was indicted yesterday as you may have seen, 61 defendants, including lawyers who are simply trying to raise bail for some other defendants got indicted in a rico case by the attorney general's office. there's a rico trial going on right now as we speak against a bunch of rappers who have no other connection other than being a part of the same record label. and you have this case where they're trying to connect three or four very different alleged conspiracies into one. again, i would argue it is the weaponization of the georgia rico statute and i would implore the georgia general assembly to explore ways to amend rico to avoid this type of weaponization in the future. >> do you know if this will actually be going to trial in october? >> as the way it is right now, yes. mr. chesebro and ms. powell will be going to trial october 23rd. now there's a very significant unknown out there which is the possibility of removal. that's up to a federal judge, judge jones. judge jones has not issued his decision. if judge jones were to remove this case, i think there's an argument that all of the defendants at least initially are removed alongside the ones who are entitled to removal. but in that circumstance, you might expect us to try to file a motion to reman because to be clear, this is where we want to be. >> you think this will make it to the election, we'll get to -- make it to the election -- >> i hope not. that's only on behalf of my client. let me make something else clear, my client is ken chesebro, okay? my client is not a politician. my client has never run for public office. my client has never met or talked to the vast majority of his alleged co-conspirators. i'm not disrespecting any other strategy for any other defendants to get more time. if they want more time, they're entitled to it. and every defendant and every defense lawyers has their own circumstances that they have to deal with. all we can talk about is our circumstances and the circumstances of our client mr. chesebro and we are ready to go forward to trial on october 23rd. i want to say another thing. the state consistency says that they're ready to go to trial as well. the state responded to our speedy trial demand and everyone said, oh, they called mr. chesebro's bluff. i want to make something clear, there was no bluff. we are statutorily entitled to a speedy trial and that's what we asked for. with all due respect to the district attorney's office, they had no choice but to say okay. now to say that all 19 defendants should be tried together, including ones that don't want to avail themselves of the speedy trial demand is really just nonsense cal. >> have you spoken to mr. chesebro? -- >> 150 witnesses based on if it's -- you and powell, how long do you guys need for ? i'm not trying to sound too much like a defense lawyer, but quite frankly we think that there's a good chance that the state's case will be dismissed on a directed verdict after they rest. so we're hopeful we don't need much time at all, but we haven't made those decisions. i want to remind you and everyone else that the state has the burden, the state must prove their case and every single element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. mr. chesebro has the burden and whether or not we plan to put up witnesses and quite frankly, we were waiting for this hearing to decide who we were going to be sitting next to in order to start making those strategic decisions. one more question and then we do have to go. >> have you spokes tone mr. chesebro after today's decision and what was his response? >> i have not spoken to mr. chesebro. thank you very much. we appreciate it. >> that is scott grubman you are hearing from, he is an attorney representing kenneth chesebro. he also saw the other attorney and those were the two attorneys trying to sever or separate their case from sydney powell's that was denied by the judge there. jennifer rogers, you heard scott grubman making an argument similar to what he said inside the courtroom that he believes they are weaponizing rico here which is the racketeering case that ties this alleged conspiracy together. we heard pushback from the prosecutors saying evidence against one person in the rico case is evidence against all of them. >> that's how rico works. you have to prove the existence of the criminal enterprise and then you have to prove that these people are members of it, you have to prove that they committed these predicate acts in furtherance of the enterprise's goals and that's rico and how the statute was designed and that's why they have ken chesebro and sydney powell who say they don't know each other and they don't e-mail, and they're both members of this enterprise and so they will be tried together. he can make motions on the legal side saying just like there's joint or severance of defendants, there is misjoined or potentially of counts. he can argue they're using the rico statute improperly as a legal matter. he has 20 to 30 motions to make which is a heck of a lot of motions so we'll have to see what those are and he'll have to make the argument to the jury saying let's not make a digger deal out of this than it is and they don't do that much of a downplay, and we'll just have to see what he does. it's an interesting play on his part, but i don't think it will get very far on the legal side, at least. >> michael moore, the defendants, he thought, had a good day and he walked out and said he was disappointed with the ruling. >> to me if i'm representing kenneth chesebro it's no big deal if i get tried alongside sydney powell and the big thing is get away from donald trump and the other 17 which is all but what he accomplished today. there has been criticism that rico prosecutors like the three of us tend to overuse rico. i used it very aggressively, but the d.a.'s response was an interesting preview of their case. our theory is this was an evolving scheme. when one thing failed they went to the next and they went to the next and i think we got a trial preview as to how the d.a. will argue this case. >> yeah. it could be a preview, indeed. wolf, we will wait to see if that is what they argue and whether this does end up in state court as they are trying to make it happen. >> they certainly are, katelyn, stand by. we are following, of course, all of these details coming out of this very historic first televised hearing in the georgia election case, but we also have breaking news in the federal, the federal documents players and one key player has flipped against former president trump and is cooperating with the special counsel jack smith's office that according to the former defense attorney from mar-a-lago employee tavares who has agreed to testify in the case in that he will not, repeat, not be prosecuted. carlos de oliveira were initially suspected of giving false testimony after denying allegations that they tried to erase incriminating security camera footage. tavares has not yet been charged. this filing marks the first public acknowledgement that the special counsel jack smith has won the cooperation of a key witness in this case against trump, his one-time valet, walt nauta and carlos de oliveira. our panel is back and we've been covering this for a while. what does this mean for the special counsel's case? >> you just said this is significant because this is the first acknowledgement the special counsel has secured the cooperation of a key witness. mr. tavares, he oversaw the security footage at mar-a-lago. we know the security and the surveillance footage is a key part of this case because there are allegations that there were efforts to destroy it or at least conceal it. so we've also learned that one of the things that prompted this cooperation deal was the threat of prosecution. he was threatened with possibly being prosecuted and so in exchange for not facing charges, he has agreed to testify in this case, and that's interesting because we also know walt nauta, the former president's co-defendant also faced the threat of prosecution, but he did not flip which is part of how he became the former president's co-defendant. one other thing that will complicate this is walt nauta and mr. tavares were at one time represented by the same person, stan woodward. he is a frequent character in this case. he represents a lot of people. he is paid by a trump-aligned political action committee. so once tavares decided to sort of change the story that he was giving prosecutors, agreed to cooperate, right before that he changed lawyers. so he is no longer represented by stan woodward, but it still could be an issue, particularly if he was to testify at trial. he could possibly be cross examined by his previous lawyer, so that's something that the judge is seeking briefings on. that's something they'll have to work out. but this is a significant development in the mar-a-lago docs case. >> very significant. a lot of the information, laura, as you and i know read it and came in as document and it has been released and the southern district of florida, west palm beach division the united states of america versus donald j. trump and walt nauta, and how significant is this new revelation as far as trump specifically in the classified documents is concerned? >> well, this is a person as we learned from the initial indictment that somebody went to him under the advice and the direction of the former president to tell him what to do about the footage and this could be someone to tell us what the conversation of the like. we're still looking and trying to piece together the pieces unlike jack smith's team who we must know before indicting someone at mar-a-lago. what was said? what is the corroborating evidence to bring an indictment and let alone bring it at trial. having a key witness and having someone that will tell you what came from the proverbial horse's mouth is immeasurably important in any prosecution, and if you do not continue to cooperate, then that indictment for yourself could also be looming. so this person has every insensitive to be truthful and has every incentive to remain credible and to be forthcoming with anything else that might happen. i have to scratch my head as well and wonder clearly the identity of this person was known to donald trump and walt nauta and carlos de oliveira, as well, have any of the conversa conversations sur rounding potential intimidation and could they be identifying people or not? is that part of why jack smith's team wants it to be known there is a cooperator and until now we haven't heard about them maybe for that very reason. >> to publicly make clear -- >> shield. >> to make clear to the former president back off on him. it is so interesting and sara has covered so much about donald trump, politically, legally and everything in between that his m.o. and we've seen this, the most infamous example has been michael cohen is to keep people who know things or potentially know things as close as they possibly can and this one got away and this one has to know a lot or else the prosecutor wouldn't have given him the deal. >> we aren't learning this because jack smith wanted to share this with us and we are learning about this because there is this dispute about stanley woodward, the attorney at the center, whether there is a conflict involving him and that's why this is coming up in the filings is to note that now there is this cooperation agreement with tavares that according to stan woodward, at least, that this was not a cooperation deal that was on the table when representing tavares. dana, to your point, trump has been able to keep a lot of people in the fold, in this case, people who do have a lot to lose and walt nauta and carlos de oliveira, and to see tavares break away and get his own attorney and move away from the cushiness of the trump pac-funded lawyers. >> very quickly, this is a nightmare for trump that some of his co-defendants will flip, begin to cooperate against him. >> of course, and to dana's point, after what happened to michael cohen. he flipped very publicly on the former president. the former president has been much more careful about trying to keep people in the fold and there are some questions about some of his advisers and why they're still around, but i've been told people close to him and even the former president acknowledge that yeah, it's important to keep these people in the fold to the extent possible and help with their

Related Keywords

Willingham Case , Ji Trial , Conspiracy , Interest , One , Four , Defendants , Wall , Law , Likelihood , Burdens , Judge , Defendant , Two , Questions , Few , Risk , Peach , Spillover Effect , Aric Rick , Yaour Honor , Case , Anything , Factors , Consideration , Circumstances , Aren T Exclusive , Three , Position , Things , Some , Yes , Others , People , Something , Counsel , Somebody , Tag Team , Table , 47 , 19 , Estate , State Of Georgia , Decision , Issue , Co Defendants , Federal Court , Happening , Matter , Ruling , Judgment , Conviction , Isn T , Jones Rules , Idea , 11th Circuit , Positions , Sides , Turnaround , 11 , Six , Point , Jury , Sir , Verdict , Kind , Scenario , Way , Hearing Briefing , Wasn T , Honor , Mind , Judge Jones , Everyone , Order , Removal , Scope , Route , Entitlement , Aspects , Fulton County , October 23rd Trial , Prosecution , Middle , Leave , Evidence , Issues , Opportunity , Details , Pressure , Thoughts , Defense Attorneys , Voir Dire , Prongs Aren T Met , Animal , Attorney , Question , Terms , Side , Fair , Limitations , Sick , Witness , Contractions , Example , Ways , Cuts , Trials , Cross Examination , Person , Stand , Shorter , Witnesses , Extremes , Lot , Motions , Times , Hearings , Give , Stake , Time Line , Ability , Bit , 40 , Severance , File Motions , Thinking , Reaction , Aren T We , 17 , Cases , Council , Continuance Motion , Juncture , Georgia Court , Purposes , 13 , Parties , Minimum , Mr , Ken Chesebro , Ms , Powell , Burden , Pot , Motion , Defense , Word , Procedurally , Nothing , Fact , Right , Lawyer , Didn T , Many , Length , Whom , Course , Reason , Style , Scheme , Court State Sided , Offense , Thing , Doesn T , Doesn T Mean The Court Shouldn Sever , Joinder , Donald J Trump , Proceedings , Politician , Seven , 99 999 , Nines , Population , Rico , Rules Governing Fundamental Fairness , Opening , Slide , Government , Information , Institution , Most , Protection , Belief , Willingham , Murder Case , Murder Conspiracy Case , Murder , Single , Difference , Conspiracies , Arguments , Face Value , Statute , District Attorneys , Five , Indictment , Discretion , Oversight , Wls , It , Wsl Case , Floors , Enough , Facts , Plan , Coffee County , United States , Half , Commonality , Due Process , Rules , Let , Say , Saying , Severance Motion , Separately , Allowstous , Limine , Motions In Limine , Hasn T , Counts , Admissibility , Argument , The Big Picture , Logistical , Track , Chance , Don T , 50 , Window , Bottom Line , The General Assembly , It Wasn T , Extent , Fairness , Principles , Remains , Horse , Lawyers , Demand , Case Law , Sever , Client , None , Briefing , Considerations , Rights , Post , Dispute , Demands , Purpose , Record , Clear , Briefing Schedule , October 23rd Trial Date Stick , October 23rd , 23 , Luxury , Prehearing , Exploration , Whether , Guardrails , Each Other , Defense Issue , Is , Finger , Hearing , Charges , Jurors , Confusion , Won T , Silo , Inconvenience , Economy , Expense , Dockets , Docket , Account , Process , Guilt , Determination , Innocence , Removal Issues , Scheduling Order , Waiting , Frame , Scheduling Orders , Mark , Fine , Ten , Folks , Arraignment Motions , Indicator , Pages , Anyone , Chez Whic Chesebro , Attention , Powell Are Hurdling , Sessions , File , Sense , Murder Trial , Availability , Mrs , Sentencing , Grand Jury , Supremacy Clause , Clarification , 2 , Courtroom , Response , E Mail , Severance Motions , Detail , Conflicts , Discussion , Clarity , Anything Else , Superior Court , Major , Scott Mcfee , Sidney Powell , Decisions , News , Efficiency , Reasons , Advance , Stink , Allegation , Another , Stain , Portion , Everyone Else , Mother , Defenses , Factor , Wasn T Me , Siloed , Points , Jury Impanelled , Fda , Mark Meadows , Elephant In The Room , Part , The End , Codefendant , President , Prosecutors , Buit , Hint , Road , Rooftops , District Attorney , Sarah , Win , Work , Presidency , Running , Attorneys , Defense Play Out , Clients , Convenience , Crimes , Office , Rest , Chunk , Team , Jury Selection , Wouldn T , 150 , Group , Conspiracy Charge , Criminal , Behavior , Nature , Umbrella , Enterprise , Members , Catch All , Trial , Benefit , Lift , Repetition , Logistics , Trauma , King , Someone , Daughter , Ruby Freeman , Election , Power , Interview , Daughtlawyers , Radio Show , Hugh Hewitt , He Wouldn T , Viewers , Shock , Clip , Oath , Mueller , E Jean Carroll , Nightmare , Viewpoint , Headlines , Sure , Jen Jordan , Dose , Skepticism , Katelyn , Wolf , Go On Trial , Listening , View , Allegations , Actors , Top , Borders , Co Conspirators , Waterfall Effect , Marching , Deal , Paperwork Case , Powell Like S , Couple , Approach , Same , Pointing , Guy , Problems , Actions , Role , Center , Memos , The View , Electors , Fake Elector , Breach , Fund , Voting Software , Theories , Untruths , Unindicted Cosponsor Co Conspirators In Media , Everybody Else , Piece , Statements , Rico Conspiracy , Aim , Problem , Everything , Ones , Lines , Truth , Telling , Use , Elected , Michael Moore , Stand By , Scott Grubman , Head , Crime , Millions , Everybody , Zealously , Capitol , Somewhere , Tenets , Brief , Effort , Speedy Trial Act In September , Paper , 14 , Bench , , Concerns , Prosecutor , Jennifer Rodgers , Business , Aren T Novel Issues , Can , Face , Delay , Suggestion , Supreme Court , Court Of Appeals , Court Saw , Saw , Colleagues , Fani Willis , The Room , Silliness , Room , Blunt , 34 , 10 , 12 , Homework , Play , Answer , The Big Question , Context , Mark Meadows Team , Move , Jack Smith , Television Play , Experience , Charge , Americans , Voters , Reference , Television , Cause , Concern , Words , Quote , Very Sceptical , Takeaways , 99 9 , Guess , Da Flat Footed , Loses , The Da S Office , Court , Double Jeopardy , Meadows , Jury Verdict , Jeopardy , Supreme Court Rules , Big Open Question , Reporters , Reporter , Tribattributabl Him , 30 , 20 , Weaponization , Georgia Rico Statute , Examples , 61 , Going On , Rappers , Bail , Bunch , Attorney General S Office , Georgia Rico , Record Label , Connection , Type , Georgia General Assembly , Possibility , Trial October 23rd , Circumstance , Public Office , Behalf , Majority , Defense Lawyers , Strategy , Consistency , Bluff , Chesebro S Bluff , Respect , Choice , Guys , Defense Lawyer , We Haven T , Beyond A Reasonable Doubt , Element , Jennifer Rogers , Pushback , Racketeering , Rico Works , Predicate Acts , Goals , Furtherance , Existence , Check , Digger , A Downplay , Criticism , Preview , Theory , State Court , Trial Preview , Following , Special Counsel , Defense Attorney , Documents , Trump , Player , Players , Mar A Lago , Carlos De Oliveira , Repeat , Employee Tavares , Cooperation , Acknowledgement , Security Camera Footage , Public , Filing , Testimony , Walt Nauta , Mean , Panel , Valet , Security , Security Footage , Surveillance Footage , Cooperation Deal , Threat , Efforts , Exchange , Stan Woodward , Character , Political Action Committee , Story , Briefings , Development , Cross , Document , Southern District , Versus , Florida , Laura , West Palm Beach Division , Revelation , Advice , Conversation , Like , Footage , Pieces , Direction , Mouth , Incentive , Insensitive , Identity , Well , Conversa , Conversations Sur Rounding Potential Intimidation , Sara , Cooperator , Shield , Haven T , Michael Cohen , M O , Conflict , Cooperation Agreement , Filings , Learning , The Center , Fold , Dana , Tavares , Cushiness , Advisers , Help , Yeah ,