we start with breaking news. the trials will be separate. we learn that donald trump and the 16 co-defendants will have a separate trial than two of the other co-defendants and moments from now, we go to cameras inside of the georgia courtroom where the decisions are being made. we go there. and the family imprisoned in

russia with a new push to the white house to try to get paul whelan home. and nasa is set to speak about at the new report about ufos and how the government will study sightings in the future. i'm sara sidner with john berman. kate bolduan is on assignment. this is cnn "news central." all right. breaking news out of fulton county, georgia. and by the way, you are looking at live pictures from inside of the courtroom before judge george mcafee and the subversion court case. and now, two of the defendants are about to appear before the judge. you are seeing the live pictures

there before our eyes, but donald trump and the rest of the co-defendants will be tried separately and later. we will get to zach cohen, and the details of what we are learning so far, zach. >> yeah, john, the top line is that donald trump will not be starting his trial in georgia in five weeks alongside at least two of the co-defendants sidney powell and ken chesebro and trump and two others who said they don't want a speedy trial, and the judge said they can prolong it out longer than the other two who did request a speedy trial. this is the first break of this sprawling conspiracy case in georgia. the district attorney fani willis has held the position that she wanted to try all 19 co-defendants together including trump, but the judge made it clear that won't be happening. so it is interesting to see if there are going to be additional breaks in this order. but it does get the process

moving for trump and the 16 who do not have to go to trial starting october. so it is the initiation of the legal process, and as far as trump and the 16 go in georgia, but making clear they won't have to stand trial alongside sidney powell and ken chesebro. >> zach cohen with that news, but there are two other trials that will start if five weeks. now, stay with us if you hearing? new. >> and now, with us is former trial attorney carolyn polisi and our also top attorney elie honig, and our home attorney, and i just added that in your title.

>> you can add that any time. >> and what does this mean? >> well, two groups. first one, chesebro and sidney powell started in october, and i will be put pag question mark if we actually see that, and then another group which is importantly toing to include donald trump. this is two big things. the trial in georgia the one that is televised is way, way, way far out, and likely to be pushed after the 2024 election. and the second thing is that this is a big strategic and tactical advantage for donald trump and the other 16, because now they get to sit in the gallery and watch the whole earlier trial and see every government witness and all of the cross-examination, and the documents and make notes and adjust accordingly, and big positive development for donald trump and the other 16.

>> but does it come as a surprise, because even though fani willis wanted to have a sense to lead into this, and they all believed it would happen this soon, and the trial schedule of five weeks from now which is going to be televised and the pretrial hearing televised here, and again, in your view, what this means? >> well, as elie said, this is not surprising. fani willis put on a good show maintaining that up to the last minute, she would go to trial with all of the 19 defendants, and she did note that she did a rico case in georgia, the georgia school officials case where she tried 13 rico defendant, and she can do it. she waited a long time not withstanding pronouncement that the indictments would be imminent, and she got the ducks in a row to go to trial, and now we have two tranches and that may be split up even further, but the issue is timing, and fani willis made it clear that

it cannot be the case that three trials are going on simultaneously, and this is the switch of the defendants giving up the speedy trial rights in exchange for going forward for the motions for severance, and so this is going to be putting the clock in order, and i would venture to say that i don't know if the october 23rd date is going to hold. >> because? >> well, mark meadows is going with the appeal in the 7th circuit and moving quickly for that removal issue, but it is murky if all of the defendants would be removed to federal court, and if they are successful there, and so that the double jeopardy does not attach, and so fani willis had to see this coming, and none of it is surprising, and as criminal defense attorney, you are laser focused on the trial, and you to make motions for this, and the severance motions

are not surprising, and it is not delay tactics, but it is something that every defense attorney wants, so she had to see this coming. >> and normal course. so you both alluded to this, but now could every member of the 17 now say they want their trial separated and will they now that they see this wshg? >> they can and they will, and now all 17 will want 17 different trials. and that is the dynamic, and the way it is going to play out, and the prosecutors will do what fani willis has said, we will willing to try everyone tomorrow, and that is what the prosecutors do say and will say, and they now want their own trials, because they don't want to be sitting next to one of the most controversial figure, and so if you are one of the lower less controversial people, you don't want to sitting next to donald trump or rudy giuliani.

so you will see groups of three or five or however separate trials. and he cannot hold 17 different, so it would take a decade, but he has to group them together practically and fair. >> and so we hhave some of our best people, which does not include you by the way, but we will go to those other best people not including us here. and the defense should not have access to them, and the counsel wants to hear more of this after we put the case on -- >> with the sole exception being mr. chillise? >> yes. >> and what about if some of the witnesses testify that you call

at trial? >> so, judge, we are relying on the discovery statue that talks about the point when the state has made the decision to call one of the witnesses that has testified before the grand jury at that point, the transcript becomes relevant, and we will turn it over. >> all right. so we may have to talk some logistics, but we will see where we end up. so mr. grubman and mr. arroyo, your motion? >> your honor, we take exception for what they will call ing jens material given to us at the last-minute to craft -- >> that is what i was getting to. >> if we are looking at this, it is 22-ex-0024. i would like to adopt the media

companies ask for the release of the transcripts, and cited in the law so we don't have to go through it, but og-101 lists out the requirements that the special grand jury has to do and that requirement is interim reports that have to be presented to the judge as far as the work going on, and i didn't know if there were transcripts, but apparently there are in this case as to what the prosecution says there is, but based on the report that were released there were 75 witnesses that testified before the grand jury, which were recorded, and they have told this court that they have 150 witnesses, so whether they choose to call those witnesses or not, i am entitled to the transcripts to decide if i want to call them if there is impeachment material, inconsistent statements or exculpatory material, and they have to present all of the case in chief to us as ordered by your scheduling other, and there is no protection order out

there, and we go to the next order that is the special publishing of the grand jury report, and the secrecy issue goes away and the foreperson of the special grand jury went to the press and made all kinds of statements about this, and olson versus state is 302 georgia 3022 case and also the in recase which is cited in my brief also, your honor, and i go back to 70 years to dennis versus the united supreme court, and it is a 1966 case that talks tbt requirements for disclosure for grand jury transcripts and in every case the grand jury transcripts are made available to the defense but there is a different statue to when they will be released --

>> and the witness transcripts, but you are asking for everything? >> well, i don't know exactly what they recorded, and if it is witnesses, fine, but as you know, your honor, there is one-way traffic. and the d.a. controls information is presented to them, and i don't know what it is they are giving them or not, and i have challenged validity of the indictment which is in a separate brief, but at a minimum, the law requires the witness statements, and whether they choose to use them or not, it doesn't avoid the responsible to use them, and i would like to know who the 75 people who are under oath to testify before them, and i don't know if there is a way around it, and the law supports us, and whether it is a protective or nonprotective order, it is their choice. we don't plan to share anything with the press, but we need it and our client needs it to prepare for the case, so the code sections, the case law, and even the supreme court case law

and frankly, the fairness of the statements of the witnesses be turned over, but i believe that i should be allowed to have all of it, because if it is on the validity of what the grand jurors said, we should be allowed to all of it. >> again, i am no expert in grand jurors and former prosecutor, but 151280 that talks about publishing. a lot of it was talked about with judge mcburney as far as the case cited in special grand jury and more of the law is there, and i don't want to burn down the trees if it is out there, and i highlighted the three cases that talks about it. so you are listening to the live hearing there in front of the judge arguing for sidney

powell and kenneth chesebro who are scheduled to go in october, and if you will permit me. >> of course, john. >> i have a narrow question first and the broader question. and narrow that we are hearing them argue the defense for access to what all of the special grand jury transcript, and what exactly does this mean? >> yes, exactly, it is their constitutional right as the defense attorney, and the defendants are allowed to receive and it is known in the federal system jenks act material if they are entitled to call witnesses at trial, and they are entitled to know what they said to the grand jury assuming prospect of potentially impeaching the witnesses or preparing the defense. you can see this all of the time. the question is timing. one other issue, and now they are cons solidating motion, but they want the speak to the grand jurors in this case to see whether or not the indictment was properly handed down, and

that is an unusual request, but as far as seeing the grand jury testimony and you know, transcripts, that is pretty typical and i think that they will get that at some point, and maybe not today, but at some point before trial. >> my broader question, as they hash it out, it has to do with the fact that there still this trial scheduled for five weeks from now which is soon. i have been listening to both of you, and it is not a slam dunk that it is going to happen that day, and i do get that it is useful for the other co-defendants to play out first, but this is a chance for a jury to weigh in and weigh in soon on a lot of the evidence that is going to be brought up against ultimately donald trump and rudy giuliani and others and the case is nuanced and different, but in a way, a lot of them are going to be the same. so there is a jury to hear evidence soon. >> there is a phrase that we use as prosecutors and i know that

you love the phrases, but it is collateral damage. so if you are trying kenneth chesebro and sidney powell, there are other people named in a bad way in the trial, and other people who take on the damage including donald trump, so that is a counter veiling, and this is in one way delighted, because you can see the strategy, but in another way, you are getting a lot of damage of a nationally televised trial where you won't be able to defend yourself. and fani willis has said that my case against any one of the 19 is the same as all of the 19 defendants, so if there is the a trial of chesebro and powell in october, then, yes, donald trump is going to take on quite a bit of damage for all of us to see. >> and i am curious about the 75 people, and they are asking for the transcripts.

>> correct. >> so have they gotten discovery so far? how much has the defense gotten so far, and we know that the trial is technically five weeks out. >> they have not gotten much so far, and that is inexcusable on the d.a.'s part. so there were 75 witness, and what we are hearing is that the defense attorneys are saying, that we want all of those transcript, and as caroline said, we want all of them. and if the trial date is five or six weeks from now, the d.a. indicted the case two the three weeks ago, and she should have had the discovery right here. and this is the dime, and the d -- this is the indictment, and this is the discovery and it is going to be rolling, and the trial is here, and to give them discovery, and i don't know how you take the situation of fast, fast, fast, and we need three

weeks of discovery when we have had this case in investigative phase for two 1/2 to three years. >> it warms my heart for you to take the defense position. thank you. >> and now we heard from the judge and going forward. >> well, he has been very methodical about this and noted that he will be having the hearings on a weekly basis, and he has been down the road, and understands that 19 co-defendants are going to be making motion, and we have not gotten to the motions in limine of the first impression, and not first impression, and so he as been forward about moving this

on without alacrity and the last thing you want as a trial judge is to have this turned over on appeal. >> you can hear him push back as you are both saying, you have to gift over, but he is saying, what entitles you to the transcripts from the special grand jury, and taking a role on this, and making sure that the is are dotted and the ts are crossed. >> this judge is doing great, because you are taking on a case like this, you are the manage omanager of a 19-ring circus. and he is way younger than everybody else, and 34, and not you caroline -- >> how dare you. >> and he is in control of the courtroom, and letting the d.a. do what he is doing, and protect the constitutional and procedural rights of the defendants. >> thank you, caroline polisi

and elie honig. >> and there a possibly a strike coming up tonight between the big three companies. we will tell you where it is. and big shake-up tonight in the senate, because mitt romney says he will not seek re-election and waitit until yo hear what t he is saying about some of his colleagues. meet the fututure. a chef. a designer. and, ooh, an engineer. all learning to save and spend their money with chase. the chef's cooking up fits with her new debit card. hungry? -uhuh. the designer's eyeing sequins. uh no plaid. whilmom is eyeing his spending. nice. and the engineer? she's taking control with her own account for college. three futures, all with chase. freedom for kids. control for parents. one bank for both.

chase. make more of what's yours. gives you access to every game. but terry doesn't have directv. come on. come on. work for dad- here... now, you can find the game easy. my barbecue is saved! access nfl sunday ticket on us, get a $400 reward card. my barbecue is ruined.

[ applause ] >> the day you get your clearchoice dental implants makes every day a confident day... a never-hide-my-smile day... a life-of-the-party day...

a take-on-the-world day... a believe-in-myself day... a flash-my-new-teeth day. because your clearchoice day is the day you get your confidence back for good. a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation. the clock is ticking. the automakers anded auto workers union have until midnight to reach an agreement and if they cannot, it is the

first ever sigh mull tainous strike. and negotiations continue, but so far, it is not going well. the negotiations are challenging, because groups like the chamber of commerce are asking the white house to help avoid a walk-out. arlette saenz and vanessa yurkevich is also there with more reporting. what are you learning? >> yes, we are learning that this could try to blunt any economic impacts that would occur, but what is unique, the white house does not have any

authority to be a direct party to the negotiations. stla they have been in contact with both sides and speaking with the uwae chiefs, and he has a point person here at the white house gene spurling serving as a middleman to hear both sides, but there is limited ability in what the president can do when it is coming to the negotiations that are ongoing at the moment. what the white house has been trying to encourage is that these negotiators work around the clock the secure some type of agreement, and take a listen to one of of the president's top economic advisers just yesterday. >> the president believes that auto workers deserve a contract that sustains middle-class jobs. and the president is clearly one of the most pro union presidents that we have, and he is

encouraging them to stay at the table 24/7 to get a win-win that keeps uaw workers at the job and ensure good middle-class jobs. >> reporter: and sources briefed on the negotiations say that it is a uniquely challenging set of negotiations in part because of the strategy of the uaw has adopted. in previous years they have focused on one single automaker, but at the time, they are trying to do it with all three at once. so the stakes are clearly incredibly high. the president had previously expressed optimism that a strike would not happen, but that clock is ticking down to the midnight deadline, and we will see what we hear from the white house in the course of the day. >> thank you, arlette. i want to go the vanessa, who is in detroit. the and from the consumer perspective, we know that it could hurt the economy, and the

economies of the people who work in those economies, and also for those going out the buy a car. >> yes, and i wanted to set the scene that the negotiations with the individual automakers and those are shifting to the uaw headquarters as the automakers and the unions are trying to work out a deal, but shawn feign is going for a strike approach which is calling on the local unions to strike for different days and different dates causing confusion, but some workers would be left working in the factories while others are on strike. and to your point, we know that a automakers this year have less inventory than they did in 2019. so it is a struggle if this

strike prolongs for weeks if not months, and as you mentioned, a lot has been made about the impact of the economy, and one analyst is suggesting that the strike that lasts ten days against all three automakers would cost $9 billion to the u.s. economy. but here is the president of the uaw. >> they pretend that the sky is going to fall if we get our fair share of the quarter of a trillion that the big three has made over the past decade. but it is not just the economy, and they say it is going to wreck the economy, but it is not the economy that we will wreck, but it is the billionaire economy that we will wreck. that is what they are worried about. >> at this hour, ford is waiting for the counter proposal that they provide d to the uaw, and

bill farley gave the proposal tuesday expecting shawn fain to be there, and they offered a historic wage increase of 4%, but that is not the 40% that the uaw is looking for. >> and we should be clear that the 40% is over four years and 10% increase each year, and you have seen the pushback on that, and most of the big three have said that we could do half of that or less than half, but we are not going all of the way, and big sticking point just on that. and so thank you, vanessa, and arlette saenz at the white house, and so thank you, both. john? and an fing face-off is literally what is happening on capitol hill. kevin mccarthy is dropping the f-bombs daring his colleagues to

oust him from his speaker chairs. conquer financial reports. conquer 2000-word essays. conquer 300 thank-you nos. rule over what you write with the smooth writing, longest lasting gel ink pen in america. do you g2? i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. thanks to skyrizi, i'm on my way with clearer skin. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. nothing on my skin means everything! ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. hello 12 hours of relief. 12 hours!! not coughing? hashtag still not coughing?! mucinex dm gives you 12 hours of relief from chest congestion and any type of cough, day or night. mucinex dm. it's comeback season. the sleep number climate360 smart bed is the only smart bed in the world that actively cools, warms and effortlessly responds to both of you for up to 44 minutes more restful sleep per night. save $1500 on the sleep number climate360 smart bed. shop now at sleep number.com. it's easy to get lost in investment research.

introducing j.p. morgan personal advisors. hey david. connect with an advisor to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management.

nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. >> all right. breaking on capitol hill this morning, we are getting new information about what went on behind closed doors in a meeting among republicans, house speaker kevin mccarthy swearing at some of his political opponents daring them to try to oust him of his job, and we are getting

new information they swore right back at him. and we go to manu raju at capitol hill, and lot of the four-letter words? >> yes, and no doubt, because of the pressure that speaker mccarthy is facing in this critical month, and the closed door meeting is to update the investigation, and the impeachment inquiry into joe biden and think did provide the update of this, but what devolved into the closed door meeting is because of a dispute of the conference of how to fund the government by the end of of the month, and they are staring at the prospect of a government shutdown, because of the significant republican divide of the far right members who are wanting far deeper cuts, that democrats and republicans would like leading to major questions of how to get around it, and also a threat of one member in particular, matt gaetz who said that he is going to offer a

motion to push mccarthy out of the speakership if he does not heed to his demands including on funding the government, and that when mccarthy said clear, it is not a political winner to shut the government down, and he said that the house is going to be in session, and if we can't pass a bill, we will stay in session, and he said if you want to push me out as speaker, move the fing motion, he said according to multiple sources, and after the closed door meeting, we had a chance to ask speaker mccarthy about this, and he made it clear, if the republican conference wants to take him on, he is ready for the fight. >> threats don't matter, and people do that because of the personal things, and that is all fine, but i focus just like anything else, and if you are watching the most people get to the speaker on the first round,

but it took me 15. i am irish and i don't walk away from a battle. i knew that changing washington would be a battle, but i am going to battle on what is the right thing for the american people, and if it takes a fight, then it takes a fight. >> reporter: and in response, matt gaetz said how about move the fing spending bill. that is dispute, and not just dealing with the impeachment, and the divisions in the republican conference about that issue, and whether they will get to the impeaching the president, but basic essence of governing the government, and the far right, and as the democrats have their own demands and the narrow majority is what makes it so difficult for kevin mccarthy, but this fight to push for the speakership could come to a head as soon as next week if things continue to devolve within the republican conference, but the speaker said he is ready for the

fight, but the question is if he has the votes. >> and manu, you said as early as last week, and is matt gaetz going to do this or crying wolf? is he going to make the fing motion as speaker mccarthy would say? >> it seems that way. it would be a surprise at the moment if he didn't given at how far matt gaetz said he would go on this, and he laid out a whole list of things that he felt that mccarthy violated to win the speakership, and specifically, he said if mccarthy puts on a short term spending bill past september 30th, that is enough to trigger that vote to oust him, and mccarthy said that he has to move a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, and so it is certain that it is going to happen, and mccarthy has to get a vote to prevent four democrats

to oust him, and so it would have to be a new election, but mccarthy said he is willing to put himself back up for ballots, and we will see if what we saw in january is going to happen again for the speakership. >> okay. keep us posted. >> we are in wild time, and here to discuss all of this is our pbs analyst laura, and also, from the grilo our analyst. what are you thinking could happen there? >> if matt gaetz does go ahead with the motion, they could oust

mccarthy, because some republicans are saying that they don't have any reason to help keep him there and the speakership, but on one of the last points that manu made, it is affecting the basic governance, and the fact that they cannotappropriations, sarat is a big deal, because sip cli, that is something that majority of the republicans would support to fund the dod. >> one of the aspects that is interesting of this is that it may not be a bug, but it might to be feature here for some of the republicans involved with pushing for a shutdown and having it explode, and natasha, i was reading it in politico, and they described it as government neoists.

and that may be preferable to the status quo. how does this complicate the negotiations. and natasha is either stunned by my question or cannot hear me. and so, if you can hear me, laura, but a majority do not care if it is funded in a few week, and how does it change the negotiations? >> well, it is incredibly difficult, john, for leadership to find a path forward here. he launched an impeachment inquiry without a vote this week, because of the fact that it is one of the list of demands from the faction that you are talking about saying that they wanted to see this, and marjorie taylor greene who supports mccarthy when she was back home in her district said that she wanted an impeachment inquiry vote, and if that did not happen, she would not fund the government, but they are asking

for things as outlandish as defunding fbi, and defunding special counsel jack smith, and a host of a lot on the list that senate republicans will not get behind. senate republicans want to see aid going to ukraine. they want to see disaster relief sent out, and this faction of the house gop doesn't want to see that at all, and so that is going to the point, john, that they appear ready to head over this cliff, and to sow chaos and not interested in having a serious conversation of how to keep the government funded. >> we talked to senator chuck schumer and mike rounds of south dakota, and they said that we want to fund ukraine, and make sure they have what they need, and we don't have people on the ground, but this is the house doing what they do, and they do what they do. i want to go to natasha, because we have fixed the audio issues.

so, you have fixed something that laura barron lopez mentioned something that is important. you have democrats who are now saying, no, we won't support the speaker who is in place right now, partly because he went forward for an impeachment without a vote, but if he goes who might take over, and what is the risk there, natasha? >> that is right. i mean, i think that what all of this is pointing to is the weak position that kevin mccarthy is in. kevin mccarthy has expressed that he did not like the idea of a shutdown, because when you shutdown the government, you never win and you are in a weaker position, and this is the position that he has accepted in order to have this speakership, so it is seeming that he is losing on all fronts, and he has the smallest majority in the house, and clearly, he is vulnerable to the threats that

the hardline republicans are making. what is interesting is that the majority of americans have shown time and time again that they do not like government shutdowns, and think don't appreciate the government being brought to a halt. they often blame the party that leads charge in this case. so, i think that he is in a lose-lose situation either way. >> all right. laura and natasha, thank you, both, for being with us. and turns out we are getting more breaking news out of fulton county, georgia, and there is a pretrial hearing in the election subversion case from judge scott mcafee, and let's get an update on what happened from cnn's zachary cohen. what are we learning? >> reporter: we are learning what two of the co-defendants in this case will get before their trial in about five weeks. that is sidney powell and ken

chesebro who are set to start their trial process on october 23rd, and the judge in this case saying that, yes, they can get some of the witness interview transcripts that were from the witnesses that testified before the special grand jury, and recommended in this case, and they can talk to some of the grand jurors that they were granting in the motions today, and figuring out how the go about doing that, and then, look, the prosecutors have wanted to keep the special grand jury information a secret. they have said that it is distinct with other information in this case, but the judge here is allowing defendants to get some of the witness interview transcripts, but it is only for those witnesses called to testify as part of the trial. all right. we will go ahead to listen in, and they are discussing what is happening with the grand jury testimony. we will listen in.

>> exactly where to go -- >> your honor, that may have happened here, but i don't know. >> i hear you there, but my point being that a summarize indictment to me, you know, for example, if we know that the deliberation, and we can't go into that, and this is proete protected, and how would you be able to know if they read the indictment another juror -- and you can't answer your own question? >> well, we would have to craft some questions and think of the language, but mr. or mrs. grand juror, when the evidence was presented to you, did you the opportunity to ask questions? did you the opportunity to follow-up? and this is dicta, but we rely on dicta as persuasive, and so, too, would we dismiss a

indictment presented by a kangaroo prosecutor's handiwork that is not by an independent functioning grand jury, and while we can't ask the grand jurors what exactly happened in the deliberations, but what we can absolutely ask and i will ask is if there is anyone other than the grand jurors in the deliberations, and this is what the other case that we cite "collins v sanford" and what we want is the reason that we filed motion is to be above board to make sure that everything was out there in the open, however, i would respectfully push back, your honor, we would not agree, obviously, court could order anything they want for any member of the prosecution to be part of those conversation, and we are officers of the court, and we know the rules, and

follow the orders, and i would also ask the court to state or ask the prosecution to state on the record and commit, and i am not saying they will do this, but i have seen other prosecutor dos prosecutors do this, that they will not attempt to influence the grand jurors' decisions to talk to us, and we know it is voluntary, and once they say they do not want to talk to us, we will hang up, whether it is us or the representatives, but there is a risk here that someone from the state might try to get to them first, and that is inappropriate. >> and what if the grand juror wants prosecutor to be on the call as well? >> then if a juror wants prosecutor be on the call, andk to be on the call, well, i have never had them to be on our prep, and sit there in their

conference room, and they don't have the right to be with us, and if they want to talk to the grand jurors, and they can, and they have talked to them, and like mr. wade a lot, but i don't want him on the phone call, because he is my adversary, and quite frankly, and think about this, if, hypothetically, there was something that happened in the grand jury that was not appropriate and the fact that the member of the prosecution was on this call, i think that it would prevent or at least make it less likely that a grand juror would be honest, and i am not saying this is true, but what if they felt that they were bullied by the prosecutor to prosecute. and what if they felt that the state went overboodard. so if mr. wade was in on that call, then we need to be trusted that we would do the right thing, and i will commit 100%

that we will, and these grand jurors have been through a lot, and there has been doxxing and all sorts of thing, and we are professionals and not those sorts of people. >> would you document this in some ways, and have a court reporter or what is the plan? >> we have not talked exactly about the case and a good old irecorder or court reporter or grand jurors that you are not required to do so, and we can tell the grand jurors that we are recording this so that there is no question, and i don't want anyone to incorrectly accuse me or my team to go past what we are allowed to ask, and for my own sake, we will have some sort of recording, and unlike the state of georgia as mr. raferty

said, they have an unlimited budget paid for by the good taxpayers of fulton county, we don't. despite what the media said, we don't have an unlimited budget. and unless the court can volunteer your court reportrepoi don't know if we can afford it. >> and so if you can pose the subject matter which is in advance and voluntary meeting, and documented in some way, and even if it is the state is not on the call, that we could also have someone from the court there as well to just at any point if the juror feels like they need to pull the rip cord? >> yes, your honor. >> but there is no point in going into the merits of the

motion, because it is a little bit premature. >> yes. >> and so that is the initial reaction, and mr. raferty, you had joined this? >> yes, the possibility that the interviews not be conducted by phone at all, and in fact, in person, and accommodations with the state and the defense to conduct these in person as opposed to over the phone, and that is my only request. >> and for me the driving consideration is going to be the desire of the grand juror to come down here and deal with that or do it over the phone. >> mr. wade? >> the state is opposed to any of this, and we will come before the court, and tell the court why, but i thought that at the outset of your argument i thought that i was clear before we started to argue in terms of the discovery that mr. grubman has indicated that we have not

given him anything, but i thought that i was clear that the discovery is here -- >> i feel like you keep going back to discovery, but save that to the end. >> that is the argument, and i don't want the court to feel like -- >> but right now, we are focusing on the grand jurors, and we will get to that. >> judge, i did prepare a powerpoint -- >> oh, another powerpoint, and here we go. >> i mean, come on. this goes to -- >> this is my original point, your honor. the state spends time to put together a powerpoint to respond to a motion, and this is going to take a lot of time, and i understand, and i am sure it is per purr swayze and it would be much more efficient if someone would put pen to paper so someone would see the cases and someone would move to the cases and get

to the end, and now we see these cases from the state for the first time and we will look at these, and we will go back to find things that perhaps are inaccurate and have no choice but then to file some supplemental briefing and with the trial date of october 23rd, this process is just not an efficient use of the court's time, and the more efficient process is to write a brief, file it like we do in federal court all of the time, and like this d.a.'s office did in federal court in this very case in front of judge jones and file it here. that is my ask. >> understood. i think that we will take it up on the motion by motion basis. all right. ms. young? >> i think that state and your honor are on the same page, so i will go through this quickly in

regards to the deliberations, because so what the state said in their motions if the grand jurors had been read the indictment, and the purpose of talking to the juror, and there is some other reasons that they may want to talk to them, but here is the state's reason that, this is not moving as the court talked about deliberation, it is part of the grand jury's reading, and whether they read it during deliberations, and we are all trial lawyers here, and it is going back with the jurors to make sure that the evidence is matching evidence that is present and this is the same thing with the grand jury and they are given a copy of the indictment and they can do with it what they please, and if we want to get into that what they were doing with the deliberations, and did the foreperson read it to them or the court, and this is part of the deliberation process, and this is prohibited to anyone

getting into their deliberation process, and so the state's contention is that these questions about at the grand jury and reading of the indictment summary is part of deliberations, and they cannot get into that, because it is prohibited. i will cite oga-15067 says that the grand jury must keep the deliberation of the grand jury secret unless to give evidence thereof in some court of law in the case, and talks about extraneous prejudice information which i think goes to the sigmond case is what they were talking about as the court pointed out whether or not the prosecutor was steering them to a particular decision. it talks about outside influences or mistaken entering of the verdict, and none of those things happened here and i will get to how they want to handle that with the court and fed raul rule 606 and the 24-06 here -- we are now into the fulton

county courthouse where this case is going to be severed and two of the defendants will go to the trial first and donald trump and the rest of the defendants will go to trial after, but we are listening to this argument over the grand jurors and the indictments and whether they were read the indictment or read it themselves and it was 95 or 96 pages, and whether or not all of the information can be put into the hands of the defense. what is your take away from what you are hearing here? >> well, two things are going on here. the defendants want the transcripts of the testimony that went into the special grand jury, and this is months' long grand jury that investigated and the defendants are absolutely entitled to have any testimony of witnesses in the case, and probably others if it is relevant to the case. >> but the judge has said that the defense can have the transcripts from the witnesses who will testify in the case, but he is thinking about the other things? >> right. it is right down the middle. you get the transcripts of the witnesses, and dependent if it

is relevant or not, but generally, the defendants do get that information, and the second thing that is happening the lawyers for chesebro and powell are asking for information to go out to contact the regular grand jurors to indict. and that is something that is bizarre, to get the information on these people to interview them, and putting them on the spot, and there is some debate here that the defense is saying should the prosecutors be on the call, and none of this should happen, and the a.d.a. said we object to all of this and absolutely what i would have, and no contact with the grand jurors, unless specific evidence of misconduct. >> we were watching this, and i asked caroline polisi and i said, have you ever had the chance to speak to a grand

juror? >> i laughed. absolutely not. the judge is at least entertaining the possibility, and the underlying reason of course of the defense wanting to speak to the grand jurors so they can make a motion to dismiss the entire indictment, and they are saying it is unconstitutional if in fact the grand jury received this report which is voluminous and read a summary of it and rubber stamped it without knowing intricacies of the 19 points of the indictment. and that is a point of depriving them of their rights, and the judge has to go through the motions here, but it is incompletely inappropriate, and it is not going to happen. >> i cannot help but bring up this moment in the court which is unusual, because we have been in courtrooms to see what happens in the course of business. so there is a question of

discovery and it has to be turned over to the defense and turned it over fairly quickly and it has been three weeks or something like that. so at one point, you see one of the assistant d.a.s picking up two boxes and plopping them on the defense's table, and saying that we give you the discovery and gave it to you early, and you are welcome. >> the discovery is the discovery of any prosecution to turn it over to the defense in advance, and we don't do trial by surprise in this country. you are entitled to the discovery as a defendant. and what we saw was a funny moment, because the ada, the prosecutor, and they must have been hard drives -- >> too small there. >> we were leaning n but it is electronic devices, and you want them, and you wanted it, but it is early. it is one day. but for the first time ever on