to all grand jury proceedings. a defendant seeking to challenge the presumption has a difficult burden. because it's hard to override, and that cite is 809 federal sub 130. i think we have to get into, is it relevant, admissible the questions they want to ask the jurors. based on the case law, it's not. what we're asking is we want you to change your mind, answer a question in a way that's going to impeach your findings. all of those things are reaching toward that. was there someone else in there? did the prosecutor steer you a certain way? all of that is to impeach the finding of a true bill of the indictment. and there's nothing here that says that it should be. i want to touch upon the public policy and the safety that the court talked about. we have heard it, these grand jurors have already experienced doxing, threats. we have had to contact -- they have contacted our office because of safety concerns. we have had to contact law

enforcement agencies all over fulton county to then make sure that these grand jurors are safe. so i think one consideration the court also needs to make in allowing this is the safety of these grand jurors and their concerns that have already been voiced. but i'll just say the georgia supreme court observed the grand jury as a public institution serving the community might suffer if those testifying today knew that the secrecy of their testimony would be lifted tomorrow. the indispensable secrecy must not be broken except where there's a compelling necessity. there's been no compelling necessity raised by this defense to pierce this veil of secrecy of the grand jury. >> what was the cite for that, the last one? >> sorry, judge. >> where is that coming from? >> kessler, judge. >> can you spell that one for me? >> you have that case, judge.

>> in my stack. can we just pause one moment? >> sure. >> and then the state talked about this, but i wanted to point out, talking about deliberations and the fact it should be when discussing the charges in votes of the indictment. i think all of the questions that mr. grumened talked about, that's where it's going. if we're going to do this, which the state does not believe we should, it's going to have to be crafted carefully to make sure we're in line with the statutes and the case law. >> all right -- i'm sorry. >> and just one more thing.

we talked about the grand jurors and the safety. all these cases are in there for the court, but i want to -- we have to make sure we're keeping that paramount. they're asking to be able to call these jurors. these jurors have already said we're concerned. i'm handing them another copy of the written response that i gave to the court. but because of public policy and safety, i think that's another reason why we should not allow this. and finally, the lack of authority. what they stated to the court was signal, which has been vacated. it's really improper even bringing it to the court to say consider it when it's not even law. they vacated it, they renounced it. it's not even something the court should be considering or thinking about. there is no authority that allows what they're asking the court to allow them to do. the indictment, and i said that to the court, the grand jury acted rather quickly is one of the things as the court said, we don't get into deliberations with the jury. they can take as long as they like. they can take as short as they like. i understand it may raise

mr. grubman's eyebrows but a true indictment was returned by a grand jury, and they could have taken five minutes, five hours, or five days. there's no case law that puts a restriction on how long it should take them. that's 808-1360. and as i stated before, judge, there's just a lack of authority for what they're asking to do. and attached in the state's brief, you will find in 2010, mr. aurora did the exact same thing. they say they come to the court and they're asking for permission. that's because in 2010, a judge in decab county admonished him for the same thing, knocking on grand jurors' doors, she had to issue a temporary protective order to stop that behavior. the state is in the process of trying to get a copy of the order. we will supplement the record

once we get that for the court's consideration as to those findings in that particular case. >> all right. >> your honor, i'll let mr. aurora respond to the personal attacks. speaking of what's inappropriate. >> let me pause right here. are you finished? >> i was not, judge. >> lets let her finish her piece. >> judge, i would say i know you have crafted out some ways that maybe we can do this. the state is not in agreement with that, but if this does happen, the state believes it should be something that's done with your honor present, and with just a foreperson. they can get whatever information that is needed from that one person because they're the foreperson. i would ask that be something if it's done, the state doesn't believe it should be done, but with the court present, and if they ask for the foreperson to be present, and there are well crafted questions given to the court and the state prior to

that happening. we ask it does not happen because it's not authorized by law. >> your honor, i take very extreme exception for ms. young coming up here and trying to impugn the reputation of my colleague. >> let me just -- let's keep us on track. i'm not going to consider it. it's not part of the record. >> my colleague was -- this is broadcast live. >> and you can respond it to on your own. please let me finish. it's not going to be part of the consideration right now. if you want to handle it outside the courtroom, that's your business. for now, to stay focused, we should focus on the law. >> respectfully, it was said on the record and i think i should have the opportunity and mr. aurora should have the opportunity to respond. there have been many times, many times that the fulton county district attorney's office including some of the members that are sitting in the courtroom today, have been called out by courts, by name,

with inappropriate things they do in the grand jury, and at trial. so no, i cannot take ms. young's word for it that it was done properly. ms. young is trying to send my client to prison. and we have the right to know if it was done properly. and she keeps saying there's no case law. as your honor said, there is case law. instead of creating these wonderful power points that they're so fond of, read our briefs. the colin case says, we can talk to grand jurors. so the fact that she got up here and lied, lied to the court -- >> all right, mr. grubman. >> she lied to the court and defamed my colleague. >> it's over. >> all right. i wish you would have stopped her from defaming my cocounsel. >> so where we are, let me just summarize. with motion number 1, with the motion to speak to the grand

jurors, i would ask defense counsel to supplement their motion. we can do this, i don't think it need to be, since this is something that would be crafted and considered, we can just do this off the docket. we can do it through email. just a proposal of the questions, the topics, that would be gone into. if we need to follow it up with another hearing to actually hone those, we'll do that. but i think for each question or subject matter you go into, i'm going to want to see a citation for how this is an actual relevant line of inquiry. and then we can get into the logistics from there. i think there's a way to accommodate the case law cited by the state about the general secrecy but still allowing the defense their ability to make sure that the grand jury fulfilled its duty in the matter recognized by law. as for the motions to unseal the

grand jury transcripts, i think we mentioned that i'll be taking that under advisement and i have been provided the case law. for the first two motions, ms. young, if you could provide a copy of the power point to the defense and to me as well. and counsel for one and two, were you desiring supplementing briefing to respond to what we just got? >> i think the case law is the case law. >> mr. rafferty, did you want to respond? >> i would just ask respectfully if the court would order on a case by case basis perhaps the government intend on drafting something like they have today, and like they did last week in the form of a power point, that it be in the form of a motion that we have an opportunity to read and be prepared so we don't waste the court's time. >> all right. and then finally, three was mooted. so i think that takes us to just another kind of check-in of where we are. just a few things on my end before i know we can start

talking about some discovery issues and wrap up. obviously, i think it might have hit the docket by now. i think like i said, sometimes there's a delay, but we filed an order on the severance issue. i realized i never actually asked the state at the last motions hearing about the redacted indictment issue that mr. aurora argued and was filed on behalf of mr. chesebro, the motion to sever counts from the other defendants. let's see. the august 30th motion for severance of codefendants, and it lists several of the counts. essentially how mr. aurora clarified it is he's asking for a redacted file as trial. i never got the state's position on that one.

>> mr. wooden addressed this. he's not here at the moment. i'll step in and pinch hit for the second. as i recall the nature of that motion, one part of it was to sever individual defendants from each other and from the larger case. the subsidiary question was whether specific counts would be severed from the indictment. i believe that's -- >> i think that's how it was phrased. then when we discussed it, which is where the motion hearings can be useful, evolved into more of just a we would like a quote/unquote dummy indictment at the actual trial of the case. that's at least how i interpreted it. >> i yes, i thought you granted it, you would white-out or redact it. that's what i'm asking for. all separate motions in regards to the end counts. >> so maybe this is something

more we address as a pretrial motion. it's not so much a motion to tailor the evidence or what the state's allowed to present. those other counts aren't relevant. it's more what is the document the jury should get. >> i understand, and if i misunderstood at the last hearing i apologize. i wanted to trying to add confusion to a complicated situation already. the state just for the record don't see any basis to sever out any individual counts as to any defendant. but that i think is not what your honor was addressing. and i would suggest this is an issue we can talk about and get to later. we're still, i realize we're not talking about a lot of days but we're certainly not yet talking about what will go out to the jury, especially since you have been told you're going to be getting dispositive motions. it's somewhat hypothetical. >> i wanted to raise it that i hadn't heard the state's position. >> is it safe to presume it's sort of granted?

that's all i'm looking for? >> we'll get there. it's still a lingering issue. >> i would like to see an order. >> we'll work on it. >> actually, i would rather not. it's very difficult for us. but thank you, your honor. >> so other housekeeping. i think i wanted to flag this as well. just again, because we're on this compressed timeline. we'll get more into the mechanics of jury selection later this month. obviously, those are conversations we're starting to have with the court administration and the sheriff's office, but i did want to flag that the state had filed a motion to use a jury questionnaire. i think that's appropriate here and i think it's -- i don't think you need to. we'll do it, so we'll have a deadline to submit those questions several weeks beforehand. maybe start crafting those now. >> i have spoken with mr. wooten last time, and we didn't necessarily agree, but at least talked about the possibility of

getting together and trying to craft questions that we all might agree on and then maybe having two separate sections assuming there are some that the state wants that we don't want and vice versa. we can submit all that maybe in a joint filing. >> that sounds wonderful to me. i also want to flag that as i highlight more in the severance order, we're going to make an attempt because i think my initial review of the speedy trial case law, is that it's somewhat uncertain of when a trial commences so we're going to be making the attempt to have this jury sworn by the deadline of november 5th. maybe that means a weekend or two is involved. but regardless, i just want to warn you when it comes to the questions you submit on there, we're probably going to have to adopt the federal practice of a clock and a timeline, and you have so much time per panel and however you want to use it to see fit, and you can ask 100

questions but you may not be able to follow up on all 100 of them. so i just want to lay that expectation out there. >> a different topic, something to think about. there's a trial going on right now, actually the jury is deliberating in federal court, several federal judges and a case in new york, have done a modified trial schedule, just if you get early out, it's something the court might consider for a lengthy trial like this. i can get you the specifics but basically i think they go from like 8:30 to 3:00, 8:30 to 2:30, something like that, with maybe one 30-minute break, two 15-minute breaks. what the judge in that case told us through years of research is he said if you look at the transcript pages you actually wind up basically getting the same amount of words in at trial. but particularly for a lengthy case, the state said four

months, not including jury selection, it just might make things more comfortable. maybe if the court would entertain an alternate schedule instead of just 9:00 to 5:00. that might be something that makes everyone a little more comfortable, particularly the jurors who are going to have to be here for i think the court said maybe eight months. between four and eight months. something to think about, your honor. >> when you say modified, you mean just a shorter day? >> shorter day, stats a little earlier, ends earlier. fewer breaks in the middle. it tends to get things done quicker. i was very skeptical of it when it was proposed to me in another case. and then actually another lawyer i know just finished a two-month trial, 2 1/2-month trial in federal court and they went on that, i think it was judge patton, went on that schedule, and the jurors apparently absolutely loved it, the court loved it.

so something to be considered if you would. >> we'll see. initially, you know, the reaction was going to be four full days a week. we would follow the aps precedent of taking likely friday off to handle other business and let the jurors recover. and in terms of a strict we shall have a break at this point in the morning and that point in the morning, so far i found that jurors' personal needs don't run on a clock like that, so we have to take the breaks where they come. and so, we'll see. but the idea is going to be four full days, at least a week, when we get to the evidence. mainly, i wanted to flag that it might be different than what we have seen here in the courthouse before by necessity. >> we are aware. i think the case law is pretty clear, your honor, when the trial starts and we're aware of that issue. we won't do anything to unnecessarily delay it. it's clearly going to be a challenge. i don't know that there's anyone

really in fulton county who hasn't heard of the case, or anyone who doesn't have a strong opinion one way or the other about the former president and the people who associated with him. so we recognize the challenges and we will do everything possible to move as quickly as possible. hope the state will join us on this one. >> mr. wade, if you wanted to add anything. >> we have every confidence that the court is capable and qualified to set the trial schedule. we'll adhere to whatever. >> i'm hoping to input any time. all right, and the last thing i would say is obviously seeing the new motions that have come in the door, mr. rafferty might be pleased to hear i will absolutely be hoping for prehearing briefing on the supremacy clause issue and the immunity issue as well. i don't think ms. powell joined on the immunity yet. >> not yet. >> that's all i have.

so mr. rafferty. >> thank you. your honor, i have been on this case probably for a month. and on august 30th, shortly after i got into this case, i sent a detailed brady request to the government. those brady obligations as your honor knows are independent of their discovery obligations as it relates to the hard drive. they have a due process obligation to turn over to me favorable information. and i didn't send them some blanket request saying give me everything under the sun. it was a very, very pointed request on august 30th that addressed two critical issues for ms. powell. that is number one, she wasn't behind this incident in coffee county which forms the basis of her inclusion in this indictment. number two, that whatever happened in coffee county, there's ample evidence that it was authorized. i have asked for that very specific evidence. in response to my letter on august 30th, i heard nothing from the state. this week, i sent an even more tailored request, a copy of which i can provide to your

honor, asking for very specific information, because i have spent the past month or so trying to figure out what happened and have gathered ample evidence showing those two things. that ms. powell was not behind all this, and that it was authorized. i filed a motion last night that sets out all the evident that i have been able to find on my own, which i hope the state has. okay. but the most important thing that i found, your honor, is a report by cnn, which i have been able to confirm, that there is a letter, a letter of invitation from coffee county on january 1st of 2021, that was sent, and it was sent not to ms. powell. it was sent to another lawyer inviting folks to come down to coffee county and do whatever it is they do. what does that establish, your honor? two things. one, what i have been saying since last week in my severance motion, in my motion last night, but i'll keep banging the drum on it. this was not ms. powell.

that's number one. but number two, that this was authorized. it was authorized. and i have asked for that. i have not asked for eight terabytes of discovery. this is a handful of documents. we have eight hoirs on this side. i'm pretty sure they know how to attach a document to an email. in response to that email this week, like my letter i sent in august 30th, i heard squat from the state. so they sit here and say, your honor, they are open and they're going to turn stuff over. i have been as clear as day about specifically want i'm entitled to under the constitution, due process, brady v. maryland, independent of any discovery obligations they have, that is exculpatory evidence. they have it, your honor. i have a reason to believe they have it, and they don't repspond. i have a motion, i'm going to file it, ask for this relief, but i shouldn't have to file it.

if this were in federal court, rule 5, your honor would issue an order upon arraignment ordering them to turn that material over because they have to. they don't have a choice. and they haven't done it here. i'm concerned. i practice mostly in federal court with federal prosecutors who know that. i have concerned that mr. wade and the other folks on this side don't appreciate their brady obligations. i'm asking the court to order them to produce brady material immediately. because they're required to. that's my point, your honor. i'm concerned. i raise it with your honor. you'll see it in my motion. >> all right. >> we have also not received any brady information. there's a lot. we know there's a lot. mr. wade and his team, who are open and want to send us everything, have not sent us one page. that's the record. >> all right, so mr. rafferty, you don't have to stand.

i'll just point out i think in terms of the timing of the motion, the way we try to keep things on track as best we can, we have the final drop dead date of when they're supposed to have gotten everything that's supposed to be turned over. at that point, if you still don't have it, that's when the motion becomes relevant. in the meantime, i'm hoping there's an exchange and a dialogue and things can be worked out among attorneys. that's the idea. but i note your concerns and let's see what the state has to say and we'll have to leave it at that. >> poi point is this, there is discovery which is governed in federal court by rule 16, by state court procedures. i understand rule 16. i understand discovery. independent of those discovery obligations are the constitutional obligations under the due process clause to turn over exculpatory information and to turn it over immediately. >> no question, i think we're really talking about timing. >> and i understand that.

it has been weeks now. they haven't even responded acknowledging they have those obligations. they haven't turned over the information. i refined the request and specifically told them, these are the pieces of paper i want. i haven't even gotten a response to the email saying okay, we understand. i haven't gotten a single piece of paper. i don't need eight terabytes of discovery. i need the stuff that proves she should not be in this case. >> respectfully, judge, it appears as though mr. rafferty wants us not only to provide the information to him, but to spoon feed it to him. that information has been provided this morning on the terabyte drive that he's been handed. before schedule, ahead of time. the court sets a discovery or a pretrial motion order. a pretrial track for which the state has held true to. we have not violated any of the

deadlines. what we're doing is trying the case is what we're doing. that's the attempt. they're putting in evidence and he's saying these things, trying to essentially try to case before it's time to do that. discovery has been given to the other side, judge. it's been given to them, actually not just timely but ahead of time, ahead of the schedule the court has set. now all mr. rafferty has to do is plug it in and open it and find the documents he's looking for. >> if i could point this out and educate mr. wade for a second as a former federal prosecutor and state prosecutor. you do not satisfy your brady obligations by turning over eight terabytes worth of material and saying go find it. that does not satisfy your obligations under brady, the case law, and the constitution. you are obligated to turn over specific information that has been requested. you can't just give me eight terabytes and say have at it and find it. if you have it you have to turn

it over to me. >> i think we're spinning our wheels at this point. mr. rafferty, obviously, on that specific point that they have to then point to this and that and respond to discreet evidence requests, make that a part of your motion because i would like to see the case law on it. we can take it up at the appropriate time. in the meantime, i think in order to -- there's a lot that needs to be done between now and october 23rd. i think the best use of our time isn't being in court here talking at each other. i think that acknowledging an email, replying back to it sometimes can prevent us from being here as often as we may have to. to that end, i would encourage everyone to keep the lines of communication open, and we'll take the motions up at the appropriate time. so anything else that we need to hear today? >> a copy of the case law. >> you already provided it to

the defense? okay. all right, and when it comes to scheduling, i wanted to address this grand jury issue early on in the case since there have to be some follow-up investigative work. i don't think we need to make this a weekly recurring thing for now. we can wait until the discovery deadline passes and the motions deadline passes and start scheduling the rest of the hearings so that's the plan. >> your honor, on scheduling, if it's possible if we have to have a hearing next week, could we have it monday, tuesday, or wednesday? >> next week i'm presiding. right now, wednesday looks mostly clear. >> thank you. >> so that could be a date we can shoot for if there's some kind of emergency that has to be heard. >> thank you. >> and we can even -- mr. aurora? >> sorry. are you done? >> yeah. >> with regards to the scheduling order, i think there was a september 20th deadline they say once we get to discovery, we have ten days to

respond. i guess if we got it today, could we have our ten days now to respond? i don't know what the turnover will be until we see what we have. i know we're on a compressed time schedule because if we all turn it over on the same day, it wouldn't make any sense because i'm not sure what it is to address as far as the case goes. >> i hadn't heard that one before. generally the intebt of the scheduling order is there's a mutual exchange by that date. if there is supplementing discovery because it's newly discovered or newly becomes relevant in good faith, then it gets turned over within five days is our general guideline there. so i think based on the indictment itself and the arguments we have had so far, have a pretty good idea what the state's case is against your client, so i would think that you could turn over the bulk of your discovery by that deadline. if there's follow-up that needs to be done and the state is unsatisfied with the timeline of when it's turned over, they'll file a motion and we'll hear it.

>> i don't want to pay experts if i don't need them based on what the discovery says and what the witnesses say. >> experts have been classified differently. i think we also have a trial management order where we say experts are supposed to be identified and summaries of their reports, i believe it's 14 days. that might be seven. we'll look, take another look at that, but that's in a different category. >> traditionally, the statute sense once the government gives you discovery, you have ten days or x number of days before trial. i justb don't want to waste time. there's only three of us on mr. chesebro's side. if they're going to call 150 witnesses, i need to figure it out because i'll sit through 140 of them. so in the end, i'm trying to figure that out. >> understood.

obviously, i think you have already alluded to, after the discovery deadline has passed, then you have a smaller patch that you think now needs to get turned over, do it. it should still be well -- i don't know well in advance, but enough in advance. >> it's not new. >> sure. if the state has a problem with it, we'll take it up and see what the arguments look like. >> with regards to the more substantive motions, the supremacy claus, the rico, i think you have said you're required to have it. i'm going to have witnesses for that. if we could set that out. >> okay, so at the case manager hearing we want to go into how many witnesses, how long you think each hearing will take and we'll start setting dates. >> the last thing is depending on how the rulings go, there may be requests because that

stops -- that may be an issue. >> understood. we'll take those up as they come. >> anything else? >> thank you, judge. >> thank you all. >> all right, as we approach 30 past the hour, i'm soezy diaz-balart. you have been seeing this, a judge in georgia just wrapping up a hearing on motions filed by two defendants in the election interference case against donald trump and his former allies. the judge heard arguments on three motions filed by kenneth chesebro and sidney powell. the judge also ruled that powell and chesebro will have separate trials. they had been scheduled to go on trial together on the 23rd of october. the judge also set a scheduling order for the rest of the defendants which means trump and every other defendant except for powell and chesebro will not go on trial in october. with us now to take a closer look at all of this, msnbc legal analyst lisa reuben, katie phang, msnbc legal contributor

and host of the katie phang show, and ankush fatory. boy, this was a fascinating couple of hours. into the peeling back the american judicial system, and lisa, unpack some of that for us. what is it that we saw today? and there are so many issues they talked about which are legalease, obviously, but maybe all of us could help dissect what they meant. what's your big takeaway? >> my biggest takeaway, jose, is that the american people are learning by paying attention to the trump proceedings, how different the federal system can be from state judicial systems. they saw that first in the georgia statute that allowed ken chesebro and sidney powell to demand a speedy trial by a time particular. the georgia statute says you can demand that trial within the court term in which you're indicted. in fulton county, court terms are two months long. they had a right to demand a speedy trial by november 3rd or

5th. the next court term starts on the 6th. everyone is in agreement on that. the other thing we saw today was the second way it's really different, which is the question of whether you can talk to grand jurors or even obtain grand jury testimony. and the federal system as both katie and ankush can tell you, that's a no go. almost completely unthinkable. yet here, the judge is not only willing to let the defense talk to the grand jurors, provided there are adequate guardrails around that, but he is weighing still taking under advisement the motion for grand jury transcripts from the special grand jury process. that's something we wouldn't see in the federal system, indeed, in the federal system, there wouldn't be a special investigative grand jury as there was in this case. and is provided for under georgia law. >> and in federal, all grand juries are kept secret essentially previous to, during, and after. >> that's generally true. there are some exceptions but

there is a rule of federal criminal procedure that makes really clear that unless you satisfy those exceptions, everything that happens in the grand jury from the testimony to the deliberations are secret and not to be revealed. >> katie phang, what were your big takeaways? >> yeah, so jose, in addition to what lisa just noted, there were a couple things i want to talk about that i think are kind of the human factors. the sides can always argue and the court can interject about the law, but let's talk about the emotions on display as well. those actually play into how you're going to see these lawyers advocate, not only for the state of georgia but for their clients. kenneth chesebro's lawyers highlighted what they're going to try. they want to speak to the grand jurors because they think someone from the state was in the jury room dlurg

deliberations. two, the defense has called the state has been called out by judges. lawyers have been called out by judges for doing something untoward with prior grand jury. it sounds like, jose, they're laying the foundation to be able to bring to the court some type of impropriety or wrong conduct by the state of georgia in securing the indictment for the grand jury from the grand jury, excuse me, that resulted in the charges that you see. now, the other thing that you also saw, jose, was the fact that the knives are out. any type of let's be kind of professional and polite went out the window today. i think you actually saw that the lawyers were like, we don't care that the cameras are here, yet there was grandstanding by the defense in terms of trying to call out the state, saying we have been defamed or there's something wrong said about it, trying to sit there and play to perhaps their own clients and perhaps a party of one. but i also want to point out something lastly. there's really good easter eggs in the order on defendant's motions for severance and stay.

that order you referenced at the beginning of the show stating chesebro and powell will be severed and start on the 23ert of october without the 17 codefendants. there is a note here that the judge intends to be done with jury selection by november 3rd. so what does that mean? unlike some of the other more complicated cases with multiple defendants because there's only two, the judge intends by law to be done by november 3rd to secure that speedy trial window that lisa spoke to you about. and because of that, you can bet your bottom dollar once that jury is seated, opening statements will begin almost immediately. it gives us an idea this case is not going to start in 2024, that jury selection is going to take forever and a day. it's actually going to be concluded by november 3rd. the last thing i'm going to note is this, if any other defendants file for a speedy demand, the court has noted in a footnote in the order that there are other members of the fulton county bench that stand ready to begin

a second trial within this term. meaning that judge mcafee can start the jury selection process on october 23rd. and if any of the defendants that haven't been joined with chesebro and powell file speedy demands and they're timely done, that another judge in fulton county will also start that jury selection process. so you may see, jose, two trials running parallel tracks, but then he also mentioned, hey, if you want to join, you're going to end up in this trial as well. there's a lot of moving parts but a lot is trying to be contained by the judge because obviously, there's serious competing interests. >> and i was wondering what lisa was bringing about the difference that we're able to see because it's televised in the state of georgia case, the big differences between federal and state. and then state being georgia specifically. i'm wondering, including for example the issue to get a motion to get permission to talk to grand jurors who were behind the indictment. how unusual is that, and what

are you seeing when you see this going on in the courtroom? >> yeah, lisa is exactly right. you wouldn't see these sorts of machinations in federal court for the most part, material and information presented to the grand jury during the deliberation process, what's happening behind the closed doors during the deliberation process is not something that courts and litigants are allowed to probe. it does happen from time to time, and the government has discovery obligations that makes them produce material from the proceedings, but one or more grand jurors answering questions potentially under the supervision of a judge, it is quite unusual, and it evidently is a feature of the fact this is a state court proceeding where i think part of what's going on here, and i think we saw this throughout the proceeding, is that the judge, and this is often the case when dealing with criminal defendants, wants to make as much room as possible to issue rulings that are favorable

to them even when the questions are sort of border line and could be resolved in favor of the government. you want to call all of the close calls in favor of the defense. this seems where he's trending toward a compromise situation that we normally wouldn't see in federal court. my big takeaway from this, in terms of just watching it which i agree was quite fascinating, i think we saw some preliminary sort of temperament issues on the defense side. they can be sort of voluble, but being loud and being persuasive are two different things. i think these lawyers are going to need to do a better job of separating the two. i think the judge handled this hearing quite capably in a very orderly, pointed way. i think the last thing that i took away from this is we're really seeing on full display there are some cons to asking for a speedy trial. that means your own preparation time and ability to gather information is reduced as well as the government's preparation

time. >> lisa, the fact they got, i don't know how many terabytes of information today, they were going back and forth on, well, i didn't get the one specifically i was looking for until today. it wasn't even marked. there was a lot of talk about brady v. maryland. what is that aspect of the process to do in this case? >> so, i hate to take your viewers back to law school with me, but brady v. maryland is a supreme court case that entitled criminal defendants to potentially exculpatory information in their own defense. what sidney powell's lawyer was saying is he believes the government has access to information where coffee county authorized and invited her to come in and do the things she is accused of having done that are allegedly criminal. he wants that evidence. and the state's response to him was, look, we have a hard drive right here full of the eight terabytes of information. and the evidence that you're asking for is there.

we don't have an independent obligation to segregate that for you, and the word he used was spoon feed that to you. that's generally correct. prosecutors don't have an independent obligation to isolate brady materials. that having been said, there are times where prosecutors produce so much volume that it's looking for a needle in a hay stack, and that's essentially what powell's lawyer is complaining about. >> so katie phang, what is next in this case? >> i have to laugh, because this is like drinking from a fire hose. every day, it's like volumes of filings coming in. so what's next is there is an amended scheduling order that was entered by the judge when he basically joined chesebro and powell together last week. there are deadlines that are coming up. what's interesting is to see how those deadlines interface with the deadlines just ordered by the judge this morning in a case specific scheduling order that was entered for the other 17

codefendants, one of which, of course, is donald trump. i would note that initial discovery to trump and the other 17 codefendants, jose, is due by october 6th. that's three weeks and one day from today. it's only a couple weeks before chesebro and powell start their trials. again, you're going to see a lot of parallel track activity, meaning you're going see judge mcafee manage the chesebro/powell track that is running at break neck speed as we saw today. you'll see more substantive hearings coming up as we get closer to october 23rd, including maybe some oral arguments over whether or not certain questions should be included in the questionnaires sent out to be able to pick the jurors that are going to sit in judgment of kenneth chesebro and sidney powell. you're also going to see a separate track of independent motions and other activity done by the other 17 codefendants including the former president, donald trump. that's your state court litigation. tomorrow, mark meadows in front of the 11th circuit court of

appeals has oral arguments with the state of georgia, concerning his appellate issues that he raises because his attempts to remove his case from state court to federal court were shut down by the federal judge, judge jones. so there's a panel in the 11th circuit court of appeals that's going to hear oral arguments today. we should see some disposition concerning mark meadows' attempts to get that case from federal judge, judge jones who said no, you cannot come to federal court to the 11th circuit and have the 11th circuit decide whether or not there was error committed by the judge when he said that meadows could not be in federal court. as i said, it's drinking from a fire hose. every day there's something new. that's the reason why we're here to help kind of sort it all out. >> you explain it so well. lisa, finally, and of course, she was talking about the temperament we saw already on display. this is just the initial phase of it. it is televised and there is a lot that goes along with that. the judge was pretty quick in

tamping down some of those quick starting fires. how did you see him? >> i thought the judge was incredibly impressive. i'm glad you asked this question. there was a lot made of the fact that scott mcafee, who was chosen for his position by brian kemp, was both a conservative and a 34-year-old conservative at that. i think some people were expecting him to be like the second coming of aileen cannon. we saw a judge today firmly in command of his courtroom, but also extraordinarily knowledgeable about georgia law, practical, and as you noted, not tolerant at all of the sort of conflagration of temperaments between him as the they accused each other of lying. >> lisa, katie, and ankush, thank you for being with us. it's so important we get to understand these issues. i thank you for helping us with that. up next, the shocking thing that house speaker kevin mccarthy just told the republicans who are threatening to remove him from his position. we're back in 60 seconds.

you're watching jose diaz-balart reports on msnbc. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪

♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. 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. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. i was told my small business wouldn't qualify for an erc tax refund. you should get a second opinion

from innovation refunds at no upfront cost. sometimes you need a second opinion. [coughs] good to go. yeah, i think i'll get a second opinion. all these walls gotta go! ah ah ah! i'd love a second opinion. no. i'm going to get a second opinion. with innovation refunds, there's no upfront cost to find out. so why not check like i did for my small business? take the first step to see if your small business qualifies for the erc.

here's why you should switch fro if your small business to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch, it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

48 past the hour. this morning in washington, simmering tensions eresulting between kevin mccarthy and a portion of the wing of the republican caucus. in a meeting behind closed doors, they tell nbc news the speaker dared members vacate him. mccarthy said reportedly, quote, if you want to file a motion to vacate, file the expletive motion. it comes after florida congressman matt gaetz called for a vote to oust mccarthy, accusing him of falling short on his legislative promises. joining us is ryan nobles. good morning. so how did they get to that. >> reporter: well, it's kind of a simmering problem that has been at the base of the republican party for several months now. and it really stems from the heated and contentious effort it took to make kevin mccarthy the speaker of the house, and members of the freedom caucus

ultimately relented and some that are just conservative members, not even members of the freedom caucus, but with conditions. now those conditions are coming home to roost and they're centered around a number of topics, first the investigation and out of money. there is no plan in place to come up with a spending plan. conservatives are holding their ground. that's part of why you see this pressure on kevin mccarthy to capitulate to those house conservatives, even though he says that he is willing for them to bring it on, as he said in this private meeting earlier today. >> it's controversy just talking about it, much less putting it forward. >> that's right. part of what house republicans, especially conservative house republicans have been frustrated by is the way congress does short-term continuing resolutions.

instead of putting together full appropriations packages. they vowed do it differently this time around the problem is they can't come to a consensus what it would look like, much less one that democrats and the white house will agree upon. that's why we are in this standoff. with time running out, there's no way they can get the appropriations packages passed in time. they need to do the short-term funding pabage to get them over the hump. conservatives say that's a no go. >> time is running out. on wednesday, mitt romney said he will not run, citing his own age. how are republicans reacting to that? >> for the most part, everyone is just sad to see him go. he is well thought of by republicans and democrats. he is thought to be a serious legislator, somebody in it for the right reasons. he is doing it to a certain extent by putting people on

notice. he is not happy with the current straight. he is concerned about the age of many of the members of congress right now and how that doesn't reflect the rest of the country. listen to a little bit of what romney said yesterday. >> i do think that the times we are living in really demand the next generation to step up and express their point of view. to make the decisions that will shape american politics over the coming century. just having a bunch of guys who were around, the baby boomers around in the post-war area, we're not the right ones to be making the decisions for tomorrow. >> he says that extens to the candidates for president. he thinks donald trump and joe biden should step aside to allow for that next generation to run for president in 2024. >> ryan nobles on capitol hill. thank you so very much. turning to the 2024 race for the white house. this morning, new polling from south carolina, a critical early stage, shows former president

trump with a solid 28-point lead in the crowded republican field. in second and third place are nikki haley with 18% and senator tim scott with 10%. no other candidate breaks into double digits. joining us now, susan page, washington bureau chief and vaughn hillyard. vaughn, what's your takeaway? >> what's notable, we are five months away from the south carolina primary. when you open up those numbers, you have tim scott and nikki haley. these are the two south carolinians. name i.d. is not an issue in that state. when you combine both of them together they are still 18 points behind donald trump. when you look at the polling numbers, 76% of those who responded that donald trump was their first pick, said they would vote for him next year. which means, he has 36% built in. that is when you look at what is a crowded field here still, difficulty seeing a path for anybody. i go back to tim scott and nikki

haley. both of those individuals from south carolina, they have the same favorability ratings at donald trump here. one has got to build progress and build momentum. >> this is post four indictments. this is not an early poll. >> no. back in january, i was at the south carolina statehouse when donald trump was holding his first event as a presidential candidate this time around. i was talking to supports of his outside that is he they had are with limb through and through. that was eight months ago. i go back to, we are five months from the primary. >> susan, you are out with a new piece. you wrote, a split screen has sharpened between spiraling political showdowns in d.c. and overwhelming economic anxiety across the country. you mentioned a poll that shows seven out of ten people say the economy is getting worse. there is this huge disconnect. what is that due to? >> i think americans look at what's happening in washington, with the speaker under fire,

with the president getting involved in an impeachment process, and they think, what in the world is going on, because they see -- they tell us about a financial crisis around the kitchen table. economists say inflation is easy. americans don't feel it. more than eight of ten americans think inflation is continuing to get worse. the biggest culprit is grocery prices. they see washington not addressing the concerns that really resonate in their own lives. >> we are seeing, for example, i think it's for the first time in months, the price of a barrel of oil is plus 90 dollars. in that polling, more voters trust trump to improve the economy over biden by nine points. what's the message here? >> the message is, this is a problem for joe biden and his re-election prospects. our poll, trump does really well. as you say, this is -- this is after the four indictments, after good economic numbers the white house is touting.

the president is talking about the success of bidenomics. it's not yet breaking through with most voters. >> vaughn, how do you explain this disconnect? >> i think that's an issue the white house is going to try to have to figure out. they are running on this messaging that the biden economy has worked for the american voter and are trying to convince folks that their lives are better under the biden administration. the difficulty is that you have on the other side not only donald trump but these other candidates that are making the case to voters that life under joe biden is not what it should be here. you can point to the low unemployment numbers. you can point, if you are the biden administration, to the successes. but you have a political party here who is doing all they can to convince voters of the exact opposite of that. it's a difficulty, especially when you are dealing with separate media ecochambers. there's part of the population

that's tuned in, reading "the new york times," reading the usa today, and then there is a part of the population that is tuned in to right wing online media. sometimes what people are feeling at home is taken advantage of when they are told that there is some realities that they need to better understand. it's difficult here. the democrats are going -- and have been successful and will have to run on that. >> it's great seeing you both. thank you for being with us this morning. we are 12 hours away from a potential strike that could impact anyone who relies on a car. the united auto workers and three automakers are negotiating a new contract for the union's nearly 150,000 members. if a deal is not reached by midnight tonight, the union says they are preparing to launch a strike. joining us now is phil labeau.

what's a stake? >> a big hit to the economy. we see a strike that's announced at 11:59 p.m. tonight, and it lasts a few days, a week, it's not going to have a huge impact. if you see an extended strike, i'm talking one that goes for five, six, seven weeks, different story. it could cost automakers billions. you would see the impact in terms of the suppliers and other companies attached to the auto industry, primarily in the upper midwest, and that filters to the dealers who could feel the price as well. >> we have new inflation numbers this morning. what do they tell us? >> what they us is it's still there, especially when it comes to new vehicles. we have known that for a while with the average new vehicle selling for just over $50,000. close to a record high. you want to watch the used vehicle prices. they are down 7% year over year.

but if there's a strike, those prices could move higher. >> what's the trajectory on the used cars? >> they have been coming down from the high that they hit last year. down about 7.5%, 8%. but they stabilized at the level they are at. the question becomes, if there's a tighter supply, because you have fewer new vehicles, that's going to send people who are in the market for a vehicle into the used lot. that could send prices higher. >> thank you so much. that wraps up the house for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. reach me on social media. you can watch highlights from today's show. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," the fulton county judge grants a request from two of donald trump's key co-defendants for a separate early trial. that means trump's georgia trial

will not start most likely until 2024. mitt romney's stunning announcement he will not seek re-election. the 76-year-old former republican presidential standard bearer saying, it's time for a new generation. both donald trump and joe biden should not be running. >> i don't have any question on my mind that i don't want to run again. i don't think we need another person in their 80s. >> more big revelations from mitt romney coming up. speaker mccarthy today lashing out at the far right members of his own conference in an expletive-laced reaction to their decision to hold up critical spending bills. this one for defense. the economy could face a major blow as the nation's top three car companies are up against a midnight strike deadline tonight from the uaw. the two sides still far apart. ♪♪