grubman and mr. aurora, looking at thursday and friday morning. >> we're here whenever the court instructs us to be. >> got it. >> your honor, could we ask for friday morning. >> on thursday morning? thursday afternoon? >> depending on the motion. >> so far you've got, i believe it's the two related to the grand jury and one more related this the clause. maybe we limit it, since the grand jury issue is something that might take more time to flush out if it's granted. maybe we limit to those two for next week, and we can save the constitutional arguments for another day. can we still do that thursday morning, though? i assume it's just those two relate to the grand jury. >> thursday morning or friday morning? >> thursday morning, it sound like everyone. and the two grand jury motions and mr. rafferty, if you want to jump on board and adopt them, we can obviously work you in. >> clarification, the briefing for the state by tuesday, is that going to be on a question of whether it's going to be a trial o

my name is scott grubman, i'm representing mr. chesebro and with me i have court counsel -- >> and mr. grubman, have you received express authority to waive your client's presence today? >> i have, wrourn. >> and who do we have for ms. powell. >> brian rafferty on behalf of ms. powell, and i have received express permission to waive her appearance. >> okay, thank you, sir. >> all right, so just a few preliminary thoughts before we kick things off. to be clear, the scheduling order we entered for mr. chesebro earlier last week didn't contain any kind of a ruling on severance, so the plan would be to try to resolve as many of these issues as we can this week and to begin entering scheduling orders for the remaining defendants by the end of this week or early next week. so with that is there anything else we should take up before diving into argument, mr. wade? >> the court had asked the state to be prepared to respond in its notice of the hearing, asked the state to be prepared to respond to a certain questions, good faith estimate

grubman said, are multiple conspiracies within the conspiracy. and i don't see how that's relevant or even admissible in this case. it's not similar transaction material. so i'm just asking it to be redacted, i guess, if that's the correct word because we're not being judged on those counts, so we shouldn't be telling the jury all these kinds of things just like you'd redact some of the names in the indictment. >> so to be clear, it's more just a logistical thing that the juriy would get an indictment that -- not that they couldn't have witnesses talking about the entire rico enterprise as they allege. >> i'm not saying that -- all that's a matter of different objections down the road as to admissibility or relevance. but on this matter i'm just saying the jury shouldn't be seeing the other 34 counts that are out there or the i guess 18 other defendants or 17 other defendants that are out there. i did cite durden as far as your discretion but that's more about counts i've been charged with trying to sever something apart. we don't have that time

we appreciate it. >> that is scott grubman you are hearing from, he is an attorney representing kenneth chesebro. he also saw the other attorney and those were the two attorneys trying to sever or separate their case from sydney powell's that was denied by the judge there. jennifer rogers, you heard scott grubman making an argument similar to what he said inside the courtroom that he believes they are weaponizing rico here which is the racketeering case that ties this alleged conspiracy together. we heard pushback from the prosecutors saying evidence against one person in the rico case is evidence against all of them. >> that's how rico works. you have to prove the existence of the criminal enterprise and then you have to prove that these people are members of it, you have to prove that they committed these predicate acts in furtherance of the enterprise's goals and that's rico and how the statute was designed and that's why they have ken chesebro and sydney powell who say they don't know each other and they don't e-mail, and they're both members of this enterprise and so they will be t

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, inconsisten

grubman, we don't need to go down that road. >> your honor, she lied. >> i said it's over. >> that wasn't the only big development today, judge mcafee rejecting d.a. fani willis's request to try all 19 defendants together. katie phang is an msnbc anchor and legal contributor. greg blue seen is political reporter for "the atlanta journal-constitution" and an msnbc political contributor. robert james is a former district attorney for dekalb county, georgia, now in private practice, and charles coleman is with here with me, a civil rights attorney and former brooklyn prosecutor as well as an msnbc legal analyst. welcome all. katie, those were some harsh words from the defense there. what did you make of that back and forth? >> yeah, chris, you know, in prior hearings in front of judge mcafee, the defense for kenneth chesebro and sidney powell as well as the state of georgia have been very polite doing a dance for the court and for the public at large. today the knives were out. definitely saw some sharp elbows coming, especially from the defense's side. in fairness and with objectivity it wa

rudman -- grubman.he idea is too limited -- limit it from 20-30 minutes. >> would it be acceptable for me and my cocounsel, there is kind of a natural split and i would like to talk about the groups of facts that goes to both of our motion, the motion to sever counts and the motion to sever from ms. powell will stop the court indicated you would like to hear arguments from both and -- we won't take out more time than any one of us would have. >> ok. >> i want to start off by saying -- saying we recognize it is a legal prosecution and we want to recognize that part of rico is providing prosecutors -- providing prosecutors with a little more ability to bring in conduct that is maybe broader than had they charged a direct crime, for example, in this case. i would argue there are 3 -- five alleged conspiracy contained in one alleged conspiracy in this indictment. mr. chesbro is only concerned in terms of evidence and allegations in what i will call the alternate electoral conspiracy and the allegations cont

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 motio

grubman talked, how quickly could they have come to this decision. it's 98-page indictment.ir deliberation. asking questions about that is part of the deliberation process, which is prohibited. so i think if we're going to get to this point which the state does not concede we should, we have to figure out, then how is it going to be used, because the case law is clear. testimony of grand jury witnesses they cannot use this to impeach their findings. and that's what they're asking to do. they're trying to ask these questions in order to impeach the true bill that the grand jurors sat down. that's what they're essentially asking to do, and it's not allowed based on the case law. and by statute. and i'll just cite one case, i don't know if they mentioned, but united states v. van eagle, it says an indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury is presumed to be valid on its face, similarly, there's a strong presumption that attaches to all grand jury proceedings. a defendant seeking to challenge the presumption has a difficult burden. because it's hard to override, and

grubman got up here and talked, how quickly could they have come to this decision? , you know, it's a 98-page indictment. that goes toward the deliberation, asking questions about that is part of the deliberation process, which is prohibited. so i think if we're going to get to the point which the state does not concede we should, we have to figure out, then how is it going to be used because the case law is clear, testimony of grand jury witnesses, they cannot use this to impeach their findings. and that's what they're asking to do. they're trying to ask these questions in order to impeach the true bill that the grand jurors set down. that's what they're essentially asking to do and it's not allowed based on the case law. and by statute. and i'll just cite the one case that they -- i don't know if they mentioned but united states v. dan eagle. it says an indictment termed by a legally constituted grand jury is presumed to be valid on its face. similarly, there's a strong presumption of regularity that attaches to all grand jury proceedings. a defendant seeking to c

grubman's eyebrows, was a true indictment was raised by the grand jury, and they could have taken five minutes or five days or however long, and there is no restriction, and that is 808-sup-1360. as i stated before, judge, there is a lack of authority for what they are asking to do, and attached in the state's brief, you will find in 2010, mr. arora did the exact same thing, and coming to the court asking for permission, and that is because in 2010 judge earnic in dekalb county admonished him for knocking on the grand jury's doors, and she had to issue a order to stop that, and we will get a copy of that order and supplement the record for that. >> and your honor, i will let the counsel respond to the personal attacks, but it is inappropriate. >> excuse me, was ms. young finished? >> i was not. >> okay, we will finish. >> and judge, we will craft out the things in this piece, and as you have crafted out, and this is something that has been done with your honor, and with the foreperson, they can get whatever information is needed from that one person, and they are the foreperson, but i

. >> glenn, i want to play for you -- we caught scott grubman walking into the courthouse earlier todaye bit about the defense it seems they're going to be mounting and why this case should be severed specifically from sidney powell president is rest of the co-defendants. let's play that and then i want you to react on the other side. >> the bottom line is mr. chesebro was involved allegedly with the alternate elector plan, we plan to defend him on those charges. ms. powell is charged with something totally different. ms. powell is charged with things that apparently happened in georgia. mr. chesebro's never been there, he's never talked to ms. powell. never met ms. powell. he was in no way, shape or form involved. it's important to have two trials here so all the defendants can be judged on the merits of their particular case. >> he's not the only one wanting to sever his case from sidney powell. it seems as if his attorney is focusing on that specifically and laying out their plan. give me your reaction to that. >> you know, yasmin in the law there is a strong preference that co-defen

scott grubman is saying that a trial cannot come fast enough.rough between now and then, which is why the presiding judge has set aside every week to meet with the attorneys if necessary leading up to the october 23rd, trial date. he set aside next wednesday for any emergency motions filed. the district attorney said at minimum it'll take four months and 150 witnesses and not including jury selection. listen to what the judge had to say about the hard deadline he wants for the jury selection process. >> 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. >> there were fireworks coming inside court, mainly defense attorneys annoyed by the lack of transparency of the district attorney office's handing over discovery. but really the headline came minutes before the hearing starting when the judge came with a ruling on the trial dates starting. >>> we'll

. >> you just watched that moment with scott grubman, kenneth chesebro's attorney and other attorneysetween them and prosecutors. it's remarkable for us to be able to see it and have all this play out on camera. is that typical during a preliminary hearing saying, they're defaming my co-counsel, talking about the prosecutors in that way? >> no. i think we are seeing the start of a show. and they mentioned it in court today that there are cameras watching. all of that is irrelevant. if you disagree with the prosecutor's argument -- that happens every day in court. we disagree all the time. but to say somebody's lying. you may not agree wither had statement or her argument, but it's a show. you know, it sounded like he was speaking more to the millions of people watching and trying to make a statement to potential jurors because that's what this is about is getting these jurors in and trying to sway them to believe what they're wanting them to believe. i think this is just the start of a very long show, so stay tuned. >> that is safe to say. so, we will be bringing you back to join us f

. >> and you just watch part of that moment with, i believe was scott grubman, kenneth chesebro's attorneyd tensions were obviously high between them and prosecutors. it's remarkable for us to be able to see it and to have all this play out on camera. is that typical during a preliminary hearing, saying that they are defaming my co-counsel? talking about the prosecutors in that way? >> no. i think we are seeing the start of a show, and they mentioned in court today that there are cameras watching. all of that is irrelevant. if you disagree with the prosecutors argument, that's that happens every day in court we disagree with the defense attorney, we disagree all the time. but to say somebody is lying, you may not agree with her statement or argument, but it is a show. it sounded like he was speaking more to the millions of people watching, and trying to make a statement to potential jurors, because ultimately, that is why this is about, getting those jurors in, and trying to sway them to believe what they are wanting them to believe. i think this is just the start of a very long show. so,

that's when scott grubman got up and accused the d.a.'awyer of lying, and things got very heated until scott mcafee, the judge here said it's over. i'm not hearing that. what i think you can see here, though, katy, coming down the road if we want to take a broader lens here is, you know, litigators say if you have the facts, you emphasize the facts and avoid the law. if you don't have the facts on your side, you emphasize the law, but here they don't have the facts or the law, and so what are they going to do? they are threatening to derail this by charging the d.a.'s team with prosecutorial misconduct. >> we hear that a lot regarding these cases. >> we want to explore what happened during the grand jury proceedings, and insinuated people with the d.a.'s team were inappropriately inside the grand jury proceedings. >> that's why they want to talk to the grand jurors. >> and the state really doesn't want that to happen. number one, they have a concern about the grand jurors' privacy and security. we know that fulton county has been making p