mr. chesebro has been charged with? mr.rora: we are asking for a redaction and we do that -- if there is multiple murders and multiple drug you will -- dealers, you block it out and i don't know how to phrase it except severance of count. i don't think they are related but i am not going to challenge that if the law is weak. the 34 other counsel involved -- our counts are involving six total people. the other 34, there is -- there are multiple conspiracies within the conspiracy and i don't think how -- i don't see how it is relevant or admissible in this case. i am asking it to be redacted because we are not being judged on those counts and we shouldn't be telling the jury these things. judge mcafee: it is more of a logistical thing that the jury would get an indictment that has been -- to reflect the case, not that they could not have witnesses talking about the entire rico enterprises they allege? mr. arora: i am not saying there are different objectives -- with admissibility and relevance. on this matter, the jury should

mr. chesebro. so mr. grubman, the floor is yours and i think the idea would be to try to limit this to 20 or 30 minutes, we'll see where the discussion takes us, and go from there. >> your honor, would it be acceptable for your honor if my and my cocounsel mr. rohr, there's kind of a natural split. i'd like to talk to the group of facts that will go to both of our motions, both the motion to sever counts and the motion to sever for ms. powell. i believe the court indicated you would want to hear arguments on both, and mr. roroo will talk specifically about the statutory factors, if that's okay. we won't take up more time than any one of us would have. >> okay. have at it. >> thank you, your honor. i want to start off by saying we recognize this is a rico prosecution. we recognize, and we do recognize that part of rico is providing prosecutors, at least the state would argue this, providing prosecutors with a little more ability to bring in conduct that's maybe broader than had they charged a direct

mr. chesebro. many of the defendants as counsel has indicated today, their lawyers have filed motions to sever. i don't think any of the case law or anything that the government has cited here today trumps my client's right to a speedy trial. she has asked for a speedy trial. she filed it timely just like mr. chesebro. therefore, i think, at a minimum, her case is severed from the remaining 17. it must be severed because none of the cases that the government cited point to the idea that all of those considerations trump -- the statutory rights of my client to a speedy trial. we can see what post briefing comes in about severing mr. chesebro from ms. powell, but i don't think there's dispute that they are severed from the remaining 17 based on the demands for a speed ji trial. >> thank you. >> your honor, just briefly, just for the purpose of the record. i want to make clear that there is a dispute about severing the two from the 17. i think the state's made that clear. i want to make sure that's cl

mr. chesebro at this time. >> thank you, mr. grubman. anything else we should address since we're all here together? >> real quickly. >> yes, sir. >> the other defendants may have an interest in the issues about whether it's a trial of 19 or a trial of 2. so did some kind of briefing and response of the recess. >> i think that would be fine. i think some already have. i think folks have already been submitting severance motions saying that they're not ready, that they have conflicts and so that might very well suffice, but i'm not going to foreclose that opportunity if they want to be heard in more detail. we'll send out an e-mail to everyone indicating as much. >> and related to that on thursday morning, we eventually have some discussion as well with that briefing? >> we can. again, i think by then i'm hoping to have already ruled and issued some scheduling orders because we need to get that clarity so we can focus on what lies ahead. anything else? >> no, your honor. >> anything from the state? >> no. >> thank you, all. see you next w

mr. chesebro. the plan will be for a schedule for ms. powell mirroring mr. chesebro with the october date holding. the state is sticking to the decision that these defendants should remain. they want to address some removal issues. i am willing to hear that. i remain very skeptical. but i am willing to hear what you have to say on it. but because we have limited time i do not think we have to luxury of waiting. how long do you think the state needs to respond to that issue? >> two weeks. >> we cannot do that. there will be motions, deadlines for the other defendants and we need to get scheduling orders entered. >> had to ask. >> had to deny. i think the 10 day mark --. again, i am setting the indicator that folks will have more than 10 days to file their standard post arraignment motions. let's see if we can have that by tuesday of next week. again, this is limited to how you think logistically we could possibly keep these defendants together. i think we can limit that to 10 pages. when you have a pending motion to talk to the grand jurors. >> knowing that mo

mr. chesebro. i guess the motion is directed at the two others for thursday or friday morning. >> thursday morning? thursday afternoon? >> [indiscernible] >> so far you have two related to the grand jury and one more related to the supremacy clause. maybe we limit it since the grand jury issue is something that might take more time to flush out as it is granted. maybe we limit those two next week and save the constitutional arguments for another day. can we still do that thursday morning? i assume it is just those two related to the grand jury. >> [indiscernible] >> that is the plan. yeah. >> thursday morning or friday morning? >> thursday morning it sounds like. we will do those two grand jury motions. then mr. rafferty if you want to jump on board and adopt them we can obviously work in. >> a briefing for the state tuesday. isn't that on the question of whether it will be a trial of 19 or a trial of two? >> that is right. >> there is nothing else from mr. chesebro at this time, your honor. >> is

mr. chesebro. i guess the motion is directed at the two others for thursday or friday morning. >> thursday morning? thursday afternoon? >> [indiscernible] >> so far you have two related to the grand jury and one more related to the supremacy clause. maybe we limit it since the grand jury issue is something that might take more time to flush out as it is granted. maybe we limit those two next week and save the constitutional arguments for another day. can we still do that thursday morning? i assume it is just those two related to the grand jury. >> [indiscernible] >> that is the plan. yeah. >> thursday morning or friday morning? >> thursday morning it sounds like. we will do those two grand jury motions. then mr. rafferty if you want to jump on board and adopt them we can obviously work in. >> a briefing for the state tuesday. isn't that on the question of whether it will be a trial of 19 or a trial of two? >> that is right. >> there is nothing else from mr. chesebro at this time, your honor. >> is

mr. chesebro, and the plan will be to enter a scheduling order for miss powell marrying that mr. chesebro, with the october 38 to date holding. it sounds like the state is still sticking to the position that all these defendants should remain, and they want to address some of these removal issues. i'm willing to hear that. i remain very skeptical, but we can, i'm willing to hear what you have to say on it. >> regardless of whether or not trump's confederates go to trial on october 23rd, which the judge seems skeptical of and i am as well, prosecutors give a preview of what they expect the case to look like when it does begin. >> firstly we will contend that the trial of these 19 codefendants will take four months, and that does not include jury selection. it's also predicated upon whether or not the defendant defendants elect to testify or not. but for months is our time estimate. in terms of the number of witnesses, they are in excess of 150 witnesses that the state intends to call. >> months of televised testimony from more than 100 witnesses, all, presumably, turning the court

mr. chesebro here, basically writing memos and suggesting legal strategy and criminalizing it because of the actions of others unrelated to chesebro himself had done. now, you heard the echoes of the trumpian idea of weaponization from someone who is trying to separate himself from donald trump and the conduct of those others. so i think, you know, whether or not chesebro gets lumped in with the other 17 will be notable. as you and katie were pointing out, the judge did not seem inclined to push ahead with 19. the same argument of what donald trump is making in this case, and the federal election interference case, this is part of a normal process, and you can't criminalize it by lumping it together with other activities, whether that will be persuasive to a judge or jury is not for me to say. you're seeing the outline of the defense, in the same way you're seeing the prosecutors outline, the way they want to move forward and the time line they want to do it. >> you're well plugged in to the trump team. do you have a sense of whether they will see a trial go forward with chesebro, and sid

mr. chesebro and others have any sort of legal validity.f that is to be prejudicial to my client. >> but the lawyers for the district attorney's office, they weren't buying any of those arguments. >> so we've heard a lot from both sides -- both defendants, a vote they didn't know the other people, they were located thousands of miles apart. they didn't even know that the other parts of the conspiracy were going on. but the case law is clear, that that does not matter. of course, anytime a person enters into a conspiracy, they're liable for all of the acts of all their coconspirators. and that's it. evidence against one's evidence against all. >> both sides made their cases, and the judge ruled against chesebro and powell, and they will be tried together on october 23rd. meanwhile, fani willis is already looking ahead to jury selection. today, she filed a motion to keep trial jurors names secret during any upcoming trial. and tonight, there is important news in the classified documents case. you remember the one down in mar-a-lago? nbc has c

mr. chesebro and the plan will be to enter a scheduling order for ms. powell mirroring mr. chesebro with the october 23rd date holding. >> that was the ruling from the judge scott mcafee when pro-trump lawyer kenneth chesebro and former trump campaign lawyer sydney powell will stand trial now on october 23rd. the question, of course, is will any additional defendants be standing next to them? the judge said he was, quote, very skeptical of the state's request to hold one sweeping trial for all 19 of the co-defendants. cnn's nick valencia is live outside the courthouse, and nick, you were inside that room for this hearing and there were other attorneys for people who were not there trying to get their cases severed, jeffrey clark, rudy giuliani, other attorneys in the room. what did you all see? >> katelyn, we saw the attorney for kathy latham. there were a handful of attorneys there who had a very vested interest into how this would play out and how scott mcafee, the judge in this case, would handle the trial going forward. the big headline out of what happened in court is t

mr. chesebro has never physically met city powell. mr. chesebro has never sent an email to ms. powell. never received an email from ms. powell. mr. chesebro has never communicated with ms. powell through any social media or telecommunications application. what do you make of the wording of this filing? and his attempts to separate himself, sever himself, of course, from sydney powell? >> i yasmin, the thing that people have to understand all of these defendants are gonna go through their individual, legal maneuvers. with each of their defense teams, to try to separate themselves from everyone. i expect that this is ultimately going to turn into a battle royal of let's throw everybody under the bus. chesebro's case right now, both he and sidney powell are the defendants that have put in the speedy trial notice. noting that they want their trust to be accelerated, they want to move forward as quickly as possible. so, because of that, she's the main one that he wants to differentiate himself from. because he's basically saying to the d.a.'s office, to fani willis, listen, i'm not going to

mr. chesebro. the defendants will be ready to go and have time to analyze the two terabytes of evidence and there will be a different story. i know that the d.a. filed a motion a week or two ago saying that she really had no obligation to give it to them until ten days before trial, but judge mcafee has entered a scheduling order at least for mr. chesebro within a couple of weeks on september 20th. so they'll have some time to analyze it, but two defendants think they'll have averagel time and go to trial before the november 3rd deadline. >> mr. cunningham, when you look at this case as a law professor, what stands out to you? there are 19 defendants and you have a couple of people saying we want this speedy trial, if those speedy trial goes forward, what does this do for the other defendants? >> let me just add a footnote to what amy said. so yes, district attorney willis filed something that asked judge mcafee that helped defendants have a speedy trial to have limited rights. he denied that reque

mr. chesebro and ms. powell will be tried together. the judge essentially asserted that because powell and chesebro have never met, and that they would tell the jury that, the idea they would have any guilt by association issues is now and void. and judge mcafee is not going to waste court resources trying them separately. so, at the very least, mr. chesebro and ms. powell go to trial next month, which is a little over six weeks from now. but that brings us to the much bigger question posed today. do the 17 other defendants, including a one donald trump, do they have to go to trial next month as well? now, the prosecutors from the district attorney of fani willis's office think, yes, they should. >> judge, we contend that we must prove the entire conspiracy against each and every one charged. each and every one charged. so, the court, in the interest of judicious economy, would have to make the decision whether the court wants to try this in case 19 times, or -- >> the state's position is whether we have one trial or 19 trials, the evi

mr. chesebro's trials from the rest of the people charged in this case. judge mcafee wrote in his order, separating these trials is a procedural and logistical inevitability. and that additional divisions of the 17 defendants may well be required. so, we may get to see this case broken up into even more smaller groups of cases. which sounds easy, it sounds reasonable, it also happens to be on believably come polluted. it is literally the most head spinning version of trial tetris you have ever seen. here are the 19 defendants in this case. as i mentioned before, kenneth chesebro, sydney powell, will now officially be tried together. and separately, for everyone else. as for the other 17, donald trump, john eastman, jeffrey clark, fake electors sean still, david schaffer, and voter fraud conspiracy, robert chilly. they want their cases split off from everybody who wants a speedy trial. so, far is just kenneth chesebro and sidney powell. rudy giuliani, meanwhile, doesn't want to be tried alongside chesebro and powell. and it looks like he's gonna get his wi

mr. chesebro wants nothing to do with ms. powell. he claims he doesn't want the evidence in, the key here to take a step back is unfair prejudice. if i'm a prosecutor presenting evidence against mr. chesebro, right, it's going to be prejudicial, because it's evidence against him. it's unfairness here. i don't know if his argument ra reaches the burden he needs to reach. the fake elector scheme was only valid in his mind because of the election fraud that ms. powell was going around the state of georgia talking about. under this criminal enterprise, under this conspiracy, i'm not sure how he can make the argument that he'll be unfairly prejudiced by the evidence put forth against ms. powell in his case, and i think he has an up hill battle before the court. >> that's tricky legal maneuvering going on with these defendants. it's one more reason why 19 of these folks, fit's going to be really difficult for them to disentangle themselves from each other. marcus childress thank you so much. >>> new calls on republican minority leader mitc

mr. chesebro's never been there, he's never talked to ms. powell. never met ms. powell.s 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-defendants, once they are properly joined in an indictment, there's a strong preference that they be tried together. it is actually pretty tough to get judge to rule that somebody should be severed out. defendants will say there's a disparity of evidence, somebody else is much more culpable than i am, and i don't want prejudicial spillover injuring me and my opportunity at winning an acquittal. some people will say, as you just heard chesebro's lawyer say, listen, he doesn't even know this other co-defendant. he never committed crimes in concert with this co-defendant. the thing is in a properly brought conspiracy case, the conspirators don't even hav

mr. chesebro and ms. powell today because they effectively made a good argument -- the judge hadn't rule on it yet, but the case is going to be moved, likely severed from the other 17 defendants. and that separates them from trump. it was a little ridiculous i thought, at one point, there was going to be some briefing. and the judge asked the state, how long do you need to write a 10-page brief, and they suggested two weeks. think about how ridiculous it is to bring 19 defendants to trial with 150 witnesses to get ready for in six weeks if it's going to take you two weeks to write a 10-page paper. so, it's just been a little bit wishy washy and sort of -- i think it's been good theater for the state to suggest that they are going to try this case together. but i think it's been unrealistic from the outset. >> mayor bottoms, do you think it's a good idea that cameras are in the court? >> absolutely. that's customary in state courts in georgia. cameras are in the court. so, i think for the judge to do anyth

mr. chesebro.i know that you as part of the january six committee deposed him or interviewed him as part of that committee and you were present for that. he seems to be well every but he's focused on mr. eastman, he seems to be quite a strong participant in the fake elector scheme writing three different memos. i guess i want to start with since you are somebody who sat there and listened to him, what were your impressions for the substance of his testimony his, demeanor, what did you make of him? >> well, i think he's a trooper lever. he wrote actually four memos, three that the committee had and one that we didn't outlining really the plot to overturn the election. you know, i don't know the man but he certainly was focused on overturning the election and i think my believe is he will be held criminally to account for that. >> so one of the things that you mention was this idea that the roads separate memos but the committee only had three of them. what is the reason for that? is it because it wa

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. >>

mr. chesebro's lawyer accused the d. after of lying. what is he talking about? he's talking about the d.a.'s team raising prior conduct by mr. chesebro's lawyer, that he asked the court for permission to talk with the grand jurors, why, because in a prior case he was admonished by a judge in different county for having done exactly that without asking court permission first. that's when scott grubman got up and accused the d.a.'s lawyer 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 durin

mr. chesebro and october 23rd for mr. powell. that will beat those two defendants on trial.sking for a speedy trial, you issued a severance motion but granting the. other defendants will not be forced to go to trial on the 23rd, but if you tried to sever themselves from the other defense or not, -- >> then they might be on the -- >> they need to show harm and prejudice for a separate motion to be granted. but mr. chesebro, if his attorneys are serious, they can always say never mind, but if they are serious, and the dea office to serious, there will be a trial on october 23rd. >> nancy gertner and catherine christian, thank you both, appreciate it. still ahead, he said he won't support donald trump if convicted. he urged republicans to speak the truth about trump. he stands out because he is also a republican candidate for president, and asa hutchinson joins me next. next. better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or h

mr. chesebro is liable for what happened there and it's admissible evidence. again, going back to our federal courts, since any evidentiary spillover and the court asked about this issue, where the evidence and all events would have been admissible against the movement and the context of the conspiracy severance will rarely if ever be required. we submit that it's pervasive authority here. turning to another example. united states versus diaz. a second circuit case from 1999 and a federal rico conspiracy involving the latin kings. even when a defendant was implicated in only one of nine separate murders carried out at part of a pattern of racketeering activity, a joint trial was proper against it showed multiple things, not just that they committed an act but to show the existence and nature of the rico enterprise and show a part of the racketeering as well as his or her relationship with the enterprise itself. and i just love this quote because i think it sums it up. persuasive authority, there in the united states versus keho, it will be the rare case if eve

mr. chesebro. you recall to sever accounts from the other defendants? the august 30 motion for severance of co-defendants and list several of the accounts. essentially it was clarified asking for redacted indictment at trial. never got the state's position on that one. >> your honor, this was addressed originally. i'll step in and pinch-hit for a 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 -- >> i believe that's how it was phrased. then when we discussed t. which is where these motion hearings can be useful. it falls into more just a like a quote-unquote, dummy indictment of the actual trial of the case. is that fair? >> yes, your honor. i'm sorry if i didn't word it correctly. i thought you granted it, white out or redacted. that's what i'm asking for. separate motion. >> maybe this is something more we address as a pretrial motion. it's not as i take it a moti

mr. chesebro were in court arguing what kind of evidence they'll be allowed to use in this case, and there was a lot of disagreement. so much e so at one point the judge had to admonish chesebro's attorney after he accused the prosecution of defaming the defense. >> soin the fact she got up her and lied -- lied to the court. >> all right, we've been down that road. >> she lied to the court and she defamed -- >> i said it's over. >> all right. >> multiply all of that, that kind of tense exchange, multipl it times 17 defendants all at once in the same courtroom, and you have a window into how untenable a trial for the remaining 17 defendants happens to be. it is not tenable, but we're not sure exactly what happens next. what we do know is that two of the 19 codefendants are going to trial october 23rd. according to the prosecution it is going to take four months to try that case. trump himself still does not have a court date, but the judge has set a hard and fast deadline of december 1st for the 17 other defendants including donald trump to submit any pretrial motions. judge mcafee has made

mr. chesebro tried to argue to meet their defendant's rights to a speedy and fair trial, they should be tried next month individually. the judge here scott mcafee did not go for that. they're trial is set next month october 23rd but they'll be tried together. the idea they'll have any guilt by association issues is null and void, and judge mcafee isn't going to waste court resources trying themt separately. so at the very least mr. powell and go to trial together. do the 17 other defendants do they have to go to trial next month as well. ? the prosecutors from the district attorney's office think, yes, they should. >> judge, we contend we must prove the entire conspiracy against each and everyone charged. each and everyone charged, so the court in the interest of the will have to make the decision whether or not the court wants to try the case 19 times or two. >> the state's position is whether we have one trial or 19 trials the evidence is exactly the same. the number of witnesses are the same, and so many of the arguments made on the other side evaporate. >> today the prosecutors told the j

mr. chesebro or powell is necessary to receive a fair determination of the guilt or innocence for either different in this case. >> reporter: judge scott mcafee in court wednesday giving the first glimpse into how he plans to handle the sweeping election subversion case in georgia. all in front of cameras allowed in the courtroom. mcafee ruling wednesday that defendants kenneth chesebro and sydney powell, who both filed for a speedy trial, cannot be separated and will stand trial together in a matter of weeks. >> obviously we're a little disappointed. we filed a motion and it was denied. however, we respect the court's ruling. >> reporter: now the issue before the court will be whether it is realistic that all 19 defendants including former president trump be tried together. >> to say that all 19 defendants should be tried together including ones that don't want to avail themselves of the speedy trial demand is really just nonsensical. >> reporter: fulton county district attorney fani willis has said from the beginning that she wants to do just that. >> do i intend to try the 19 defendan

mr. chesebro or powell is necessary to receive a fair determination of the guilt or innocence for either different in this case. >> reporter: judge scott mcafee in court wednesday giving the first glimpse into how he plans to handle the sweeping election subversion case in georgia. all in front of cameras allowed in the courtroom. mcafee ruling wednesday that defendants kenneth chesebro and sydney powell, who both filed for a speedy trial, cannot be separated and will stand trial together in a matter of weeks. >> obviously we're a little disappointed. we filed a motion and it was denied. however, we respect the court's ruling. >> reporter: now the issue before the court will be whether it is realistic that all 19 defendants including former president trump be tried together. >> to say that all 19 defendants should be tried together including ones that don't want to avail themselves of the speedy trial demand is really just nonsensical. >> reporter: fulton county district attorney fani willis has said from the beginning that she wants to do just that. >> do i intend to try the 19 defendan

mr. chesebro, the e. that a federal trial, the hush money trial in new york, and the trial mr. trump is facing, handling of classified documents. how likely is it that this georgia trial for all 19 defendants actually goes through and starts in 47 days? stephen: well, it is potentially likely f the two who requested a spee trial. many of the rest of the defendants have argued that they should be separate, because they don' want a speedy trial, and there are several dfent things playing out acro different court rooms that could you have several of the. defendants, including trump's former chief of staff mark meadows, arguing that the case should be made -- moved to federal court and ultimately dismissed. at the same time, you have the fulton county d.h.'s office arguing it will take at least four months, not include -- not counting jury selection, and a couple floors down the fu fulton county courthouse is another racketeering case, in the young fellow ysl case, without a finger -- young thug ysl case, wit

mr. chesebro was given an october 23rd trial date. sidney powell having asked for a speedy trial should be joined in that case. she should not get a separate trial from her co-conspirator. they will fight about that, but there really isn't a basis if they're both exercising a speedy trial demand to separate the two with the same charges. now taking those off of the other 17, there is no reason those 17 couldn't be tried together, but the speedy trial act will force a division of defendants because just like they have a right to speedy trial, they also have a right to full discovery, time to digest the documents and that's what the trump team is arguing which is we need time to prepare for this trial. i'm highly confident that if people persist in their speedy trial demands, they will get a separate trial. it may not be the trial chesebro envisioned when he first made the motion because he's stuck with sidney powell now, but the other defendants i think will get tried together. >> i like that right to a speedy trial or a sclerotic tria

mr. chesebro does not know ms.ailed her, as long as they're part of the same conspiracy, they can and will be tried together. >> melissa, is that your sense of -- do you agree that it's not a basis for severing this? >> absolutely. >> no, that is not -- >> what they have to show is that there was -- >> go ahead, melissa. >> exactly. what they would have to show is several things, one, that a trial together would be a violation of due process. that's an uphill climb, that too many defendants would confuse the issues. and here we're only talking about a few so far that are subject to that october trial date, just two so far that are subject to that trial date, that evidence against one will spill over into the other. they're both accused of this overall conspiracy of interfering with the election but in different ways. i don't i don't think there's a danger there. so, and that they have antagonistic defenses, and they're both saying they did nothing wrong and they're not pointing the finger at each other. i think it

mr. chesebro you requested the trial to start october 23rd. then you better be ready to go within four weeks after you get all the discovery. >> and joyce, today, georgia governor brian kemp pushed back against calls from other republicans in the state for a special legislative session to impeach fani willis. watch. >> up to this point, i had not seen any evidence that d. a. willis's actions or lack thereof warrant action by the prosecuting attorney oversight commission. regardless, in my, mind a special session of the general assembly to end run around this law is not feasible and may ultimately prove to be unconstitutional. the bottom line is that, in the state of georgia, as long as i am governor, we are going to follow the law and the constitution. regardless of who it helps or harms politically. and in georgia we will not be engaging in political theater that only inflames the motions of the moment. >> joyce, that's rare to hear from a republican these days. >> governor kemp can read the writing on the wall. he knows that donald trump is

mr. chesebro or pal is necessarily to achieve a fair determination of guilt or innoce

mr. chesebro he will have to stay. so they are not going to separate the trials for the time being.big deal considering that, you know, you've got fani willis who wants to try all 18 of these people together with the former president and it seems like that would be a monumental task and that a lot of people are saying different charges, this may have to be broken up at some point. >> bret: trace, good afternoon. the judge making the two decisions with chesebro and powell not to severe from the main case. that raises the question how you are going to try it and how you are going to do it by march with all of these people involved. a lot of legal experts believed as you just said they would break it up into packs, depending on different parts of the case as they have laid it out, as fani willis has laid it out in this case, but the ruling suggests right now at least all of these defendants are together, still. >> trace: what do you think about the television aspect of this and all being televised. goes back to something like the johnny depp and amber herd thing where it started out sl

mr. chesebro and there is a motion pending from the two defendants right now, and as it relates to the releasing of this report. so i think that you will hear something about it. if there if there is any information in it that is prejudicial or unfairly paints a defendant, then you will hear about it, and filed next week, and then it will be if a case should stand. you will have motions to dismiss the criminal indictment because of some irregularity that happened before the grand jury, and it is coming, and whether it is next week or a few weeks down the road. >> and so, we are waiting for report to come out any moment, so please standby. sara? >>> a scathing response from d.a. fani willis after the house chair of judicial jim jordan looked into her office saying that the obvious purpose to disrupt a georgia criminal proceeding and obvious partisan misrepresentations is her message after the congressman wrote to willis telling her, you did not bring charges until 2 1/2 years later at a time when the presidential nomination was in full swing. the chief congressional reporter manu raju is with us.

mr. chesebro and mr. powell. because they have effectively made a good argument with the judge on the case, saying it will be moved, not, likely severed from the other 17 defendants. that separates them from trump. it was a little ridiculous, i thought, at one point, the judge ruled that there was going to be some briefing. and the judge asked the state, how long do you need to provide a ten page breathe? they suggested two weeks. well, think about how ridiculous it is to bring 19 defendants to trial with 150 witnesses to get for six weeks. this will take you two weeks to write a two page paper. so it is just a little bit wishy-washy and sort of, i think it has been good theater for the state to suggest that they are going to try this case together, but i think that it isn't realistic from the house. >> do you think it is a good idea that cameras are in the court? >> absolutely. that is customary and state courts in georgia. cameras are in the court. so i think that for the judge to do anything differently would

mr. chesebro is doing i know her so why should i have to be tried with her. the reason they should be tried together is because they are charged with being with the same criminal enterprise. he's the fake elector scheme person who came up with that along with mr. eastman and miss powell is the voting machines tamperer. there are different prongs of the same criminal enterprise. so i can't foresee a judge saying everyone who asks for a speedy trial is going to get one. that would make no sense in terms of the court. the economy. so if you are, it's one thing if they weren't charged where the same rico. one was charged with something that wasn't, but they are all allegedly part of the same criminal enterprise so to say that i don't know her, well, that would be his defense when he's doing the trial. but he can't use that to be broken away from her. i know donald trump has referred to her as being crazy. that might be the reason why he doesn't want to be sitting at a table with her, but i don't think the judge is going to give people separate trials. >> also thi

mr. chesebro or not. i have not seen anything to the contrary.er demand for speedy trial cannot be trumped -- >> trace: the former president saying these are all separate, need to be tried separately, it's all televised, keep you up to speed what's happening in fulton county, georgia, gillian. >> gillian: the manhunt is continuing for the escaped killer who escaped last week. a glimpse of danelo cavalcante, nate, what's the latest? >> gillian, pennsylvania state police confirm this is very much still an active investigation. he is not in custody right now. we have had helicopters circling overhead throughout the day and as you mentioned, state troopers have shifted their search area to where we are right now, a bit farther south, they have set up behind me. about five miles south of chester county prison where cavalcante escaped thursday morning, but last seen in a nearby botanical garden. take a look at the surveillance images. south of the original perimeter which forced authorities to move south to where we are, and they noticed he's picked up

mr. chesebro's trials from the rest of t

mr. chesebro from the remaining defendants in the above captioned matter. no law that would support the government's notion to force all 19 defendants to trial by october 23rd, 2003. this is base -- 2023. this is based on the severance basicallied on likely their want for a speedy trial, both chesebro and sidney powell. what do you make of this? >> we're seeing the intersection of these requests for speedy trial and the move by some defendants to have their cases transferred into federal court. powell, i'm not entirely certain, i haven't read the pleading yet, how she can speak for chesebro. but it seems clear that she wants to remain in states court and not run -- state court and not run the risk of transfer to federal court and also wants to force the state to move ahead with this trial in late october. so this is an example of what the judge was talking about in the hearing earlier this week. he's now going to have to decide a series of motions like this from a lot of different defendants. in this case ms. powell got hers in at the early end of the spect

mr. chesebro and also ms.speak for her have the right under georgia law to be charged only by way of a grand jury. that is a key tool as we all know to prevent prosecutorial overreach. i would argue it's one of the most important provisions in federal and state law. so that's clear. we don't have to i don't think argue that point. so then i think, your honor, the question becomes if you accept that premise, what does that right mean? what does that right entail? so if, for example, a prosecutor simply gets up and summarizes to a grand jury a lengthy indictment as opposed to allowing the grand jurors to read it and understand it independent of the prosecutor, is that indictment valid under georgia law? to be quite clear, your honor, the case law is kind of sparse. we would argue that the answer is no. thankfully we don't have to argue that case right now, but the reason we would argue if that were the case, the answer is no, is because the law is clear. the grand jury must act independently of the prosecution.