mr. rafferty, i think you joined this one, did you not? i would join in all the arguments mr. roher has made. >> the only thing i would add and echo are the due process concerns he's raised. that smacks of gainsmanship and would not be the efficient way to try this case. there is no real reason for the government, they have to disclose their witnesses to not disclose the transcripts of any witnesses that testified before that special purpose grand jury that is going to testify at the trial. moreover, and i'll raise this at a later point in this hearing today, i do have very grave concerns about the government's compliance with their brady on obligations. i've submitted two brady requests, i have not gotten a response. i believe there could be brady information that is in those transcripts that they are obligated to turn over independent of any statutory discovery obligations. >> mr. wade. >> yes, sir. judge, i think we have started to put the cart before the horse, so to speak. let's start with the premise that long standing and unquestiona

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 codefe

mr. rafferty. >> we have beaten the dead horse as it relates to your discretion about granting a severance between mr. chesebro and ms. powell. my first point remains. ms. powell filed a demand for a speedy trial in the same way as mr. chesebro. many of the defendants, their lawyers have filed motions to sever. i do not think any of the case law or anything the government has cited here today trumps my clients right to a speedy trial. she asked for a speedy trial. she filed a timely 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 the government cited point the idea that all of those considerations trump the statutory rights of my client to a speedy trial. so, we can see what post-briefing comes in about severing mr. chesebro from ms. powell. but i do not think there is any dispute at this point that ms. powell and mr. chesebro are severed from the remaining 17 based on our demand for speedy trial. >> thank you, mr. rafferty. >> your honor, briefly. for the purposes of the record. i want to make clear

mr. rafferty: my client doesn't know mr.hesebro and has never met him and never spoke with them and there is no email or documents and what he is accused of has something to do with ms. powell at all stop -- all. that evidence jirga -- is an with the trial with ms. powell is going to prejudice her in the same way that mr. chesebro's lawyer said evidence about whatever ms. powell did will president -- will prejudice mr. chesebro. thank you. >> mr. wooten is chomping at the bit to address the arguments the state has made. firstly, we will contend that a trial of these 19 co-defendants will take four months and that does not include jury selection and it is predicated upon whether or not the defendant elects to testify or not. four months is our time estimate. in terms of the number of witnesses, they are in excess of 150 when he says that the state intends to call. 150 witnesses. 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

mr. rafr at this -- rafferty. i think in terms of the timing of the motion, the way we try to keep things on track as best we can, that we have the final drop dead date. when they are supposed to have gotten here, everything was supposed to be turned over. at that point if you still don't have it that's when that motion becomes relevant. i'm hoping there is an exchange and dialogue and things can be worked out among attorneys. that's the idea. i note your concerns and see what the state has to say and leave it at that. >> my point is, your honor, there is discovery which is covered in federal court by rule 15 by state court procedures. i understand discovery. independent of those discovery obligations are the constitutional obligations under the due process law to turn over exculpatory information and turn it over immediately. >> there is no question. i think we are just talking about timing. >> i understand that. and then they haven't even responded acknowledging they have those oblg tkpwaeugss. they haven't turn

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 there anything else we should address all here together? >> [indiscernible] some other defendants are in the courtroom. [indiscernible] >> i think that would be fine. i think some already have. i think folks have been submitting severance motions saying they are not ready and there are conflicts. that might very well suffice. i will not foreclose the option if they want to be heard in more detail. we will send out an email to everyone indicating as much. >> thursday morning could there potentially be discussion of that as well as weekend? >> by then i am hoping to have already ruled on issues of scheduling orders. we need that clarity so we can focus on what lies ahead. anything else? >> no, your honor. >> anything from the state? thank you all. see you next week.fore the meeto spoke briefly to rep

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 there anything else we should address all here together? >> [indiscernible] some other defendants are in the courtroom. [indiscernible] >> i think that would be fine. i think some already have. i think folks have been submitting severance motions saying they are not ready and there are conflicts. that might very well suffice. i will not foreclose the option if they want to be heard in more detail. we will send out an email to everyone indicating as much. >> thursday morning could there potentially be discussion of that as well as weekend? >> by then i am hoping to have already ruled on issues of scheduling orders. we need that clarity so we can focus on what lies ahead. anything else? >> no, your honor. >> anything from the state? thank you all. see you next week.

mr. rafferty. ms. powell's alleged to have engaged in a conspiracy, again, just accepting the allegations in the indictment as true, dealing with the computer systems down in coffey county, georgia. in our motion's mr. chesebro is not even alleged to have undertaken anything even remotely related to the coffey county conspiracy, which i'll call it. then there's a thinker alleged conspiracy and that third alleged conspiracy i'll call -- i don't want to necessarily use her name because of the circumstances, but the poll worker conspiracy, where there are allegations that certain individuals name in the indictment went and tried to apply some pressure tactics to a certain poll worker that i believe works here, lives here in fulton county. that is also a conspiracy that in no way, shape, or form involves mr. chesebro, and again, that's not my defense take on it. that's according to the allegations in the indictment. i understand that rico does provide flexibility. what i would argue to the court, of course

mr. rafferty i suspect on behalf of ms. powell, it is going to significantly affect these defendants' rights to a fair and impartial trial. why should mr. cheseboro have to deal with a jury who's going to sit there for weeks if not months and listen to all of this evidence related to coffee county and miss powell? he's never been there. he's never met miss powell. he's never e-mailed, texted or called her. he's never spoken with her directly or indirectly. and although i'm not trying to steal the thunder from my colleague mr. rafferty on behalf of miss powell, same is to be said for miss powell. why should miss powell have to sit there for weeks and months hearing evidence and testimony about the alternate slate of elector alleged scheme when she's not even alleged to have any involvement in that? and again, for the third and last time i'll go back and i do understand that rico exists whether we like it or not, the prosecution chose to bring this case under rico although they could have very well brought this case specifical

mr. rafferty want us to not only provide information to him, but to spoon feed it to him. >> you do not satisfy your brady obligations by turning over 8 terabites of material and say, go find it. >> we're spinning our wheels at this point. there's a lot that needs to be done now until october 23rd and, our time isn't best spent here in court talking to each other. >> like i said, if the judge is tired of the lawyers talking, some of the lawyers aren't doing the best on their issues, although, again, everyone has the right to go through all this today. we have two experts who are going to explain us to what we saw and why it matters. but before i get to them, there is one more thing, and it's one of the most tantalizing rulings about something we do not know. the world of course has seen the faces of these 19 georgia rico defendants, and we got the news of the investigative grand jury report, which revealed that other people the original grand jury members thought should have been indicted. that was widely discussed. today for the first time, prosecutors are saying they will hand over the defens

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 of 19 or a trial of 2? >> that's right. >> thank you. >> nothing else from 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'