But the judge limited the range of questions prosecutors can ask, in part acknowledging Graham’s contention that his status as a sitting senator provides protection against such inquiries. Graham’s attorneys sought to dismiss the subpoena from the Georgia grand jury, arguing that his calls to Georgia officials after the 2020 election were part of his official Senate duties and therefore immune from the investigation. “The Court is not persuaded by the breadth of Senator Graham’s arguments and does not find that the Speech or Debate Clause completely preempts all questions related to the calls,” U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May wrote, referring to a constitutional provision that protects legislators from being questioned about legislative activity. The decision is unlikely to be the final word on the matter and will be reviewed by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Graham, a close Trump ally, resisted a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis (D) who wants to question the senator about calls he made to Georgia election officials shortly after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has “unique knowledge” of the Trump campaign and “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the outcome” of the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. Georgia’s criminal investigation into Trump and his allies explained Graham says his actions are protected by the Constitution’s “speech or discussion” clause. The senator’s attorneys have said in court that his calls were legitimate legislative activity and that they were told Graham is a witness — not a target of the investigation. In August, May rejected Graham’s request to delay his testimony and quash the subpoena, saying she did not accept his characterization of the phone calls “as containing only lawful statutory discovery”. The Supreme Court made clear, he wrote, that political activity was not protected by the Constitution and that Graham could be questioned about certain aspects of the discussions. To rule otherwise, he wrote, “would allow any sitting senator to shield any kind of potential criminal conduct that occurs during a telephone conversation simply by arguing that the purpose of the call was legislative fact-finding — regardless of whether the call in then it took a different turn.” The appeals court granted Graham a temporary stay last week when it ordered a District Court judge to reconsider the senator’s claim that he should be protected from answering certain questions and that the subpoena should be limited. The 11th Circuit said it would accept Graham’s appeal after the District Court’s review. In her latest opinion, May acknowledged that parts of Graham’s calls to Georgia officials “may constitute legitimate legislative activity falling under the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.” To the extent that Graham’s questions related to his upcoming vote on whether to certify the election results, “such questions are protected from inquiry,” May wrote. “In other words, Senator Graham cannot be questioned about the portions of the calls that were legislative investigative evidence.” However, the judge left room for Willis’ team to question Graham about “any alleged efforts to ‘expose’ or encourage” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) or other Georgia election officials to “throw away ballots or otherwise change Georgia’s election practices and procedures. .” The grand jury, he wrote, may also inquire about Graham’s “alleged communication and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as Sen. Graham’s public statements regarding the 2020 election in Georgia ». Willis’ team has interviewed more than half of the scheduled witnesses, including former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Willis is seeking testimony from Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and another former legal adviser, Sidney Powell, and has not ruled out calling Trump as a witness. A state court judge this week ordered Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to comply with a subpoena, but delayed his filing until after the November election. On Wednesday, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who advised Trump on scenarios to challenge the 2020 election results, appeared before a grand jury. Before his deposition, Eastman’s attorneys said they instructed their client to invoke the attorney-client privilege and his constitutional right to remain silent. Trump allies resist testifying as Georgia election probe widens Once the special judicial commission has finished its work, it will issue recommendations to Willis about whether to pursue criminal charges. Willis said she expects that to happen before the end of the year. At issue in Graham’s subpoena dispute are calls the senator made to Raffensperger and his staff, in which prosecutors said in court filings that the senator requested that certain absentee ballots be “reviewed” in the state to “explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Attu.” Graham’s lawyers rejected that characterization and said he was gathering information ahead of a vote to certify the election for Biden and to co-sponsor election-related legislation. Graham criticized the investigation this week, telling Fox News in an interview that prosecutors should not be allowed to call members of Congress as witnesses “when they’re doing their jobs.” He warned that such challenges undermine the constitutional separation of powers and vowed to continue fighting the subpoena.
title: “Georgia Judge Says Sen. Lindsey Graham Must Testify In 2020 Election Probe Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-10” author: “Bridget Hernandez”
But the judge limited the range of questions prosecutors can ask, in part acknowledging Graham’s contention that his status as a sitting senator provides protection against such inquiries. Graham’s attorneys sought to dismiss the subpoena from the Georgia grand jury, arguing that his calls to Georgia officials after the 2020 election were part of his official Senate duties and therefore immune from the investigation. “The Court is not persuaded by the breadth of Senator Graham’s arguments and does not find that the Speech or Debate Clause completely preempts all questions related to the calls,” U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May wrote, referring to a constitutional provision that protects legislators from being questioned about legislative activity. The decision is unlikely to be the final word on the matter and will be reviewed by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Graham, a close Trump ally, resisted a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis (D) who wants to question the senator about calls he made to Georgia election officials shortly after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has “unique knowledge” of the Trump campaign and “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the outcome” of the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. Georgia’s criminal investigation into Trump and his allies explained Graham says his actions are protected by the Constitution’s “speech or discussion” clause. The senator’s attorneys have said in court that his calls were legitimate legislative activity and that they were told Graham is a witness — not a target of the investigation. In August, May rejected Graham’s request to delay his testimony and quash the subpoena, saying she did not accept his characterization of the phone calls “as containing only lawful statutory discovery”. The Supreme Court made clear, he wrote, that political activity was not protected by the Constitution and that Graham could be questioned about certain aspects of the discussions. To rule otherwise, he wrote, “would allow any sitting senator to shield any kind of potential criminal conduct that occurs during a telephone conversation simply by arguing that the purpose of the call was legislative fact-finding — regardless of whether the call in then it took a different turn.” The appeals court granted Graham a temporary stay last week when it ordered a District Court judge to reconsider the senator’s claim that he should be protected from answering certain questions and that the subpoena should be limited. The 11th Circuit said it would accept Graham’s appeal after the District Court’s review. In her latest opinion, May acknowledged that parts of Graham’s calls to Georgia officials “may constitute legitimate legislative activity falling under the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.” To the extent that Graham’s questions related to his upcoming vote on whether to certify the election results, “such questions are protected from inquiry,” May wrote. “In other words, Senator Graham cannot be questioned about the portions of the calls that were legislative investigative evidence.” However, the judge left room for Willis’ team to question Graham about “any alleged efforts to ‘expose’ or encourage” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) or other Georgia election officials to “throw away ballots or otherwise change Georgia’s election practices and procedures. .” The grand jury, he wrote, may also inquire about Graham’s “alleged communication and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as Sen. Graham’s public statements regarding the 2020 election in Georgia ». Willis’ team has interviewed more than half of the scheduled witnesses, including former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Willis is seeking testimony from Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and another former legal adviser, Sidney Powell, and has not ruled out calling Trump as a witness. A state court judge this week ordered Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to comply with a subpoena, but delayed his filing until after the November election. On Wednesday, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who advised Trump on scenarios to challenge the 2020 election results, appeared before a grand jury. Before his deposition, Eastman’s attorneys said they instructed their client to invoke the attorney-client privilege and his constitutional right to remain silent. Trump allies resist testifying as Georgia election probe widens Once the special judicial commission has finished its work, it will issue recommendations to Willis about whether to pursue criminal charges. Willis said she expects that to happen before the end of the year. At issue in Graham’s subpoena dispute are calls the senator made to Raffensperger and his staff, in which prosecutors said in court filings that the senator requested that certain absentee ballots be “reviewed” in the state to “explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Attu.” Graham’s lawyers rejected that characterization and said he was gathering information ahead of a vote to certify the election for Biden and to co-sponsor election-related legislation. Graham criticized the investigation this week, telling Fox News in an interview that prosecutors should not be allowed to call members of Congress as witnesses “when they’re doing their jobs.” He warned that such challenges undermine the constitutional separation of powers and vowed to continue fighting the subpoena.
title: “Georgia Judge Says Sen. Lindsey Graham Must Testify In 2020 Election Probe Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-14” author: “David Thorngren”
But the judge limited the range of questions prosecutors can ask, in part acknowledging Graham’s contention that his status as a sitting senator provides protection against such inquiries. Graham’s attorneys sought to dismiss the subpoena from the Georgia grand jury, arguing that his calls to Georgia officials after the 2020 election were part of his official Senate duties and therefore immune from the investigation. “The Court is not persuaded by the breadth of Senator Graham’s arguments and does not find that the Speech or Debate Clause completely preempts all questions related to the calls,” U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May wrote, referring to a constitutional provision that protects legislators from being questioned about legislative activity. The decision is unlikely to be the final word on the matter and will be reviewed by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Graham, a close Trump ally, resisted a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis (D) who wants to question the senator about calls he made to Georgia election officials shortly after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has “unique knowledge” of the Trump campaign and “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the outcome” of the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. Georgia’s criminal investigation into Trump and his allies explained Graham says his actions are protected by the Constitution’s “speech or discussion” clause. The senator’s attorneys have said in court that his calls were legitimate legislative activity and that they were told Graham is a witness — not a target of the investigation. In August, May rejected Graham’s request to delay his testimony and quash the subpoena, saying she did not accept his characterization of the phone calls “as containing only lawful statutory discovery”. The Supreme Court made clear, he wrote, that political activity was not protected by the Constitution and that Graham could be questioned about certain aspects of the discussions. To rule otherwise, he wrote, “would allow any sitting senator to shield any kind of potential criminal conduct that occurs during a telephone conversation simply by arguing that the purpose of the call was legislative fact-finding — regardless of whether the call in then it took a different turn.” The appeals court granted Graham a temporary stay last week when it ordered a District Court judge to reconsider the senator’s claim that he should be protected from answering certain questions and that the subpoena should be limited. The 11th Circuit said it would accept Graham’s appeal after the District Court’s review. In her latest opinion, May acknowledged that parts of Graham’s calls to Georgia officials “may constitute legitimate legislative activity falling under the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.” To the extent that Graham’s questions related to his upcoming vote on whether to certify the election results, “such questions are protected from inquiry,” May wrote. “In other words, Senator Graham cannot be questioned about the portions of the calls that were legislative investigative evidence.” However, the judge left room for Willis’ team to question Graham about “any alleged efforts to ‘expose’ or encourage” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) or other Georgia election officials to “throw away ballots or otherwise change Georgia’s election practices and procedures. .” The grand jury, he wrote, may also inquire about Graham’s “alleged communication and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as Sen. Graham’s public statements regarding the 2020 election in Georgia ». Willis’ team has interviewed more than half of the scheduled witnesses, including former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Willis is seeking testimony from Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and another former legal adviser, Sidney Powell, and has not ruled out calling Trump as a witness. A state court judge this week ordered Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to comply with a subpoena, but delayed his filing until after the November election. On Wednesday, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who advised Trump on scenarios to challenge the 2020 election results, appeared before a grand jury. Before his deposition, Eastman’s attorneys said they instructed their client to invoke the attorney-client privilege and his constitutional right to remain silent. Trump allies resist testifying as Georgia election probe widens Once the special judicial commission has finished its work, it will issue recommendations to Willis about whether to pursue criminal charges. Willis said she expects that to happen before the end of the year. At issue in Graham’s subpoena dispute are calls the senator made to Raffensperger and his staff, in which prosecutors said in court filings that the senator requested that certain absentee ballots be “reviewed” in the state to “explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Attu.” Graham’s lawyers rejected that characterization and said he was gathering information ahead of a vote to certify the election for Biden and to co-sponsor election-related legislation. Graham criticized the investigation this week, telling Fox News in an interview that prosecutors should not be allowed to call members of Congress as witnesses “when they’re doing their jobs.” He warned that such challenges undermine the constitutional separation of powers and vowed to continue fighting the subpoena.
title: “Georgia Judge Says Sen. Lindsey Graham Must Testify In 2020 Election Probe Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-08” author: “Ellen Wince”
But the judge limited the range of questions prosecutors can ask, in part acknowledging Graham’s contention that his status as a sitting senator provides protection against such inquiries. Graham’s attorneys sought to dismiss the subpoena from the Georgia grand jury, arguing that his calls to Georgia officials after the 2020 election were part of his official Senate duties and therefore immune from the investigation. “The Court is not persuaded by the breadth of Senator Graham’s arguments and does not find that the Speech or Debate Clause completely preempts all questions related to the calls,” U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May wrote, referring to a constitutional provision that protects legislators from being questioned about legislative activity. The decision is unlikely to be the final word on the matter and will be reviewed by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Graham, a close Trump ally, resisted a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis (D) who wants to question the senator about calls he made to Georgia election officials shortly after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has “unique knowledge” of the Trump campaign and “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the outcome” of the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. Georgia’s criminal investigation into Trump and his allies explained Graham says his actions are protected by the Constitution’s “speech or discussion” clause. The senator’s attorneys have said in court that his calls were legitimate legislative activity and that they were told Graham is a witness — not a target of the investigation. In August, May rejected Graham’s request to delay his testimony and quash the subpoena, saying she did not accept his characterization of the phone calls “as containing only lawful statutory discovery”. The Supreme Court made clear, he wrote, that political activity was not protected by the Constitution and that Graham could be questioned about certain aspects of the discussions. To rule otherwise, he wrote, “would allow any sitting senator to shield any kind of potential criminal conduct that occurs during a telephone conversation simply by arguing that the purpose of the call was legislative fact-finding — regardless of whether the call in then it took a different turn.” The appeals court granted Graham a temporary stay last week when it ordered a District Court judge to reconsider the senator’s claim that he should be protected from answering certain questions and that the subpoena should be limited. The 11th Circuit said it would accept Graham’s appeal after the District Court’s review. In her latest opinion, May acknowledged that parts of Graham’s calls to Georgia officials “may constitute legitimate legislative activity falling under the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.” To the extent that Graham’s questions related to his upcoming vote on whether to certify the election results, “such questions are protected from inquiry,” May wrote. “In other words, Senator Graham cannot be questioned about the portions of the calls that were legislative investigative evidence.” However, the judge left room for Willis’ team to question Graham about “any alleged efforts to ‘expose’ or encourage” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) or other Georgia election officials to “throw away ballots or otherwise change Georgia’s election practices and procedures. .” The grand jury, he wrote, may also inquire about Graham’s “alleged communication and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as Sen. Graham’s public statements regarding the 2020 election in Georgia ». Willis’ team has interviewed more than half of the scheduled witnesses, including former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Willis is seeking testimony from Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and another former legal adviser, Sidney Powell, and has not ruled out calling Trump as a witness. A state court judge this week ordered Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to comply with a subpoena, but delayed his filing until after the November election. On Wednesday, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who advised Trump on scenarios to challenge the 2020 election results, appeared before a grand jury. Before his deposition, Eastman’s attorneys said they instructed their client to invoke the attorney-client privilege and his constitutional right to remain silent. Trump allies resist testifying as Georgia election probe widens Once the special judicial commission has finished its work, it will issue recommendations to Willis about whether to pursue criminal charges. Willis said she expects that to happen before the end of the year. At issue in Graham’s subpoena dispute are calls the senator made to Raffensperger and his staff, in which prosecutors said in court filings that the senator requested that certain absentee ballots be “reviewed” in the state to “explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Attu.” Graham’s lawyers rejected that characterization and said he was gathering information ahead of a vote to certify the election for Biden and to co-sponsor election-related legislation. Graham criticized the investigation this week, telling Fox News in an interview that prosecutors should not be allowed to call members of Congress as witnesses “when they’re doing their jobs.” He warned that such challenges undermine the constitutional separation of powers and vowed to continue fighting the subpoena.
