Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R.C.) must appear before a Georgia grand jury investigating possible attempts by Donald Trump and his allies to disrupt the state’s 2020 presidential election, a judge ruled Thursday. federal judge
But the judge limited the range of questions prosecutors can ask, acknowledging in part Graham’s contention that his status as a sitting senator provides protection from such investigations.
Graham’s lawyers had sought to reject the Georgia grand jury subpoena, arguing that his calls to Georgia officials after the 2020 election were part of his official Senate duties and therefore immune from investigation.
“The Court is not persuaded by the breadth of Senator Graham’s argument and does not find that the Speech or Debate Clause completely bars all questioning related to the calls,” U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin wrote May, referring to a constitutional provision that protects lawmakers from being questioned about legislative activity.
Prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., opened an investigation into the attempt by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election. (Video: Mahlia Posey/The Washington Post, Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
The ruling 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, has resisted a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fani 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 “coordinated, multi-state efforts to influence the outcome” of the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.
Georgia’s criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, he explained
Graham says his actions are protected by the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. The senator’s lawyers have said in court documents that his calls were legitimate legislative activity and that they have been told Graham is a witness, not a target of the investigation.
In August, May rejected Graham’s request to delay his testimony and invalidate the subpoena, saying she did not accept his characterization of the phone calls “as containing only a legitimate legislative inquiry.” The Supreme Court has made clear, he wrote, that political activity is 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 all manner of potential criminal conduct occurring during a telephone call merely by asserting that the purpose of the call was legislative fact-finding, regardless of whether the call later take a different turn.”.
The appeals court granted Graham temporary relief last week when it ordered a district court judge to revisit the senator’s claim that he should be shielded from having to answer some questions and that the summons should be reduced. The 11th Circuit said it would accept Graham’s appeal after District Court review.
In her latest opinion, May acknowledged that parts of Graham’s calls to Georgia officials “may constitute legitimate legislative activity that falls within the protections of the speech or debate clause.”
To the extent Graham’s questions relate to his upcoming vote on the certification of election results, “those questions are shielded from inquiry,” May wrote. “In other words, Senator Graham cannot be asked about the parts of the calls that were legislative research.”
But the judge left room for Willis’ team to question Graham about “any alleged efforts to ‘frame’ or encourage” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) or other Georgia election officials “to throw out the ballots or otherwise alter Georgia’s election practices and procedures.”.
The grand jury, he wrote, may also ask about “Graham’s alleged communications and coordination with the Trump campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as Sen. Graham’s public statements related to the 2020 Georgia election.” .
In a statement Thursday, Graham’s office said, “We are pleased that the district court recognized that Senator Graham’s testimony is protected by the speech or debate clause” and that the senator “would continue to defend the institutional interests of the Senate and the Constitution before”. the eleventh circuit”.
An attorney who filed an amicus brief in support of Willis’ position also endorsed the decision.
“The Constitution is not an absolute bar to a senator or anyone else testifying about non-legislative matters, and the judge outlined a list of those here,” said Norman Eisen, a lawyer for Trump’s first impeachment.
Willis’ office declined to comment Thursday. His team has interviewed more than half of its planned witnesses, including former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Willis is seeking the testimony of 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 testimony until after the November election.
On Wednesday, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who advised Trump on scenarios to challenge the results of the 2020 election, appeared before a grand jury. Before his testimony, Eastman’s attorneys said they instructed their client to cite the attorney-client privilege and his constitutional right to remain silent.
Trump allies reluctant to testify as Georgia election probe expands
After the special grand jury completes its work, it will issue recommendations to Willis about whether to file criminal charges. Willis has said he 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 documents the senator asked about “reexamining certain absentee ballots” in the state to “explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald.” Trump.” Graham’s lawyers have 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 shouldn’t be able to call members of Congress as witnesses “when they’re doing their jobs.” He warned that this questioning upsets the constitutional separation of powers and vowed to continue to fight the subpoena in court.