ATLANTA – asked Senator Lindsey Graham The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a lower court’s order that would force it to testify before a special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss in Georgia.
The appeal of Mr. Graham, the South Carolina Republican and Trump confidant, is the latest in a protracted legal battle he has fought to defy a subpoena asking him to answer questions before the special jury in Atlanta. Dozens of witnesses have already testified in the secret trial. Some, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and several other attorneys associated with Mr. Trump, have tried unsuccessfully to avoid a trip to Atlanta.
But none have fought as long or as hard as Mr Graham, who was summoned in July. Soon after, he had the matter escalated to the federal court system, arguing that forcing him to testify would raise constitutional issues. He pointed to the speech and debate clause of the Constitution, which states that members of Congress cannot be questioned on matters affecting their legislative duties.
On Thursday, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta rejected the argument that the speech and debate clause completely shielded Mr Graham from testifying. Mr Graham responded on Friday with an urgent motion, asking the Supreme Court for a stay while he appeals the verdict and, if necessary, a decision barring the special jury from questioning him until the appeal is decided. The filing notes that Mr. Graham was issued a new subpoena on Friday, forcing him to testify on November 17.
“Without a stay, Senator Lindsey Graham will soon be questioned by a local Georgia prosecutor and her ad hoc investigative panel about his proprietary ‘speech or debate’ in connection with the 2020 election,” Mr Graham’s attorneys wrote in the filing. “This will happen despite the Constitution’s requirement that senators ‘shall not be consulted’ about ‘a speech or debate.'”
Understand the Georgian investigation into electoral interference
Map 1 of 5
The possible fees. Experts say Ms Willis appears to be building a case that could target several defendants on conspiracy to commit voter fraud or extortion for involvement in a coordinated plot to undermine the election.
Georgia prosecutors are particularly keen to question Mr Graham about the calls he made to Georgia Foreign Minister Brad Raffensperger shortly after the 2020 election. The judge overseeing the case in Fulton County, Georgia, has written that during those calls, Mr. Graham “questioned Secretary Raffensperger and his staff to re-examine certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for the.” former President Donald Trump.”
In January 2021, Mr. Trump called Mr. Raffensperger and asked him to help him “find” 11,780 additional votes that would tip Georgia’s result his way. The call was one of several aggressive efforts by Mr. Trump and his team to reverse his Georgia election loss; Many of these efforts are the subject of the investigation led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis.
How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times employees are allowed to vote, they are not allowed to endorse candidates or campaign for political causes. This includes attending marches or rallies in support of a movement, or donating or raising funds for political candidates or electoral causes.
Ms. Willis, a Democrat, has said she is reviewing the possibility of a broad racketeering or conspiracy case with multiple defendants.
Lawyers for Mr Graham have argued that he called Mr Raffensperger because he needed to investigate allegations of voting irregularities in Georgia before Congress was due to vote in January 2021 to confirm President Biden was the legitimate winner of the presidential election. Lawyers have also said that Mr Graham was reviewing election-related issues at the time in his role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If Mr Graham were to testify, his attorneys argued in the filing, “it will take place in state court without federal consent. And it will undoubtedly focus on Senator Graham’s official actions — phone calls he made in the course of his official work leading up to the critical Electoral Counts Act vote.”
The attorneys wrote that after the phone calls with Mr. Raffensperger, Mr. Graham “relyed on information gleaned from the calls” to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the “legitimate President of the United States” and to help shape legislation to amend the Federal Elections Act – all proprietary legislative work.
A statement from his office released on Friday afternoon said: “Senator Graham filed a motion in the Supreme Court today to defend the Constitution and the institutional interests of the Senate.” It added: “If it stands, the most recent ruling would significantly impairing the ability of senators to gather information related to their work.”
Lawyers for Mr Graham also argue in the filing that he should be protected from testifying under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects governments from legal action taken against them without their express permission.
Earlier in September, Judge Leigh Martin May of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the speech and debate clause does indeed protect Mr. Graham from questions related to his “fact-finding” efforts. However, the judge ruled that Mr Graham would need to answer questions about other issues, including communications he may have had with the Trump campaign and his “alleged efforts” to encourage Mr Raffensperger or others to “throw out ballots or the Georgia election.” otherwise change practices and procedures.” On Thursday, the 11th Circuit agreed.
A spokesman for the Fulton County Attorney’s Office declined to comment Friday.
