Federal Judge orders Lindsey Graham to testify in the Fulton County, GA Special Grand Jury -Updated with Hearing Transcript
The Judge ruled that Graham is not protected by the speech and debate clause, Graham’s “sovereign immunity fails to shield” article now UPDATED with August 10th TRANSCRIPT
Editorial Note: I updated this article on August 15, 2022 ay 11:55PM EST —I unpublished this article and then republished it because I wanted my readers to receive the email, apologies for sending you two email/newsletters in one day.
I felt my readers needed to have access to the August 10th hearing —oral arguments made by Sen Graham’s Attorneys. That transcript cost me a few hundred dollars. The Federal Courts typically don’t docket transcripts to the public docket for 90days after the hearing. However once the Clerk of the Court uploads a “certified transcript” you can pay for it (sorry kiddos about your college funds, I needed to read the hearing transcript)
After t purchased the transcript, obviously it adds a lot of details and adds additional context to the Judge’s order. And lastly if you understand the ECF rules (ECF link to transcript or you can save $425.00 via my Scribd link) then you’d know:
This is an official court transcript (see the footer on each page)
Typically transcripts are restricted for 90 days
You can purchase (even an expedited transcript) and then you can use it or you can simply pull it down (for free) from my Scribd Account
The Prohibition is strictly for ECF Court filings for NDGA (always know your local rules, or you just might unwittingly find your self in hot water)
Guess who’s representing Sen Lindsay Graham? It rhymes with the attorney who stonewalled the 116th Congress for their entire session —ultimately a federal district ruled Don McGahn must testify, McGshn Appealed and the USCCOAS-DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling —which took over 14 months and by then it was only a matter of weeks before the 117th Congress began their session.
Also I know that some of my readers might recall the many and I mean many detailed twitter threads regarding the subpoena for McGahn’s testimony. At the time I was pretty clear: I said slow your roll, and stop believing what you read on Twitter because I said Trump/McGahn’s strategy was always “running down the 116th Congress’ clock” —I’ve also repeatedly stated that Trump doesn’t really “break up” that regardless of the lack of loyalty of perceived “indiscretion, Trump always welcomes his close advisor’s back into the fold, because Trump is deeply insecure and he never actually breaks up with people who serve a useful purpose”
—I can literally feel your eyes rolling. My hypothesis is actually born out by the proof in the public sphere. And I’m not certain you can out debate me on this factual observation. Additionally you’ll note a very large portion of the August 10th hearing spent significant time where the lawyers went to the mat (defendant Sen Graham & plaintiff DA Willis) which isn’t unexpected. But what was incredulous was the blanket argument regarding the “speech and debate clause” and as previously noted in the original article, specifically here the Court found Graham’s argument(s) unavailing (during the hearing) that’s indicative of the Court fully explaining in today’s order
Trust me on this, read pages 10 thru 12, specifically page 10 lines thru 24 —here you’ll note that Sen Graham’s counsel already signaled that depending on how the Court rules on their Motion to Quash (this also includes the expedited motion too) that they literally stated they’d appeal. Additionally the subtext here is Sen Graham doesn’t want to testify before the Grand Jury because his attorneys are precluded from being in the Grand Jury Room (that’s actually SOP) -see page 10 lines 10 thru 21. It’s right here in black and white text
Sen Graham’s position was a total quashal ←yes that’s actually a known legal term. In layman’s speak it simply means Sen Graham filed a motion with the Court yo “fully quash” the Special Grand Jury subpoena… I now refer you to page 11, lines six through 15…
Trust me on this, read pages 10 thru 12, specifically page 10 lines thru 24 —here you’ll note that Sen Graham’s counsel already signaled that depending on how the Court rules on their Motion to Quash (this also includes the expedited motion too) that they literally stated they’d appeal (that’s some what of the subtext) -it’s almost midnight yet here I am updating this article. Again you can read the full 88 page Transcript via my Scribd link or you can fill out the ECF Transcript Order form and pay a few hundred dollars. The choice is yours.
Lastly as a heads up, I won’t be publishing tomorrow because I’m in a day long client offsite meeting and that’s going to make me completely unavailable until after COB. However if there’s breaking news or if my day long offsite meeting wraps up early —then I might have the bandwidth to pump out an informative article, otherwise I’ll see you on August 17th. And of course your supplemental dose of saltwater therapy
The original article continues (unedited) below
Senator Graham ORDERED to Testify before the Special Grand Jury..
See NDGA-ECF or you can save $2.20 via my Scribd Link, for today’s lengthy order. Sidenote what you might not know is Senator Graham filed in two separate Federal District Court(s); Washington DC and South Carolina, respectively (incidentally I wouldn’t say Graham was court shopping, it makes sense why he initially filed in SC & DC) —ultimately his civil case was sent to the Northern District of Georgia, where today the Judge ordered Graham to testify before the Special Grand Jury.
Additionally it’s also worth repeating the current Special Grand Jury does not have the power to hand down an indictment
ORDER denying without prejudice 2 Expedited Motion to Quash. Because the record must be more fully developed before the Court can address the applicability of the Speech or Debate Clause to specific questions or lines of inquiry, and because Senator Grahams only request in removing the subpoena to this Court was to quash the subpoena in its entirety… Case REMANDED to the Superior Court of Fulton County for further proceedings.
Thanks for reading File411’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Senator Graham’s three primary arguments failed:
Initially Sen Graham argued that he was protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. If I’m going to be intellectual honest, that was a solid argument for Graham to lead with. The problem is Graham attempt to argue that he can’t be forced to testify because of👇🏻
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The Court found that, while Graham does have certain protections, pursuant to Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: but the activities/areas of inquiry by DA Willis fall out of scope of the intended protections afforded to members of Congress.
“…the Court finds that there are considerable areas of potential grand jury inquiry falling outside the Speech or Debate Clause’s protections…”
Sen Graham then argued that “sovereign immunity” precludes his testimony before the special grand jury.
What is Sovereign Immunity
Generally speaking -Sovereign Immunity is;
a recognized legal doctrine holding that the government (and/or agent of the government) cannot be sued without its consent.
In America, sovereign immunity is applicable to both the federal and state governments.
Moreover and an important distinction: State’s are not immune from lawsuits brought against them by other states or by the federal government.
Sovereign immunity is largely based on the Eleventh Amendment and the premise of it is akin to “the King can do no wrong” -which reads in part:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Sovereign Immunity’s meaning and interpretation is a dynamic legal issue. However the U.S. Supreme Court further defined sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793)..) and held:
…sovereign immunity did not protect the state of Georgia when sued by a citizen of another state in federal court…adopting the literal reading of the of Article III, which extends federal judicial power to “all Cases” involving federal law “in which a State shall be a party” and to “Controversies . . . between a State and Citizens of another State.”
In today’s ruling the Court explicitly stated and I would like to draw your attention to page 2, the last paragraph (because I believe this is the first time the general public knows DA Willis obtained a “Certificate of Material Witness pursuant to the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, O.C.G.A. § 24-13-90 et seq”
AndThe Court finds that the District Attorney has shown extraordinary circumstances and a special need for Senator Graham’s testimony on issues relating to alleged attempts to influence or disrupt the lawful administration of Georgia’s 2022 elections.
But I’d also like to draw your attention to page 3, specifically footnote # 2 -because a plain reading of that footnote indicates that DA Willis obtained a second “Certificate of Material Witness…”
Additionally Sen Graham argued that DA Willis would strictly ask questions about two calls Sen Graham made to GA SOS Raffensperger. Which is kind of an odd position because yes when DA Willis obtained the Certificate of Material Witness, that certainly some (not all) of the questions would be about those calls. The Court did not buy Sen Graham’s argument that he only made those calls because he was on a fact finding legislative mission concerning elections. Simply put Sen Graham’s pretextual argument was unavailing… footnote no 3 is an absolute must read. As are pages 5 thru 8…
In nonlegalese the Court basically took Sen Graham’s arguments to the woodshed and detailed just how flawed his three primary arguments are/were and frankly it’s a delightful read but I’d like to draw your attention to page 10, specifically read the text I bolded carefully…because “extort” is a very and I mean very interesting word given it’s a quotation from DA Willis’ previous court filings
Supreme Court’s analysis, the Speech or Debate Clause will not shield actions that are “political in nature rather than legislative” (or otherwise not fundamentally “legislative in nature”). These actions may include, among other things, (1) statements and speeches given outside of Congress regarding the 2020 election, (2) efforts to “cajole” or “exhort” state election officials to change their election practices or alter election results, and (3) coordination with the Trump Campaign (or other third parties) regarding post-election efforts in Georgia. And so, even if the Court were to accept that Senator Graham’s two calls to Georgia election officials were comprised entirely
..Senator Graham’s Motion would therefore fail on this basis alone…
…even if the Court were to accept that Senator Graham’s two calls to Georgia election officials were comprised entirely of legislative factfinding—and that any inquiry related to those two calls was therefore shielded by the Speech or Debate Clause—there would still be significant areas of potential testimony related to the grand jury’s investigation on which Senator Graham could be questioned that would in no way fall within the Clause’s protections. Stated another way, the mere possibility that some lines of inquiry could implicate Senator Graham’s immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause does not justify quashing the subpoena in its entirety because there are considerable areas of inquiry which are clearly not legislative in nature. Senator Graham’s Motion would therefore fail on this basis alone.
Unfortunately my lunch hour has come to an end and that provides significant constraints of my extracurricular Substack activities. Notwithstanding I did want to readers to have access to today’s order —it is unlikely I’ll publish a more in-depth analysis because I’m getting ready to go into the cone of silence (rogs on Monday are not my idea of easing into a new work week) and I’ll likely be intellectually exhausted by COB
And of course your daily saltwater therapy…
Thanks for reading File411’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I'm the middle of trying to clean out my garage so I can get the car back in there. So I'm saving this to read later. Is is bad that I laughed out loud when I read the Linds was being compelled to testify? 🤣🤣🤣
Lady Lindsey is about to go through some stuff, and I am here for it all.
Good luck with the rest of your day!