US Senator Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury investigating whether then-president Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals paves the way for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to bring Senator Graham in for questioning.
She wants to ask the South Carolina Republican about phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the weeks after the election.
Mr Raffensperger said Senator Graham asked whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots, something Mr Raffensperger took as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes.
Senator Graham has dismissed that interpretation as “ridiculous” and could appeal the ruling to the full appellate court.
His attorney deferred comment on Thursday to a spokesperson for the senator’s office, which did not immediately comment on the ruling.
Senator Graham has denied any wrongdoing and challenged his subpoena, saying his position as a US senator protected him from having to testify in the state investigation.
In a six-page order, the judges wrote that Senator Graham “has failed to demonstrate that this approach will violate his rights under the Speech and Debate Clause”.
Ms Willis opened the investigation early last year, shortly after a recording of a January 2021 phone call between Mr Trump and Mr Raffensperger was made public.
In that call, Mr Trump suggested Mr Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
Ms Willis requested a special grand jury, saying the panel’s subpoena power would allow the questioning of people who otherwise would not cooperate with the investigation.
She has since filed several rounds of paperwork with the court seeking to compel the testimony of Mr Trump’s close advisers and associates.
Some of those associates include former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has testified before the special grand jury, according to a person familiar with his testimony.
Mr Cipollone vigorously resisted efforts to undo the election and has said he did not believe there was sufficient fraud to have affected the outcome of the race won by Mr Biden.
Senator Graham was in the first group of people close to Trump whose testimony Ms Willis sought to compel in a batch of petitions filed with the court in early July.
He challenged his subpoena in federal court, but US District Judge Leigh Martin May refused to toss out his subpoena.
Senator Graham then appealed to the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals with his lawyers arguing the US Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which protects members of Congress from having to answer questions about legislative activity, shields him from having to testify.
He contends that the call he made to Mr Raffensperger was protected because he was asking questions to inform his decisions on voting to certify the 2020 election and future legislation.
Lawyers on Ms Willis’ team argued that comments Senator Graham made in news interviews at the time, as well as statements by Mr Raffensperger, show that the senator was motivated by politics rather than by legislative fact-finding.
They also argued that the scope of the special grand jury’s investigation includes a variety of other topics that have nothing to do with Mr Raffensperger’s call.
They want to ask Senator Graham about his briefings by the Trump campaign, including whether he was briefed on the Trump-Raffensperger call, and whether he communicated or coordinated with Mr Trump and his campaign about efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia and elsewhere.
Senator Graham’s lawyers argued that the principle of “sovereign immunity” protects a US senator from being summoned by a state prosecutor.
Even if the speech or debate clause or sovereign immunity didn’t apply, Senator Graham’s lawyers argued, his status as a “high-ranking official” protects him from having to testify.
That’s because Ms Willis has failed to show that his testimony is essential and that the information he would provide cannot be obtained from someone else, they argued.
In their ruling on Thursday, the appellate judges ruled that Ms Willis “can ask about non-investigatory conduct that falls within the subpoena’s scope” but “may not ask about any investigatory conduct,” noting that Senator Graham could note any issues over specific areas at the time of his questioning.
Others have already made their appearances before the special grand jury.
Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who has been told he could face criminal charges in the probe, testified in August.
Attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro have also appeared before the panel.
Paperwork has been filed seeking testimony from others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
This content was originally published here.