General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEmile
(23,829 posts)dchill
(38,703 posts)Raven123
(5,059 posts)inthewind21
(4,616 posts)ACTUALLY says. it's NOT a Graham victory.
gab13by13
(21,875 posts)why bother?
Grasswire2
(13,586 posts)So I guess we have to accept it.
Response to brooklynite (Original post)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ptah
(33,094 posts)PCIntern
(25,798 posts)from my reading of the order
former9thward
(32,272 posts)Or our understanding of English is different.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)When you rely on Twitter instead of reading the actual order.
kentuck
(111,147 posts)Why does he not have to talk about his call to Raffensberger?
The Magistrate
(95,303 posts)"However, the judge agreed that Graham's fact-finding efforts during those calls were protected and questions about those would be off-limits, but ruled that the senator could be questioned about efforts to overturn Donald Trump's election loss and any contacts he had with the former president and his campaign.
"As such, Senator Graham may be questioned about any alleged efforts to encourage Secretary Raffensperger or others to throw out ballots or otherwise alter Georgias election practices and procedures," May wrote. "Likewise, the grand jury may inquire into Senator Grahams alleged communications and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as into Senator Grahams public statements related to Georgias 2020 elections.""
brooklynite
(95,406 posts)The entire story with Graham was that he allegedly used his phone call to pressure Raffensperger to reject votes in DeKalb County. There isn't another known effort to question him about.
hlthe2b
(102,875 posts)escapes me. Reading the decision in even a cursory manner should make all--including non-lawyers-- question this tweet's assumptions/conclusions.
Ocelot II
(116,431 posts)brooklynite
(95,406 posts)Ptah
(33,094 posts)Senator Graham may be questioned about any alleged efforts to encourage Secretary Raffensperger or others to throw out ballots or otherwise alter Georgias election practices and procedures. Likewise, the grand jury may inquire into Senator Grahams alleged communications and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as into Senator Grahams public statements related to Georgias 2020 elections.
brooklynite
(95,406 posts)In a Grand Jury, the prosecutor presents evidence that indicates a crime occurred. There was evidence that Graham called Raffensperger to discuss throwing out votes. That phone call - per the Court ruling - is protected by the "speech and debate" provision. There is NO apparent evidence that Graham talked to Trump, campaign officials, White House staff or anyone else to discuss efforts to overturn the election. Without evidence of some other action, there's little value in asking Graham "did you attempt to overturn the election" and having him answer "no".
Ocelot II
(116,431 posts)"whether he in fact implied, suggested, or otherwise indicated that Secretary Raffensperger (or other Georgia election
officials) throw out ballots or otherwise alter their election procedures (including in ways that would alter election results)."
Fiendish Thingy
(15,807 posts)In which case Graham has to decide whether to perjure himself.
Ptah
(33,094 posts)Rob H.
(5,378 posts)Its very enlightening.
Ocelot II
(116,431 posts)So Graham's testimony as to what he said is not the only evidence. Also, and more importantly, elsewhere in the order the judge says:
It always helps to read the whole thing before relying on media interpretations, which are often wrong. Graham lost this one, big time.
brooklynite
(95,406 posts)I did read the entire thing. "Targeted and specific questions means questions about specific actions that may have occurred, based on specific evidence. An open-ended question of whether Graham engaged in discussions with anyone else about overturning the election would not be admissible. And I'm not aware of any other specific actions Graham took with respect to the election results.
Ocelot II
(116,431 posts)uponit7771
(90,407 posts)... know they've been told?
tia
lindysalsagal
(20,939 posts)For lying.
vanlassie
(5,721 posts)was legislative in nature. However:
They MAY QUESTION any alleged efforts to encourage Secretary Raffensperger or others to throw out ballots or otherwise alter Georgias election practices and procedures,"
-Those are alleged.
-They may be questioned.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)wcmagumba
(2,906 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,639 posts)Some take great pleasure in delivering bad news, even if the framing isnt entirely accurate.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)RockRaven
(15,250 posts)Link to tweet
?s=19
orleans
(34,168 posts)obamanut2012
(26,290 posts)KPN
(15,714 posts)Court order.
ColinC
(8,415 posts)About the efforts. Did not state that he cannot be asked about the call.
brooklynite
(95,406 posts)ColinC
(8,415 posts)How in gods name can that be dismissed as "investigatory fact finding??"
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)It's pretty clear in the order. It's there for your reading pleasure.
ColinC
(8,415 posts)Can the grand jury ask about his phone call or not? If not, and if it is because of the order, it is because they are not allowed to ask questions about his investigatory fact finding presumably.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,807 posts)There, fixed it for you.
Kaleva
(36,516 posts)Response to brooklynite (Original post)
spanone This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bev54
(10,162 posts)to cajole Rathensberger into changing the Georgia elections and how Trump is tied into it. There is a story at Law and Crime that explains it. While I don't necessarily agree with the decision by the Judge but it is not as bad as it appears in this tweet.
https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sen-lindsey-graham-must-testify-before-a-georgia-grand-jury-in-2020-election-investigation-federal-judge-rules/
Ocelot II
(116,431 posts)LowerManhattanite
(2,395 posts)Or rather, NOT interesting, all things considered.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,939 posts)1. Plead 5th. (Admittance he's been bad)
2. Admit to election tampering: gotta be a felony: take the fall himself
3. Turn state's evidence on tfg in a plea deal.
Renew Deal
(81,947 posts)inthewind21
(4,616 posts)one you posted is correct. This one, not so much.
herding cats
(19,574 posts)It means he doesn't have to answer questions about fact finding for legislative purposes which took place on the call.
Will he try and spin the entire call as fact finding? Probably, but it shouldn't hold up if/when the proper evidence is already laid out prior to bringing up what he said on the call.
I feel confident Lindsey Graham is not doing a happy dance over this ruling.
stumpysbear
(148 posts)Ocelot II
(116,431 posts)In fact, it expressly rejects that position. It says only that he can't be questioned about legislative fact-finding matters. In other words, he can't be questioned about discussions with Raffensperger about how Georgia counts votes and what they do to ensure the accuracy of their vote-counting procedures and the security of their ballots and voting machines, since these issues arguably would be relevant to possible legislation concerning election security. However, the order clearly states that he can be questioned "about any alleged efforts to encourage Secretary Raffensperger or others to throw out ballots or otherwise alter Georgias election practices and procedures." The order also states that ... "individuals who were on the calls have publicly indicated their understanding that Senator Graham was not simply gathering information about Georgias election processes but was, instead, suggesting or implying that Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger should throw out ballots or otherwise adopt procedures that would alter the results of the states election." So, obviously, questioning related to those efforts to influence Raffensperger during that call or other contacts would be entirely permissible.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,807 posts)The judge restricted questions about legitimate fact finding, but not about any potential criminal activity.
Carlitos Brigante
(26,529 posts)Doc Sportello
(7,574 posts)dpibel
(2,946 posts)Nobody, at this point, believes you were anything but hyperventilatingly wrong, right?
Because you totally blew this one.