Supreme Court clears way for Sen. Graham to testify in Ga. election probe

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Tue Nov 1, 2022, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) to spare him from testifying before a Georgia grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the election defeat of former president Donald Trump.

There were no noted dissents to the court's short order.

Graham had claimed that his actions were legitimate legislative activity protected by the Constitution's "speech or debate clause" and that he was protected from disclosing them to a grand jury.

But Tuesday's unsigned order said lower courts already had protected him from questioning that related to his official duties.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/01/supreme-court-lindsey-graham-grand-jury-trump/

---

No paywall

Article and headline updated.

Original article/headline -

Supreme Court rejects Sen. Graham's request to avoid grand jury testimony

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) to spare him from testifying before a Georgia grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the election defeat of former president Donald Trump.

There were no noted dissents to the court's order.

The Fulton County special grand jury investigating alleged 2020 presidential election interference by Trump and his allies has called for the senator to testify by Nov. 17. Jurors already have heard testimony from several Trump lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Boris Epshteyn. A judge has also ruled that former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows must testify.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) wants to question Graham about calls he made to Georgia election officials soon after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has "unique knowledge" about the Trump campaign and the "multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the results" of the election in Georgia and elsewhere.

No paywall

[mcar]

1. SCOTUS giveth and SCOTUS taketh away

Can't make heads or tails of these rulings but I'll take this one.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Yup

They apparently know which side of the bread has the butter.

[NYC Liberal]

7. The Trump ruling was only a temporary stay until the full court decides.

Like when Sotomayor blocked recognition of the LGBT club at Yeshiva University and then the full court ruled they had to recognize it.

[mcar]

14. That is true

thanks.

[malthaussen]

26. People do not realize that these "temporary stays" are basically SOP...

... everybody wants to panic and cry "foul."

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

23. My theory is that the GOP is cutting Lindsey loose.

He's too closely identified with DJT, and that's a liability as far as the mainstream is concerned. And though DJT appointed these goons to the USSC, he doesn't own them: their loyalty is to the goals of the GOP, which are not served if the Party becomes too extreme.

-- Mal

[FakeNoose]

37. SCOTUS isn't there to do the GOP's bidding, it goes without saying

Clarence is in a world of his own shit, of course.

But I believe the rest of the bench - even Alito (but I could be wrong) - refuse to be beholden to any political party.
Am I naive in thinking that?

[PatrickforB]

50. I'll weigh in on this. I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone is naive, but this is a complicated

situation.

Essentially, the Supreme Court was packed by Republicans with 'justices' who ostensibly will rule in ways that favor GOP policies.

I know you know this so I won't belabor it. But here's where it gets interesting:

The Federalist Society is an organiation that promotes white Christian rule for the country - a theocracy. The are affiliated with a number of dominionist Christian groups who seek to make the United States a nation which is governed by Christians and based on their understandings of biblical law. In short a Christian 'sharia law.'

So you are right.

Even Coney Barrett and Kegger Kav would say they aren't beholden to the GOP. They ARE, however, beholden to rulings that further the cause of imposing biblical law on us all. Like the Dobbs decision. And the reversal of gay marriage shortly to be. They took away the Miranda rights warning - people still HAVE their rights, but now cops don't have to tell them any more. And Miranda was originally an anti-Klan provision because cops in the deep south would brutally interrogate and terrorize minority victims they had arrested without letting them know they had the right to an attorney.

They would, in short, say they are beholden to making us a 'Christian nation.' One that is ruled by biblical law as opposed to a separation of church and state.

To my mind, with the hundreds of judges prepared and injected into the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court by the GOP, these courts are in very real danger of losing any legitimacy. They are SUPPOSED, as you say, to be above the political fray.

[usaf-vet]

47. Yes. They will protect Trumps tax records. They thru Graham under the bus. So they could protect TFG

[Delphinus]

3. So, it's over?

He will be testifying? There are no more corners to hide in?

[Zambero]

9. No more corners

Just vapors

[gab13by13]

15. Made me laugh

[progressoid]

22. Bring in the fainting couch

Link to tweet

[calimary]

29. I kinda doubt he can even find his "pearls"...

[Cha]

4. Did Not see that coming!!

TY, BRDS!


PS.. bet ol Linsey is pissed! & DT! lol

[ffr]

5. Let's see if TFG steps in and requests Graham's request again. I bet they hold again

if he does.

[efhmc]

46. I have read this statement twice but do not understand how TFG has standing here.

Please explain. Thanks.

[live love laugh]

48. Is Trump a lawyer? How can he "step in"?

[Bev54]

6. No dissents but would we know if Thomas recused himself from the vote?

[herding cats]

8. This was his Hail Mary pass and it was dropped.

Off he goes to pay the piper now.

[FBaggins]

10. Not so much

His primary goal was to delay any impact until after the election

It's now scheduled for the 17th.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. I doubt that he would want to testify anywhere for anyone

But then this "grand jury" is more an information-gathering one that will lead to a recommendation (or not) for having an actual criminal grand jury.

[herding cats]

20. Yep. He's being compelled to testify here but this isn't the big show yet.

He's going to squawk more before it's done, but he's also going to end up testifying at the end of the day.

[herding cats]

18. He was never scheduled to testify before the election.

The November 17th date was on the subpoena when it was issued and he started fighting it.

[FBaggins]

25. I don't think that's correct

He may have received a later subpoena with a new date on it at some point, but:

SCOTUS would not have issues an emergency stay blocking testimony while they reviewed the request for a TRO if they could respond to that TRO prior to the date of testimony

But even if that weren't correct... the temporary hold that the 11th circuit applied back in August also stopped a looming date:

From August 22nd:

The South Carolina Republican had received a subpoena to appear before the special grand jury on Tuesday.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-graham-testimony-georgia-election-trump-federal-appeals-court/

[herding cats]

32. You're correct.

They November date has been in place since before the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling but not the beginning.

It was in place before he asked SCOTUS to review his case after losing to the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ultimately, he gained nothing by this last attempt to delay.

[onenote]

24. It was scheduled for the 17th before he went to SCOTUS

[Sympthsical]

11. No dissents, either

Maybe this will help people who seem to be having just the worst morning understand a little better what a temporary stay means.

Maybe.

[Marthe48]

12. hope this puts lindsey in a snit

because they favor traitor over the lapdog.

[Traildogbob]

13. We thought

He was pissed and yelling when he was with his BLACK last week ranting about racist Dems. This will really have his eyes bugging out. He may stroke before trump. Trump still has HIS court backing him, for now.

[gab13by13]

17. Go get em Fani,

bring the bastard down. I assume that Lyndsey was a witness and not a target. He has an excuse now so Trump won't put out a hit on him.

[barbtries]

19. tee hee

graham hasn't figured out that he's 100% expendable.

[malthaussen]

27. Neither has Mr Trump.

Maybe not 100% in DJT's case, but as far as those who run the GOP is concerned, he's roadkill. They just have to balance his appeal to the skinheads with their own objectives.

-- Mal

[barbtries]

42. hardly anybody seems to recognize it when it comes to TFG,

which pisses me off no end.

[malthaussen]

21. What's next, Lindsey? Make your appeal to God?

Okay, I can't restrain myself: har-dee-har-har.

-- Mal

[Orrex]

28. Well, that was unexpected.

I’d have predicted that Clarence’s handler would issue her decree and her will would be done.

[onenote]

30. Only by folks who don't understand the process.

[Orrex]

33. Sometimes it helps to have a smug and condescending explanation

Know anyone who’s patronizing and self-righteous enough to provide one?

[onenote]

34. Well, after a number of posters have tried repeatedly to explain it

and have been ignored or accused of being trolls, what would you expect?

[Orrex]

36. Don't worry, your reply was exactly what I expected from you.

And if you’re being called a troll, it’s probably not for the reason that you imagine.

[onenote]

41. Curious. What reason do you think there would there be for calling me a troll.

Or, for that matter, doing the same to other posters who have tried to explain how emergency stay requests are handled by the SCOTUS.

[Orrex]

43. I find your question disingenuous

But I’ll offer this: in a group of people more or less on the same political page, it would be just swell if we didn’t have to fend off busybody scolds literally every time someone expresses an opinion that doesn’t perfectly align with the scolds’ understanding of things.

An opinion isn’t fully consistent with some arcane procedural norm? So the fuck what? It’s likely that the poster didn’t ask the scold for a lecture on The Nature of Things, so the scold can rely on a chilly response.

You might object that this is an open forum, so the scold’s feedback should be expected. Fair enough, but the same holds true for the scold, who can hardly complain if the open forum yields an unflattering reply.

Look, neither of us is new at this. If in your faultless wisdom of all things you have something to offer, then why be insulting about it? Does that tone change anyone’s view? I’d guess not.

If the scolds persist in their tone and attitude, then they will continue to to be called out for it, and rightly so.


But I’m sure that ymmv.

[onenote]

44. Again, I've tried offering information about SCOTUS procedures, even linking to the Reporters guide

that the Court publishes to guide the press.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

And sometimes people are happy to get that information. And sometimes people just rant on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are equal when some are based on factual information and some ignore that factual information.

And you're right -- we've both been here a long time (over 17 years each). So i don't particularly appreciate being called out as having some secret pro-Trump agenda because I happen to know the process at work where temporary stays are requested. Sure I get frustrated when the response to factual information is to essentially to say the facts don't matter.

[Orrex]

51. I didn't see the post calling you out for a pro-Trump agenda, though I believe you

And that it indeed bullshit. You and I often don't see eye to eye, but you're no Trumper.

When someone's in rant mode, myself included, it helps nothing to swoop in with a waggling finger to Tell Them How It Is. All that does is change the target of the rant from the frustration at Trump et al seeming to evade justice to the person who swooped in.

In the moment, no one gives a damn about which pen has to be used to sign the order (***figurative example***), so if someone gets it wrong and someone else calls it out, the latter person comes across as wishing only to scold or humiliate, regardless of the correctness of that person's opinion or the purity of their intent.


In any case, I appreciate this increasingly civil exchange. Thanks for your time and viewpoint.

[onenote]

53. Same to you. Have a good evening!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

31. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[CaptainTruth]

35. As expected, if the court followed precedent & proper procedure.

What's sad is that I don't feel like I can count on them to follow precedent & proper procedure.

[Orrex]

39. They clearly have no respect for precedent

And “procedure” is at best a loose guideline, at least as it applies to recusal and conflicts of interest.

But I’m sure that someone will leap in to scold me for daring to describe the the current court’s behavior.

[bucolic_frolic]

38. He tried to use THIS to hide from the grand jury????

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013300/

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.

[orangecrush]

40. UNDER OATH

Weasel.

[Danascot]

45. Well that brightens up my day quite a bit

Once it gets serious he'll cut a deal to throw everybody he can think of under the bus to save his lily white ass.

[mountain grammy]

49. No dessent even from his pal Bret

boo fucking hoo Lindsey

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

52. Suck it up Lindsey