LindseyGraham.com





We cannot stand by idly while Democrats use this as a partisan
fishing expedition to score political points.


















John,

The Democrat District Attorney from Fulton County, Georgia, has
launched a political crusade against Republicans like former
President Donald Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham.

She's using President Trump and Graham's name to build her own
national profile with the liberal Left. It is why she has been
featured repeatedly on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, profiled in the New
York Times, hailed on CNN and the talk of the liberal media.

While the prosecutor puts politics front and center, Senator
Graham focuses on the facts and law.

A recent article in The Federalist explains why the prosecutor's
actions are "unconstitutional." Take a look at some of the key
points:





The fact that Willis's special grand jury lacks the power
to return criminal indictments provided the initial proof that
Willis seeks both self-promotion and to damage her political
opponents, not to prosecute purported lawbreakers...

...But it is the local prosecutor's decision to target Graham
that represents the apex of Willis's absurdity because the Speech
or Debate Clause of the Constitution protects our U.S. senators
and representatives from such local political crusades...

...While Willis seeks to portray Graham's calls to state
officials as somehow nefarious, a senator questioning the
secretary of state on reported irregularities in Georgia's
election falls squarely within the "matters" the Constitution
places within the jurisdiction of Congress.





This Georgia prosecutor is seizing the opportunity to make
headlines for herself while launching a political fishing
expedition.

However, Senator Graham is fighting back and needs your help.

John, we need folks like you to stand with Senator Graham
during this legal and political battle. Will you help us fight
back by sending $5, $10, or even $25 today?

It's clear that this subpoena is politically motivated. John,
we cannot stand by idly while Democrats use this subpoena to
score political points.

We're counting on you to have Senator Graham's back.

Thank you,

Team Graham

P.S. If you'd like to read the entire article from The
Federalist, please see below!


Donate Today →





Georgia DA's Crusade Against Lindsey Graham Is Unconstitutional

The Federalist
By Margot Cleveland, July 22, 2022

A Georgia county prosecutor is making the Jan. 6 show trial look
like a paragon of propriety and due process. But now the targets
of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's political hit
job are beginning to push back in the courts against her
outrageous abuse of the criminal justice system.

In January 2022, Willis requested that the chief judge of the
Fulton County Superior Court, Christopher Brasher, impanel a
"special grand jury" to assist in her supposed investigation
"into any coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of
the 2020 elections in this state." Willis's request, however,
made clear that the "special grand jury" would not be used to
indict anyone but to issue a report at the conclusion of its
supposed investigation, making "recommendations concerning
criminal prosecution as it shall see fit."

The fact that Willis's special grand jury lacks the power to
return criminal indictments provided the initial proof that
Willis seeks both self-promotion and to damage her political
opponents, not to prosecute purported lawbreakers. Willis then
confirmed her dual fame-seeking and political-warfare goals
earlier this month when, as part of Fulton County's purported
investigation into "criminal disruptions" of Georgia's
administration of the 2020 general election, she obtained court
approval to subpoena some big names. These included Trump's
election lawyers such as Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna
Ellis, Cleta Mitchell, and Kenneth Chesebro, as well as Sen.
Lindsey Graham and attorney and podcast host Jacki Pick Deason.

Willis's use of the special grand jury to subpoena several of
Trump's attorneys serves no purpose but to push a "political
farce because attorney-client privilege will prevent Trump's
lawyers from answering many of the questions likely to be posed."
The county prosecutor's reported targeting of some of the top
Georgia Republicans, including the GOP's current candidate for
lieutenant governor - who will face off this fall against
Democrat Charlie Bailey - likewise screams of a political witch
hunt, for Willis just happens to be a strong supporter of Bailey,
having donated $2,500 to his campaign and having hosted a
fundraiser for the Democrat candidate last month.





But it is the local prosecutor's decision to target Graham that
represents the apex of Willis's absurdity because the Speech or
Debate Clause of the Constitution protects our U.S. senators and
representatives from such local political crusades.

Look to the 'Speech or Debate Clause'

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that "for any
Speech or Debate in either House, [members] shall not be
questioned in any other Place." This clause, known commonly as
the "Speech or Debate Clause," applies not merely to "speech" and
"debate" in the literal sense, but to all "legislative acts."

Over the years, the courts have further explained the scope of
the Speech or Debate Clause, stressing that it must be applied
"broadly" to achieve its purpose, and "protects a member's
conduct if it is an integral part of the due functioning of the
legislative process." Thus, the clause protects acts by which
members deliberate and communicate "with respect to the
consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or
with respect to other matters which the Constitution places
within the jurisdiction of either House."

Notwithstanding the breadth of the Speech or Debate Clause, a
county prosecutor in Georgia demands that the South Carolina
senator travel to the Peach State to be questioned before a grand
jury about two telephone conversations he allegedly had with
state officials after the November 2020 election. While Willis
seeks to portray Graham's calls to state officials as somehow
nefarious, a senator questioning the secretary of state on
reported irregularities in Georgia's election falls squarely
within the "matters" the Constitution places within the
jurisdiction of Congress.

Specifically, Congress, which has "all Legislative powers" under
our federal Constitution, passed the Electoral Count Act, which
authorizes federal lawmakers to raise objections to the states'
certificates of electors. Further, under the Electoral Count Act,
members of both chambers must then "decide upon an objection that
may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes
from any State." First, though, under this law, members of
Congress may "speak to such objection or question" for five
minutes.

Graham did precisely that on January 6, 2021, when in response to
objections to the electors of various states, he rose to the
Senate floor and explained his rationale for rejecting the
objections. Graham's floor speech made clear he had inquired
about both claims of illegal voting and fraud. "Georgia: They say
the secretary of state took law into his own hands, he changed
the elections laws unlawfully," Graham noted. But "a federal
judge said 'no.' I accept the federal judge even though I don't
agree with it," he continued. "Fraud: They say there's 66,000
people in Georgia under 18, voted," the South Carolina senator
added. "I asked, 'give me 10,'" but he "got one." Graham then
proceeded to vote to certify the election.

Clearly, Graham's statements from the floor of Congress are
protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. But again, the
protections afforded by that clause are not so limited as to
apply only to words spoken from the seat of the Capitol. Rather,
the Supreme Court has noted that while not everything "in any way
related to the legislative process" is protected by the clause,
legislators' preparations for the "legislate process" are
protected.

While case law interpreting the clause provides little to no
guidance on what constitutes such "preparations," last term the
U.S. Supreme Court - in Trump v. Mazars USA, in discussing
whether Congress has the power to issue certain subpoenas -
elaborated on the "legislative function."

"Without information," the court explained, "Congress would be
shooting in the dark, unable to legislate 'wisely or
effectively.'" Accordingly, "congressional power to obtain
information is 'broad' and 'indispensable,'" and "it encompasses
inquiries into the administration of existing laws, studies of
proposed laws and 'surveys of defects in our social, economic, or
political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to
remedy them.'"

The Mazars opinion thus makes clear that obtaining information
for the purpose of legislating "wisely or effectively"
constitutes an appropriate "legislative function." And the
Supreme Court has held that "when the Speech or Debate Clause is
raised in defense to a subpoena, the only question to resolve is
whether the matters about which testimony are sought 'fall within
the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity."'" If so, that
clause serves as an "absolute bar to interference."

Reading the Mazars analysis, then, in light of case law
interpreting the Speech or Debate Clause, strongly supports the
conclusion that a state prosecutor cannot force the South
Carolina senator to appear in Georgia to be questioned about his
conversations with Georgia officials regarding the 2020 election.
That holds true no matter how Willis frames Graham's motive
because the Supreme Court precludes any inquiry into the
motivations for acts that occur in the regular course of the
legislative process.

Founders Tried to Prevent Bad Actors Like Willis

Beyond the plain language of the Speech or Debate Clause, the
original intent of that constitutional provision confirms that
the founding generation, in ratifying the Constitution, sought to
prevent precisely the shenanigans Willis is playing.

The Founding Fathers included the Speech or Debate Clause in the
federal Constitution, the Supreme Court explained, "to protect
the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the
independence of individual legislators." "The central object of
the Speech or Debate Clause is to protect the 'independence and
integrity of the legislature,'" the high court explained, and to
prevent "intimidation of legislators by the Executive and
accountability before a possible hostile judiciary." Further, the
"rights of the people," the authors of our Constitution believed,
would be best protected if the representatives could "executive
the functions of their office without fear" of interference.

Now, some 230 years later, a partisan Democrat D.A. in Georgia is
proving the prescience of the framers, with her targeting both
Graham and Republican Rep. Jody Hice with subpoenas approved by a
local judge, who is arguably hostile to the Republican
representatives: The chief judge of the Fulton County Superior
Court, Christopher Brasher, who both impaneled Willis's "special
grand jury" and approved her requests for subpoenas, is the same
county judge who delayed appointing a judge to hear Trump's
Georgia election challenges until it was too late to matter.

Both Graham and Hice seek to sidestep the state court sideshow by
removing the cases to federal court and obtaining orders quashing
the subpoenas. Graham had also filed a motion in a South Carolina
federal court last week and obtained an initial order staying
Willis's efforts to question him pending further proceedings.
However, Graham later agreed to dismiss that case and refile his
challenge to a grand jury subpoena in a federal court in Georgia,
which he is expected to do sometime early next week.

Hice has already filed his motion to quash the subpoena in a
Georgia federal court, and a hearing is scheduled before Judge
Leigh Martin May, a Barack Obama appointee, on Monday at 2:00
p.m.

While Monday's hearing on Hice's motion will provide a first read
on how the courts will apply the Speech or Debate Clause in the
context of Willis's grand jury probe, no matter how she rules,
Judge Martin May's decision will likely be appealed to the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals by the losing party. Further, even
pending that appeal, Martin May's decision in Hice's case will
not dictate the outcome in Graham's forthcoming case for two main
reasons.

First, as a district court judge, rulings by Martin May do not
bind other federal judges. Thus, if Graham draws a different
federal judge in the northern district of Georgia, that judge may
disagree with Martin May's ruling. Second, Hice's case differs
from Graham's case in that Hice attempts to block questioning on
"any discussions" he "may have had with individuals or
organizations that had information on, or an interest in
investigating, alleged irregularities in the election," while
Graham seeks protection from questioning about two alleged
conversations with Georgia state officials - which is the only
purpose for which Willis claimed Graham was an indispensable
witness.

In ruling on Hice's motion, the court may be more inclined to
rule that certain categories of questions are off limits, as
opposed to all questioning, whereas with Graham, since Willis
seeks only to question Graham about his conversation with Georgia
state officials, all questioning should be off limits. Courts
have taken both tacks in prior Speech or Debate cases, either
precluding all questioning or limiting questioning to certain
categories.

But in this case, a court would also be justified in telling
Willis to wait until she has a real grand jury - one that can
indict - because anything less establishes that her interest is
political and seeks solely to "intimidate" the legislators. And
that is precisely what the Speech or Debate Clause seeks to
prevent.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent.
She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the
Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been
published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is
a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she
earned the Hoynes Prize-the law school's highest honor. She later
served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal
appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now
teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home
homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland
frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and
special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at
@ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland
in her private capacity.
















In the United States Senate, South Carolina's Lindsey Graham has
earned a reputation as a conservative, a problem-solver, and a
leader who gets things done. He is a great friend to our men and
women serving in uniform, a respected voice on national security
matters, a leading advocate for cutting the out-of-control
spending in Washington, and a champion for confirming
conservative judges.

Support Senator Graham!

We want to make sure you're a proud member of Team Graham, and we
don't want to bother you. To receive only the most important
emails, please click here. We'd hate to see you go, but if you'd
like to unsubscribe, please click here.








































Paid For By Team Graham, Inc.

This message was intended for: [email protected]
You were added to the system June 27, 2019.
Update your email delivery preferences or opt out:
[link removed]