The subpoena trial is back before U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May of the Northern District of Georgia after an appeals court on Sunday stayed her ruling, requiring Graham to appear before a grand jury. May had previously rejected Graham’s request to permanently quash the subpoena. The appeals court has since ordered her to consider whether the subpoena should be quashed in part or modified under the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which shields lawmakers from certain law enforcement actions when it covers certain conduct that is part of legislative duties of the legislators. Graham, however, did not tone down his arguments in his latest report on why he believes the entire scope of the subpoena should be considered off limits under the Constitution. He argued Wednesday that Willis “has to bear the burden of identifying the questions she wants to ask or, at least, the specific issues she wants to cover,” and said that “if there’s a debate about whether those issues are admissible, you have to offer evidence that these matters are not protected by the clause.” “To hold otherwise is to allow the Prosecutor to evade the Speech or Debate Clause by asking for unformed testimony and then, like a moving target, to raise new or elaborate questions or issues at the Senator. “The District Attorney, ultimately, is in the best position to know what he wants to ask (assuming it’s not a disorganized fishing expedition),” Graham said. “For that reason, if anyone suggests a further line of inquiry, Senator Graham will discuss it in his Supplementary Response.” Graham said the conduct Willis is interested in questioning — including calls Graham had with Georgia election officials about recounting ballots cast in the 2020 presidential election — was part of an informal investigation he conducted as part of his duties as a US Senator. The South Carolina Republican pointed to several examples of legislative activity that he said are connected to the conduct in Georgia that the District Attorney now wants to question him about. He cited the research he did before he voted to certify Joe Biden’s election victory, the legislation he has co-sponsored to amend the Election Counting Act and the election-related hearings he chaired when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee . “Because virtually all that the District Attorney has sought is material to this protected investigation and the motivation behind it, full reversal remains appropriate,” Graham’s brief said. To the extent the court disagrees, he wrote, the court “should at least partially quash or modify the subpoena to bar any questioning about the search and the motives behind it.” Willis’ office has until next Monday to respond, and Graham will then have until Aug. 31 to respond.
