Graham Follows Through On Challenge To Fulton County DA Subpoena

[karlwlewis]

@ronbyers

The crime is a state crime. What is the legal theory for removing his challenge to Federal Court? Does he expect to be dealt a Federalist Society judge with full MAGA credentials?

Trump tried the exact same thing in his effort to avoid answering a subpoena from the NY State Attorney General. And in that case, as is almost guaranteed in this case:

@txlawyer

Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971): Federal courts are supposed to decline to hear cases involving matters pending in state criminal court even if the federal case presents a question of federal constitutional law.

[txlawyer]

@dont

So Graham’s argument is any MoC or Senator can say anything they want anywhere and it falls under speech and debate?

His actual argument is that he had a legislative purpose in making the call to Georgia because he had to look into whether the electoral votes were proper for purposes of the upcoming certification proceeding.

It’s kind of clever, actually.

[becca656]

Remind me: does Raffensberger have the audio tape of Graham’s call?

[tiowally]

Weasels gotta weasel.

[dont]

It’s still bullshit.

ETA. IANL but I do like to use technical terminology.

[callmeeric]

@txlawyer

It’s kind of clever, actually.

By half.

[irasdad]

@dont

It’s still bullshit.

It’s the kind of bullshit that makes other bullshitters sit up and say, “That’s BULLSHIT!”

[ncsteve]

He’s asserting 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1), a perfect example of a “damn, never heard about that in civil procedure” statute. Hell, I took Federal Jurisdiction and never heard about it in that class either.

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

His argument is literally that his purely partisan and political words were “under color of such office” because the Speech and Debate clause grants members of Congress absolute immunity from state prosecution for any and all crimes where the criminal act consists of saying words.

Such are the arguments Republicans feel emboldened to make now that it’s Sidney Powell’s America.

ETA: such also are the arguments lawyers from Jones Day and Nelson Mullins feel emboldened to make in Sydney Powell’s America.

[txlawyer]

I do not think there is a recording of Graham’s call to Raffensperger.

[drtv]

A bumper sticker I see here in Oregon:

I The Constitution

I know a couple of guys who have this on their trucks. Small sample size, of course, but based on that, I conclude that they love it when rulings they like go their way. When the rulings don’t, not that much.

[tiowally]

@alyoshakaramazov1

If Proxmire wasn’t protected for THAT, how could Graham be protected for trying to steal a state’s election?

Proxmire was a Dem.

[karlwlewis]

@txlawyer

His actual argument is that he had a legislative purpose in making the call to Georgia because he had to look into whether the electoral votes were proper for purposes of the upcoming certification proceeding.

It’s kind of clever, actually.

“Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is important to understand that in spite of the wild claims made by the prosecutors in this case, my client was not robbing the bank; nothing could be further from the truth. My client had simply appointed himself to be an inspector for the Federal Treasury, and when he gave the teller the note demanding all the cash in her drawer, he was doing so for the sole purpose of inspecting those bank notes, looking for counterfeit bills.”

[txlawyer]

There’s a right-wing understanding of the Constitution that it is violated every time they don’t get their way. They have no idea what’s actually in it.

[jinnj]

seems we are just a few steps from Lindsey Graham …

Proclaiming himself to being a “Sovereign Senator”
or a “Constitutional Federal Legislator”
… imbued with omnipotent immunity from piddling state level matters.
and answerable to no one during his term of office.

[playitagainrowlf]

@dannydorko

@alyoshakaramazov1

If Proxmire wasn’t protected for THAT, how could Graham be protected for trying to steal a state’s election?

New Supreme Court?

Used to be a “Supreme” Court, now they’re just a “Subprime” Court.

[karlwlewis]

@txlawyer

There’s a right-wing understanding of the Constitution that it is violated every time they don’t get their way. They have no idea what’s actually in it.

You know what’s not mentioned in the Constitution, at all, not even once? Librulz!

Stinkin’ coimmie bastigies.

[timorwig]

@txlawyer

They have no idea what’s actually in it.

Same as the Bible.

[occamscoin]

@pluckyinky

Graham’s argument is that there’s nothing illegal about this conversation since it’s a Member of Congress putting out the hit.

The speech or debate clause of the constitution does say

except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace

so that would appear to exclude coverage of taking out a hit on someone. I think lindseymat’s arguement is more that him calling up a state’s election officials to “ask” how their elections work is a legislative activity, even when he was mainly asking why they weren’t fixing the election for TFG.

[dont]

@timorwig

Same as the Bible.

Actually, they only skip the New Testament.

[caltg]

Miz. Lindsey needs to take his “absolute legislative immunity and privilege” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.