Graham Makes Another Attempt To Dodge Grand Jury Testimony

[garrybee]

Dodging means something. Innocent people don’t have to because they can answer the questions without incriminating themselves or others. It’s quite clear that the Senator from South Carolina is obfuscating.

[trustywoods]

Jack ass? Ass hat? are those good?

Jack ass is my fav.

[ClutchCargo]

@darrtown

Donald the former guy deserves to be locked in his basement room with his documents. He can play at being POTUS and be a BIG DEAL in his own mind as long as that basement room is padlocked and he has no phone.

Maybe Playskool should make a classified documents toy, with an SCI stamp and a red ink pad. He can turn his closet into a SCIF.

[emiliano4]

If you build it (Courts of Appeal)…He will come (to delay)

[darrtown]

@txlawyer

So the only textualist question is whether he’s being questioned for any speech or debate in either house, which he plainly wasn’t with respect to his communications with Drupf and Meadows and Raffensperger and such.

Exactly what I thought.
Thanks!

[garrybee]

@littlegirlblue

No one’s a dick

Is prick alright?

[trustywoods]

When all this started you said Graham had a good argument. Where did it break down?

[iafixture]

@garrybee

Is prick alright?

Depends, you can prick your finger but you can’t finger your prick.

h/t Carlin

[omf]

You can prick your prick though.

[ClutchCargo]

I wish a witness would finger the prick for a few felonies.

[gilgamesh]

But we can still say Virginia? Seems to be pushing the envelope a bit.

[garrybee]

@omf

You can prick your prick though.

You’d have to be a real prick to prick your prick.

[trustywoods]

thought he already tried. He’s still a president* you know, and SMRT!

[txlawyer]

@trustywoods

When all this started you said Graham had a good argument.

I described it as “kind of clever, actually.”

Graham Follows Through On Challenge To Fulton County DA Subpoena

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.

And “Not the most plausible attempt ever, just one that won’t be sanctionable and that will probably require some written explanation why he’s wrong.”

Graham Follows Through On Challenge To Fulton County DA Subpoena

Having discovered himself to have been inside a coup attempt, Lindsay is making a plausible attempt to avoid testifying about it. Not the most plausible attempt ever, just one that won’t be sanctionable and that will probably require some written explanation why he’s wrong.

I’ll stand by those assessments.

[trustywoods]

Everybody was " We can do this!"

Wonder what’s in those treasures dumpster wanted because " he likes to save stuff."

[bcgister]

@trustywoods

Wonder what’s in those treasures dumpster wanted because " he likes to save stuff."

I think that’s the 5 to 20 year question.

[jchaus]

Speech and debate are very public. I don’t get the logic of why a clause about saying things in public – and not being subject to prosecution for that – means you cannot be questioned by a prosecutor in front of a Grand Jury.

There is substantial evidence Graham sought to undermine the proper conduct of an election. If he has a good answer as to why that is incorrect, he should want to testify. But certainly being an elected national official does not mean you are not held to account for your actions.

[mattf]

IANA Constitutional Lawyer but I expect the Senator’s best chance for avoiding testimony turns on the argument that the purpose of the calls related to the Senator’s official responsibilities. In effect saying the Speech or Debate Clause is applicable to activities that relate to speech or debate, not just the act of speaking, and the calls were “research” or other preparation for what would be clearly protected speech. I don’t think the Courts have weighed in on that aspect of the scope of the clause, so it’s at least a decent (for the Senator, not the good of the nation) delaying tactic.
That said, I think that even if Courts agree that protection extends to associated activities, the AG has the ability to knock down that protection since since there’s already testimony about the content of the calls and it can be shown through other sources that the content of the calls exceeded his duties and, potentially, drifted into felonious.

[occamscoin]

@darrtown

Is the subpoena concerning a felony?

The “felony” exception mention in the first clause of the speech or debate clause refers only to being privileged from arrest. It does not apply to the second clause, being privileged from being “questioned in any other place”. H/T txlawyer for pointing out to me that distinction a few weeks ago.

[occamscoin]

@tiowally

Belle of the Bawl’s plethora of peccadillos. We know he’s owned, the only question is by whom?

Pretty sure he isn’t owned. His voters know he’s wink-wink, nudge-nudge, one of those, but he’s their guy, and they’re ok with it because he delivers the pork. Nothing to blackmail him with, unless you want to imagine something from Godfather II.