Rudy Giuliani informed he’s a target of probe into Trump’s alleged election interference in Georgia

WASHINGTON — Rudy Giuliani is a “target” of the criminal investigation into possible 2020 election interference in Georgia by former President Donald Trump and others, his attorney told NBC News.

The lawyer, Robert Costello, said that as part of their efforts to compel Giuliani’s testimony, Georgia prosecutors initially told New York courts that Giuliani was a material witness. But Costello said Giuliani’s lawyers were informed Monday that he is a “target” of the probe.

Giuliani, Trump’s former personal attorney and former mayor of New York City, was ordered last week to testify in person Wednesday before a grand jury handling the case.

The grand jury, called by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, subpoenaed Giuliani in July as a material witness as part of its investigation into “coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections.” The subpoena said Giuliani made statements at legislative hearings in Georgia falsely claiming that there had been “widespread voter fraud” in the state.

Giuliani was ordered to testify by a judge after he failed to appear at a July 13 hearing to challenge the subpoena. Costello said Monday that Giuliani still intends to testify before the grand jury this week. The New York Times was first to report that Giuliani was informed he was a target of the probe.

Meanwhile, a federal judge on Monday denied Sen. Lindsey Graham’s effort to quash a subpoena seeking his testimony in the Georgia investigation.

In a 22-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta rejected Graham’s arguments against having to testify before a special grand jury, including his contention that the speech and debate clause of the Constitution shields the South Carolina Republican from providing testimony.

Graham’s lawyers had argued that a post-election phone call Graham made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in November 2020 had a legislative purpose and therefore was covered by the clause.

The judge also rejected Graham’s argument that sovereign immunity protects him from having to testify because he’s a sitting U.S. senator.

“If the court were to accept Senator Graham’s sovereign immunity argument, it would mean that U.S. senators would not be required to testify before state grand juries no matter the circumstances,” May wrote. “The law would give them complete immunity based solely on their status as federal officials.”

Lastly, the judge said Graham’s reasoning for being exempt from testifying because he’s a high-ranking official also doesn’t hold weight. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has shown “extraordinary circumstances” necessitated the testimony of Graham, who has “unique personal knowledge about the substance and circumstances of the phone calls with Georgia election officials, as well as the logistics of setting them up and his actions afterward,” May said.

“Senator Graham’s potential testimony on these issues — in addition to his knowledge about topics outside of the calls such as his alleged coordination with the Trump campaign before and after the calls are unique to Senator Graham, and Senator Graham has not suggested that anyone else from his office can speak to these issues or has unique personal knowledge of them,” the order said.

Graham’s office released a statement saying he will appeal the judge’s decision.

“The Constitution’s speech or debate clause prevents a local official from questioning a senator about how that senator did his job,” the statement said. “Here, Senator Graham was doing his due diligence before the Electoral Count Act certification vote — where he voted to certify the election. Although the district court acknowledged that speech or debate may protect some of Senator Graham’s activities, she nevertheless ignored the constitutional text and binding Supreme Court precedent, so Senator Graham plans to appeal to the 11th Circuit.”

Willis is looking into the call Graham made to Raffensperger in the days after the November 2020 election. Raffensperger has said Graham pressed him about whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots, which Raffensperger interpreted as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes.

The subpoena seeking Graham’s testimony in the case said he “made at least two telephone calls” to Raffensperger and his staff. “During the telephone calls, [Graham] questioned Secretary Raffensperger and his staff about reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump. [Graham] also made reference to allegations of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election in Georgia, consistent with public statements made by known affiliates of the Trump Campaign,” the subpoena said.

Frank Thorp V contributed.

Source link

Muhammad Umar
Muhammad Umar Blogger and Writer at He had a great grip on south Asia Political and current affair Issues..

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles