So Graham's testimony as to what he said is not the only evidence. Also, and more importantly, elsewhere in the order the judge says:
...to the extent Senator Graham was merely asking questions about Georgia’s then-existing election procedures and allegations of voter fraud in the leadup to his certification vote, such questions are shielded from inquiry under the Speech or Debate Clause. In other words, Senator Graham cannot be asked about the portions of the calls that were legislative fact-finding. But this conclusion does not end the analysis on this issue. Though Senator Graham maintains that these calls were comprised entirely of legislative fact finding relevant to his certification vote (and urges the Court to accept this conclusion on its face), the Court does not find that it can simply accept Senator Graham’s sweeping and conclusory characterizations of the calls and ignore other objective facts in the record that call Senator Graham’s characterizations into question. As noted above, and as discussed at length in the Court’s earlier orders, the very nature and substance of these calls has been a source of public debate and dispute among the calls’ participants. Indeed, as alluded to in both parties’ briefing, Secretary Raffensperger has stated publicly that he understood Senator Graham to be implying or otherwise suggesting that he (Secretary Raffensperger) should throw out ballots. As the Court has previously stated, any such “cajoling “exhorting,” or pressuring of Secretary Raffensperger (or any other Georgia election officials) to throw out ballots or otherwise change Georgia’s election processes, including changing processes so as to alter the state’s results, is not protected legislative activity under the Speech or Debate Clause. See Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625. Regardless of whether such conduct is criminal, it is, at minimum, “in no wise related to the due functioning of the legislative process.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972). Accordingly, Senator Graham may face targeted and specific questioning regarding this alleged activity, which is to say he may, at minimum, be asked whether he in fact implied, suggested, or otherwise indicated that Secretary Raffensperger (or other Georgia election officials) throw out ballots or otherwise alter their election procedures (including in ways that would alter election results). This is not legislative fact-finding on its face.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.305825/gov.uscourts.gand.305825.44.0.pdf pages 9-11
It always helps to read the whole thing before relying on media interpretations, which are often wrong. Graham lost this one, big time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
ty!
