It was about a week after the 2020 presidential race was called when Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, accused Sen. Lindsey Graham of contacting him directly to question the validity of legally cast ballots. The GOP senator conceded that they had a conversation, but he called the underlying allegation “ridiculous.”
But Raffensperger held firm, telling CNN in November 2020 that the “implication” of Graham’s message was, “Look hard and see how many ballots you could throw out.”
It was against this backdrop that a Georgia special grand jury hearing evidence in an investigation into possible 2020 election interference issued subpoenas this week to seven people — including the South Carolina senator.
In theory, Graham might welcome the opportunity to tell his side of the story. In practice, as NBC News reported, it doesn’t seem to be working out that way.
Lawyers for Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday they’ll challenge a subpoena demanding that he testify before a special grand jury in Georgia hearing evidence in a probe of possible 2020 election interference by former President Donald Trump and others. In a statement, Graham’s attorneys Bart Daniel and Matt Austin said the subpoena, in which the grand jury hearing evidence in the Fulton County district attorney’s investigation seeks his testimony, is “all politics.”
Part of the response from Graham’s team focused on something resembling substance: The written statement argued, for example, that the lawmaker chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee when he reached out to Georgia’s secretary of state, so Graham was “well within his rights to discuss with state officials the processes and procedures around administering elections.”
Perhaps, but according to Raffensperger, the senator did not simply “discuss” elections procedures — and Graham, if he leaned on Georgia’s secretary of state to set aside legitimate ballots, was not “well within his rights.”
But yesterday’s statement went on to argue that the Fulton County district attorney’s office is “engaged in a fishing expedition and working in concert with the January 6 Committee in Washington,” adding that if Graham cooperated, his testimony “would immediately be shared” with the bipartisan House select committee.
Graham’s attorneys also emphasized that the senator is not a target of the investigation in Georgia, but rather, “simply a witness.”
Right off the bat, it’s worth emphasizing that it’s not up to those subpoenaed by a grand jury to decide whether or not the inquiry is legitimate. Subpoenas are not casual invitations; they’re legal commands. Graham may see this as a “fishing expedition,” but his impressions aren’t especially relevant.
Indeed, imagine how he’d respond if the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena, only to have a relevant witness ignore it, dismissing the line of inquiry as “all politics.” What’s more, as Graham and his legal counsel really ought to know, grand jury testimony is kept under wraps, and it would be illegal for the district attorney’s office to share the information with anyone, including Jan. 6 investigators. In other words, the South Carolina Republican and his team effectively argued yesterday that he’s reluctant to honor a subpoena because he suspects local prosecutors will commit a crime. That’s a rather outlandish accusation to make — without proof — in the form of a clumsy prediction. Finally, if Graham is “simply a witness,” there’s no reason for him to fight so vehemently against cooperating. It’s as if the Republican senator has something to hide.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
