(CNN)If the Atlanta grand jury is investigating former President Donald Trump's 2020 election reversal plan A legislative privilege issue arises. A Georgia legislator spoke on Friday about communicating with other legislators or their staff.
However, the judge said he was likely to shed light on certain questions about the members' communication with third parties.
Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of the Fulton Superior Court heard a complaint by a Georgian parliamentarian trying to revoke the subpoena in a grand jury investigation.
At the motion hearing, McBurney said he would like to provide general guidelines on what kind of testimony is protected by legislative privileges or immunity. The judge did not issue a formal judgment presenting that guidance, but said he would issue it soon, as some of the subpoenas were for the requested appearance in mid-July. ..
"If a grand jury is investigating alleged criminal activity by a third party rather than a witness, the investigation will ask questions about communication with people outside the legislature of the legislature or its staff. In connection with the investigation if it leads, I believe they are not protected by legislative immunity. "
Already, at least four witnesses, three of whom are democratic state legislators, have already been convened for a special purpose grand jury to investigate Willis. Witness about.
Summon a grand jury testimony in a court filing on Monday claiming that both legislative immunity and legislative privileges protect their testimony. Signed a request to the court to revoke the letter. Specifically, declare out of scope the testimony of "what happened in the legislation of witnesses" about the "motivation" of lawmakers in legislative activities and the testimony (including interviews) of "investigation" conducted by the legislator. I asked the court. Members, lobbyists, or other sources of information related to the legislative process. "
This motion was raised by former Senator William Ligon, Vice Governor Jeff Duncan, and "Other," and the Republicans sought to prevent "any" member from testifying on these topics. At a hearing on Friday, their attorney Don Samuels, acting as a special assistant's legislative adviser, said that other members of the legislature would be instructed by the court on which testimony was protected by privilege. Said he was interested in.
In a response submitted to the court on Thursday, the District Attorney's Office pointed out the subject of the hearing in question. Willis's office, referring to the recommendations in a report issued by the legislature calling for a "correction" of the 2020 election results, said in the filing: It is the result of an official election that has already taken place, and trying to do so is never considered a legitimate "legislative obligation" and cannot happen. "
"It is completely outside the jurisdiction of the General Assembly to hold a hearing, prepare a report, and prepare a report aimed at proposing a" withdrawal "and an election certificate. "Willis's court filings said. "Furthermore, presenting demonstrable falsehoods in the Commission's report should not be considered an act protected by legislative immunity or privilege, otherwise the migrant attempts to maintain it by the shield. They themselves from a legitimate investigation from Georgian citizens suggesting to ridicule the "integrity of the legislative process" that seems to be.
The judge signaled on Friday that he did not find the argument convincing. Most of the hearings focused on what testimony the grand jury could ask legislators and their staff to communicate with third parties. Samuels argued that the testimony contained in these conversations violated the legislator's constitutional protection because it touched on the legislator's motivation to take legislative action. The judge declared testimony about the motives of lawmakers in a wide bucket protected by legislative immunity and privileges.
McBurney did not clearly indicate how much to limit questions about the content of those conversations. However, he suggested that a grand jury question about who the lawmakers spoke to in preparation for the December 2020 hearing would be acceptable. The judge believed that the grand jury was "qualified" to ask which third party members spoke to, thereby allowing those third parties to be brought into the cross-examination.