Sunday, September 10, 2023

The Lindsey “Speech and Debate Clause” Non-Defense

 JMM fell for it.

Pretty sure some others did, too. Before Lindsey announced he was invisible and bulletproof because he’s a U.S. goddamned Senator!, Xitterati were already declaring Fani Willis didn’t want to indict Lindsey and fight that fight because it would be a loser, and get Lindsey removed to federal court, dragging many defendants with him.

Or, you know, not. Because Lindsey already fought the law with this one. And the law won.

Obviously the grand jury felt that these two former senators and current senator had violated the law," she said of the special grand jury. "And certainly Mr. Graham tried to assert that his activities were within his duties as a senator. That was rejected by the courts. He was not acting in the course of his duty as a senator. That's why he didn't get the protection of the 'Speech and Debate Clause.' So, I just assume that it has to do with the weight of the evidence that was available to the district attorney. And I'm glad that she used the discretion that she did in deciding who to indict and who to leave behind." 
Graham fought having to testify before Georgia's grand jury, saying that the "Speech and Debate Clause" of the Constitution protected him against being questioned. 
Not only did Graham lose the case in Georgia, but he also the case before the conservative 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. 
“Senator Graham has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal,” the 11th Circuit panel said in its ruling in Oct. 2022.
It’s hard to see the legal argument that Lindsey is not protected from telling a grand jury what he said and did, but he is protected from the consequences of his actions.

Fani Wallis had her reasons for not indicting Lindsey, but the Constitutional clause wasn’t one of them.

Legal Xitter is the worst.

No comments:

Post a Comment