Graham had formally appealed a judge’s order requiring him to testify on Tuesday, saying doing so would cause “irreparable harm” that would be “in violation of his constitutional immunity.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Sunday temporarily stayed his appearance, asking a lower court to consider whether Graham should be shielded from answering certain questions about his official duties as a U.S. senator. Graham called the Georgia investigation “a fishing expedition” and argued that the constitution’s “speech or debate clause” protects lawmakers from answering questions about their official legislative duties. The Fulton County District Attorney’s office, which is leading the investigation into the actions of former President Donald Trump and his allies, has been tussled in a federal district A court ruled Friday that Graham will have to appear before a grand jury this week despite his appeal to delay the deposition. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) has expressed interest in questioning Graham about conversations he had in the wake of the 2020 election with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), among other issues. In court documents, Willis said her investigation is looking into “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.” A filing from her office Friday argued that delaying Graham’s appearance would “delay the disclosure of an entire class of relevant witnesses,” pushing back the timeline of the investigation. The prosecutor says Graham’s testimony is critical to the election investigation U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May on Friday denied Graham’s request to postpone his deposition, as well as his request for an emergency hearing. “Senator Graham’s arguments are wholly unpersuasive and do not even demonstrate a ‘substantial case on the merits,’” the judge wrote at the time, prompting Graham’s lawyers to file an urgent appeal. On Sunday, the appeals court ordered the lower court to review arguments about whether Graham is entitled to “partial quashing or modification of the subpoena” seeking his testimony. Once the lower court’s review is complete, the appellate court said it will review the matter. John Wagner and Matthew Brown contributed to this report.
