Giuliani, Others Subpoenaed in GA

Lindsey Graham a by-the-hour flip-flopper? Surely not. :oops:
who knew, right?

they need to nail this freakin' little weasel down properly, without letting him continue to run out the mid-term clock.
 
from jafo's link
“Judge Robert McBurney excused him pending a hearing tomorrow on the motion to continue,” Costello wrote in a text message.

Nothing in publicly available court documents indicates that Giuliani is excused from appearing, but McBurney has scheduled a hearing for 12:30 p.m. Tuesday to hear arguments on a court filing from Giuliani seeking to delay his appearance.
so, as of now, excused for 1 day while they go over legal arguments g's putting forward. it may come down to nothing more than that.
 
so, apparently, g is willing to appear virtually, but the terms of his testimony require him to be there in person. He could be there in person, just isn't cleared for air-travel according to a "doctor's note". After his medical procedure he traveled from NY to New Hampshire by car so... everything points to him being ordered to appear in person anyway.
In a court filing Monday, local prosecutors in Georgia said they had obtained records showing that Giuliani had "purchased multiple airline tickets with cash, including tickets to Rome, Italy, and Zurich, Switzerland," for flights between July 22 and July 29. (Willis' office stopped short of stating that Giuliani took those flights.)

"All of those dates were after the witness's medical procedure," a prosecutor wrote, referring to Giuliani, on the eve of his scheduled grand jury appearance.
"Finally," the prosecutor added, "in light of the letter provided to the district attorney suggesting that the witness is not cleared for air travel, the district attorney offered to provide alternative methods of travel for the witness, including bus or train fare." The filing included a screenshot of a August 1 social media post picturing Giuliani in New Hampshire.
In a separate court filing Monday, Thomas conceded that Giuliani had traveled from New York to New Hampshire following his unspecified medical procedure. But he emphasized, in italics, that Giuliani made the trip "by a private car in which he was the passenger."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=d421e5dc04ef4092bcfa42d217756d63
 
so, apparently, g is willing to appear virtually, but the terms of his testimony require him to be there in person. He could be there in person, just isn't cleared for air-travel according to a "doctor's note". After his medical procedure he traveled from NY to New Hampshire by car so... everything points to him being ordered to appear in person anyway.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=d421e5dc04ef4092bcfa42d217756d63
They should collect him with an ambulance.
 
"All of those dates were after the witness's medical procedure,"


They pulled Donny's hand out of his ass?
 
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney...argued the new appearance date of August 17 gave Giuliani “plenty of time to make the trip” from New York to Atlanta by car, according to Bloomberg.
 
Miss Linsey not so special after all..

Federal judge rules that Graham must testify in Georgia 2020 investigation

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.cnn.com.icoCNN|1 hour ago
A federal judge in Atlanta has denied GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham's motion to quash a subpoena, ruling that he must testify before a Fulton County grand jury investigating former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
Isn't this like the third time a judge has ruled this?
 
Miss Linsey not so special after all..

Federal judge rules that Graham must testify in Georgia 2020 investigation

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.cnn.com.icoCNN|1 hour ago
A federal judge in Atlanta has denied GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham's motion to quash a subpoena, ruling that he must testify before a Fulton County grand jury investigating former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
so is that finalised... or will he continue to try and get it denied? jeezus, anyone would think he has something he doesn't want to have to say under oath

oh wait... so it's just certain parts that have been remanded to the superior court for further investigation, but that doesn't cover quashing the entire subpoena as there's lots of material he needs to testify on that isn't covered by that clause
 
Last edited:
With 'Pubs, nothing is final until they get what they want.
 
Back
Top