Five things to know about the Georgia probe into Trump and his allies

The criminal probe into former President Trump and his allies in Georgia took a striking turn this week, with subpoenas being issued to several high-profile figures.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and conservative lawyers John Eastman, Jenna Ellis and Cleta Mitchell are among those subpoenaed.

The headline-making move puts new focus on a criminal investigation that has got less attention than the work of the House Select Committee on Jan. 6. 

But some experts believe it could end up being just as important.

Here are some of the most salient points about the Georgia probe.

What’s it all about?

The probe, at its core, is about whether laws were broken by Trump and his team in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

Georgia was among the closest of the battleground states in the election, with President Biden eking out a victory by roughly two-tenths of a percentage point.

The post-election efforts by Team Trump to change that result have been particularly vivid — mostly thanks to a phone call the then-president made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021. 

In the call, which was taped, Trump pressed Raffensperger to “find” the number of votes required to overturn Biden’s margin of victory. 

Raffensperger resisted Trump’s efforts and has rebutted his false claims of election fraud.

At a public hearing of the Jan. 6 committee on June 21, Raffensperger insisted, “The numbers are the numbers, and numbers don’t lie.” 

There were other efforts by Trump’s team in Georgia as well, including a state Senate hearing at which Giuliani made claims of fraud that have been debunked; and a letter that a Trump ally in the Department of Justice wanted to send to Georgia lawmakers.

The proposed letter was so aberrational that even then-White House counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly described it as “a murder-suicide pact.”

Authorities in Georgia, led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, have been investigating these actions, among others.

Willis’s office, as The New York Times has noted, has previously said it is investigating whether any of these acts rise to the level of “solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

A grand jury began sitting in May.

Those proceedings are continuing, hence this week’s subpoenas.

Some experts believe the Georgia probe poses the greatest threat to Trump

The Georgia probe could in the end be the most dangerous legal arrow aimed at Trump.

One reason is the recorded phone call with Raffensperger. 

In addition to the ominous request to “find” votes, the then-president also implied, in vague terms, that Raffensperger was complicit in election fraud or was willfully ignoring it. This, Trump warned Raffensperger, was “a criminal offense.”

Raffensperger has said he viewed Trump’s words as a threat.

Last month, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told MSNBC’s Katie Phang, “Donald Trump has zero defense in Georgia. If I had to put my money on one prosecution that’s going to go forward here that will send Donald Trump to jail — it’s Georgia.” 

Of course, Trump and his supporters see things completely differently.

“I did NOTHING wrong in Georgia, but others did,” the former president wrote on Truth Social on Thursday, apparently responding to news of the subpoenas. “They CHEATED in the 2020 election and those are the ones that should be investigated (and prosecuted).” 

The DA seems to like her chances

Willis, the district attorney leading the probe, is exuding confidence so far.

In an interview with Yahoo News last month, she spoke about her willingness to enforce subpoenas even on recalcitrant, high-profile witnesses. 

“I’ve had a witness arrested before because they ignore my subpoena. And you do not expect to have to do it. But I will,” she said.

In the same interview, Willis said she feels “great” about the make-up of the grand jury and underlined the importance of maintaining the integrity of elections — something she traced back to lessons learned from her father, a onetime Black Panther who became a lawyer.

She recalled being “dragged to the polls” as a young girl and added: “So you understand very, very early on, voting is such an intrinsic right … And so I understand how important the infraction on someone’s right to vote is. So I do get the significance.” 

In a separate interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Willis promised that she will be guided only by whether the facts would support criminal prosecution.

“If we can do that, I’m going to bring an indictment — I don’t care who it is,” she said. 

But if it’s Trump, any trial will be a sensation.

Some key figures have already testified

The Georgia grand jury has already heard testimony from other key witnesses.

Raffensperger appeared before it in private in early June — before he testified to the House Select Committee in public.

According to The Associated Press, Raffensperger told one reporter on his way into the Georgia proceedings that his testimony would be “hopefully short” — but ended up staying for more than five hours. 

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has been subpoenaed and is expected to testify before the grand jury later this month. 

Kemp, like Raffensperger, resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the elections. Trump then backed challengers to both men in Republican primaries this year. In the end, Raffensperger and Kemp both survived, dealing Trump his most notable defeats of this year’s election season to date.

CNN reported in May that “several individuals” who were willing to serve, on specious grounds, as pro-Trump electors in Georgia have also been interviewed. The CNN report said these people had been told they were “considered witnesses, rather than subjects or targets” — suggesting that Willis might be more interested in what they can reveal than in charging them.

A decision on charges could come soon — or not

Willis, despite her expressions of confidence, has shifted around when it comes to predicting a timetable for when the grand jury might finish its work.

In January, she told The Associated Press she expected a decision on whether to bring charges “in the first half of the year.” 

But in an NBC News interview this week, Willis said she was “not in a rush” to finish. She also said that, if a decision had not been reached before early voting in the midterm elections begins, she would halt activities until after the election.

The grand jury, empaneled in May, can sit for up to a year. But a decision on whether to charge, or not, can come at any time.