Giuliani is the subject of an investigation for alleged electoral interference in Georgia

Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is the subject of an investigation by the attorney general of Fulton County (which includes Atlanta) for his alleged interference to alter the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, according to one of the reports. his lawyers to the NBC News network.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham must appear as a witness before a grand jury for this investigation after a judge rejected his appeal.

Robert Costello, Giuliani's attorney, told NBC News that the Georgia District Attorney's Office argued in a New York court that his client was a key witness and therefore required to appear.

This development suggests that there is substantial evidence linking him to a crime, although it is not entirely clear what implications it will have.

In the federal system, a target of an investigation is defined as “a person with respect to whom the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant. ”.

However, the Georgia investigation is a state case where this definition may not apply.

If prosecutors want to know about the conversations between Trump and Giuliani, Costello said his client will not reveal it because of the privilege that exists between a lawyer and the person he represents.

He stated that the attempts to learn about these communications were "delusional".

Giuliani, at a press conference in November 2020 in Washington.AP

Federal District Judge Leigh Martin May, in Atlanta, for his part rejected Senator Lindsey Graham's arguments for not having to testify in court.

Among other things, he ruled invalid the claim that the Constitution protects the South Carolina Republican because of the speech and debate clause.

Graham's attorneys had argued that Graham did not have a reason to testify for a November 2020 phone call she made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, claiming it had a legislative purpose and was therefore protected by that phone call. constitutional clause.

This is a developing story.

Please check back for updates.