Ethics Question

11 January 2006

Sen. Graham was at a White House "moot court" session last Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The question was raised soon after as to weather he violated the ethics rules, particualrly Rule 37 Conflict of Interest. This rule states that "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties."

The Committe's interpretation of the Rule is the following:

The Committee has interpreted this paragraph to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual’s Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties.

I admit that his mere attendance at the session constitutes an apeearant impropriety, however there are other questions that need to be asked rather than the allegation being lightly thrown around that he broke the rule.

The New York Times follwoed up on this matter today in an editorial.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who serves on the Judiciary Committee, joined a session at the White House last week to prepare Judge Alito for the hearings. (Senator Graham concedes that he spoke with Judge Alito in the White House's executive offices, but denies that their conversation was to help prepare the judge.) This report casts doubt on Senator Graham's ability to exercise his committee duties impartially.

Appearant impropriety number is that he spoke with Judge Alito after the "moot court" session. He states that it was not anything about preparing the judge for the hearings. I don't agree about the doubt cast on Sen. Graham's ability to discharge his committee duties impartially. Despite his opening statement.

I think you're going to be just fine. I don't know what kind of vote you're going to get, but you'll make it through.

It's possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won't even try to challenge you along those lines. I feel very comfortable with you being on the Supreme Court based on what I know. And the hearings will be helpful to all of us to find out some issues that are important to us.

Many of the people alleging the ethics violation claim that his presence at the "moot court" session led to the opening statement. I do not agree. Sen. Graham was looking to the nature of what the vote and result will likely be. He has been a supporter of Judge Alito since the nomination was announced. It is always possible to talk somone out of a vote, but it is difficult to do.

I think that the questions he asked Judge Alito during round 1 are telling. They were difficult questions and debunk any thought that him being present at the "moot court" session biased his ability to be fair and discahrge his committee duty appropriately.

It appears from his comments in the Times that he was only an observer at the "moot court" session and not a participant. However, questions need to be answered. What was his role at the "moot court" session? Was he ans observer or a participant? If a participant, how much? Did he ask questions, give feedback, coach? Did this effect the discharge of his committee duties?