Lindsey Graham helped coach Alito prior to Hearings

[leftupnorth]

Does this make sense NOW? Considering the staged crying jag by Mrs. Swift Boat?

from WaPo via DailyKos:

"On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the "gang of 14" who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House."

Did everybody miss this connection?

I can see it now:

Graham: "ok, Mrs Alito, when i ask sammy if he's a closet bigot, you pluck out a nose hair and start bawling, ok?"

Mrs. Swift Boat: "got it - closet bigot - i'll write that down."

Maybe I just missed other people talking about it.

[yourout]

1. This is a serious ethics violation in my mind.

I would be be pissed as hell if it was a Dem coaching a Dem also.

[sakabatou]

2. Definitely

Graham should recuse himself.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Yep...You Missed It

The first DU posts yelling this to be a gimmick came out here while Martha's tears were still running.

Let's just imagine this were 1996 and Ted Kennedy or Chuck Schumer were coaching Stephen Breyer and what the right wing hyenas would be howling at that! The corporate media's so corrupted and conflicted with the Repugnican party now, they MUST carry the spin for self preservation. These goons know their game is being unraveled and their fighting as hard as they can to stop the damage and attack any and all that speak truth to power.

Cheers...

[Marie26]

4. So why isn't he on the list of attendees that Alito gave to Feingold?

If they're trying to cover up Graham's involvement, that seems like an even bigger ethical violation.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. I seems to me that, ethically

speaking (if we can use the term in connection w/ a Repuke), that that Southern snake-oil hawker should have recused himself from the public hearing. But then, so should Alito recuse himself in future from any case involving any one of those 3rd Circuit Court judges, and you heard the way he slithered out of that moral dilemma. God, you always think they couldn't possibly slide any further down the immorality scale, and then they manage to amaze once again. Where will it stop? :banghead: SG

[ThomWV]

6. For Those Who Do Not Understand What This Means

Its pretty simple when you understand the background, not so simple if you don't. Here's the problem.

While the entire Senate has to vote to confirm a Judge the actual 'interview' is done by the Judiciary Committee. After questioning the nominee for the court and any other witnesses the committee will make a recommendation on the nominee to the full Senate. That recommendation has great sway on the matter. The Senate will, in turn, vote to accept or reject the nominee.

Pretty simple.

The problem in this case is that Senator Graham, who will vote to indicate that Alito's answers were perfectly acceptable to him, was through his own coaching supplying that answers that Alito would mouth in public.

So Graham supplied the answers which he would them claim directed his vote to be in the affirmitave. This, even though the rest of the Senate relys on his impartiality in the matter.

The word that you are looking for is unethical.

[havocmom]

7. Thanks for laying it all out so well.

Many here tend to forget not all readers of DU have been political junkies. It is good to help educate those who are new to the game.

Thanks again. Through helping lurkers get up to speed, we get the message out to more and more people. When MSM is part of the problem, getting the message out becomes critical. Education on the issues and understanding background helps folks spread the word. ;)

We'll save America yet.

[redqueen]

8. .

:kick: