Spin the ethics of this around in your head for just a moment. Imagine a world where a senator is tasked with being a juror in a case where his best golfing buddy and boss is accused of making a phone call that was illegal — and which led to a great many other illegal things. Then it comes to light that the juror himself also made a call to the same party, which is also illegal — or better yet, read this. Washington Post:

“So Graham is sitting in judgment on Trump on a charge that cites Trump’s call to Raffensperger, while Graham may be a person of interest in a criminal investigation of his own call to Raffensperger,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who studies legal ethics. “Outside the Senate’s Wonderland court, a potential juror who is under investigation for conduct that is also the subject of the trial would be excused for cause.”

You see the ethical quandary — or maybe it’s an un-quandary in this political climate but everywhere else in the sane and civilized universe it would be considered an ethical problem to be corrected immediately. Not in the United States senate, though.

Here’s the back story:

…the inquiry by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will include an examination of the call Graham, a staunch Trump ally, made to Raffensperger 10 days after the Nov. 3 election.

During their conversation, Graham asked the Georgia secretary of state whether he had the power to toss out all mail ballots in certain counties, Raffensperger told The Washington Post in an interview days later. He said Graham appeared to be asking him to improperly find a way to set aside legally cast ballots.

Who, Lindsey? Pshaw. He said that he was only “seeking information to better understand how the state verified mail ballots.” Lindsey is guilty of tireless curiosity, nothing more.

The call will “be looked at,” said the individual familiar with the investigation — though the person cautioned that little is known about the call for now, or whether Graham violated any laws.

On Friday, Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said the notion that Graham’s call was improper was “ridiculous.”

“Sen. Graham was asking about how the signature verification process worked,” Bishop said. “He never asked the Secretary of State to disqualify a ballot cast by anyone. The timing on this is also quite curious. It seems to be a less than transparent effort to marginalize anyone who helps President Trump.”

This is the state of play. In the meantime, don’t lose sight of the fact that if this were a mystery novel we’re living in, it would be patently obvious that the juror is potentially an accomplice, maybe even a co-conspirator of the defendant’s — but not to worry, he will render judgement on the guy impartially. Right. That would never fly for a moment in the world of fiction, but in this twisted reality we live in, that’s how it goes.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

4 COMMENTS

  1. “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”
    Mark Twain

    Nothing in this reality has to, specially when so many people are ethics free zones.

  2. Hmm. Raffensperger (who was a party to the conversation) says that Graham asked him about tossing ballots while “Graham spokesman” Kevin Bishop (who presumably was NOT a party to the conversation) says Graham was asking about the verification process.

    I think, if I were a juror, I’d believe Raffensperger’s account. (I also wonder if Bishop would be willing to swear–under oath and penalty of perjury–to his current account?)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here