SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/17/2009 12:53:39 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Krauthammer’s Take

NRO Staff
The Corner

From last night’s All Stars.

On Sen. Roland Burris amending his testimony to acknowledge conversations he had with Rod Blagojevich’s brother:

<<< His problem is that it's obvious that he may have told the truth, but surely not the whole truth. He withheld information.

But, secondly, he might actually have lied in saying that he hadn't had contacts with the representatives of the governor.
He now says that the contacts were at a time when he hadn't — he didn't think he was being considered. So he makes a distinction here.

I think the bottom line is that legal perjury he probably will escape, but he's guilty of political chicanery. And what that means is that he won't be indicted and he won't be driven out of office, because his slipperiness is matched only by his tenacity.

He will stay in office, but for reelection in 2010, I think it will be a terrible mistake, and I think he knows that he will be humiliated if he does. So, ironically, it might help Democrats, because he would be a weak candidate who might lose that seat. >>>

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/17/2009 1:28:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Burris follies (cont'd)

USA Today Editorial

People watching Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., squirm at a news conference Sunday might have thought that they had stumbled on a skit by Chicago's Second City improv group. Awkwardly and almost comically, Burris attempted to explain why he hadn't disclosed contacts with several associates of disgraced ex-governor Rod Blagojevich.

Burris had neglected to mention those contacts, including solicitations for campaign money from Blagojevich's brother, in sworn testimony before Blagojevich appointed him to Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

Why Burris disclosed them now is uncertain. He denied Monday that it had anything to do with federal investigators' tapes of Blagojevich's phone calls. But the whole mess offers two clear lessons.

The first is that it was preventable. All it would have taken was for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stick to his original position — that any appointment by Blagojevich was tainted. Instead, Reid rolled over after the Congressional Black Caucus turned the appointment into a race issue. Now it appears that Burris might have taken office under false pretences. Everyone involved should be embarrassed.

The second lesson is that voters, not governors, should fill vacant Senate seats. If the Burris case alone doesn't make that apparent, three other controversies stemming from the 2008 elections do.

In New York, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Senate seat opened up, Gov. David Paterson considered Caroline Kennedy in a messy process that damaged the reputations of both. In New Hampshire, the state's Democratic governor agreed to name a Republican to replace GOP Sen. Judd Gregg, to prevent Senate Democrats from gaining a filibuster-proof majority if Gregg became Commerce secretary. (The deal fell apart when Gregg changed his mind about joining Obama's Cabinet.) And in Delaware, new Sen. Edward Kaufman is regarded as a placeholder for Vice President Biden's son, who's serving in Iraq but expected to seek his dad's old seat in 2010.

Special elections avoid such unseemliness and better express the people's will. Making the switch doesn't require a constitutional amendment, as some have proposed. The 17th Amendment already allows states to hold special elections to fill Senate vacancies. A handful already do. The rest, seeing the Burris spectacle, would do well to follow.

blogs.usatoday.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/17/2009 1:38:18 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Transcript has Burris dancing around the truth

Here's the proof that he really is a lying little sneak


BY MARK BROWN Sun-Times Columnist

Sen. Roland Burris says the transcript of his Illinois House impeachment committee testimony proves he is not a lying little sneak.

It doesn't. But judge for yourself. Here's the excerpt Burris says exonerates him:

Rep. Jim Durkin: "Did you talk to any members of the governor's staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names -- John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody . . . associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor's arrest?"

Burris lawyer Timothy Wright: "Give us a moment." (Wright and Burris confer.)

Burris: "I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes."

Durkin: "I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor's staff prior to the governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the governor?"

Burris: "I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up -- it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat."

****

From that exchange, Burris now says, we were to deduce that when he referred to "friends" and said "yes," he was confirming having been in contact with everyone named by Durkin except Greenleaf.
He blames Durkin for then taking the questioning in another direction.

OK, that might be enough to save the senator from a perjury charge, even though he had previously submitted an affidavit claiming "there was not any contact" between him and Blagojevich's representatives concerning the Senate seat.

But here's what proves he is a lying little sneak.

While Durkin might not have asked Burris to clarify his reference to "friends," his fellow Republican, Rep. Jill Tracy of Quincy, did return to the subject.

Just watch Burris dance.


Tracy: "You said that you had visited friends perhaps in September of '08 or July of '08 concerning a desire to perhaps be appointed as a senator if our president-elect was elected. And could you give me the names of those friends?"

Burris: "I don't think I said in July. I said they were friends that I contacted after the election, but I was talking to people, I mean I don't know who you want as my friends that I consider as persons. For example, when I handled a press conference to express my interest in the seat, was the press conference -- I did hold a press conference, and some of my friends were there, for instance."

Tracy was temporarily sidetracked, then came back to the point.

Tracy: "But I think I earlier heard you today testify that in September '08 or perhaps as early as July '08, you had visited with some friends about your desire to seek the seat."

Burris: "No, I think I testified that that's when I began to express an interest in it. As I saw that --"

Tracy: "And I just was wondering who those friends were."

Burris: "One of them was my law partner."

Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the committee chairman: "Is that when you talked about your interest with Lon Monk? I think that --"

Tracy: "Was it Lon Monk, was that the extent of it was Lon Monk?

Burris: "That came up in our conversation when we were talking about, you know, if he has some excess clients in the lobbying business, you know, as we try to see whether or not he had conflicts somewhere with some type of a client because of his previous relationship with government. That's what we were talking about then.

"And it just came up, and in fact I said, 'Now, Lon, I don't know what's going to happen, but I think I'm qualified to be appointed to the Senate seat.' And Lon said, 'Well, Roland, I think you are, too.' And that was the extent of it."

Tracy: "So you don't recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?"

Burris: "No, I can't recall. Because people were coming to me saying, Roland, you should pursue that appointment, you're qualified, and this was --"

Tracy: "Is there anybody that comes to mind in that light that you can --"


Surely, here was one last chance for Burris to clear the air and mention his contacts with Harris, Wyma or the governor's brother. But who did he name?

Rich Barber, a friend of his from New Jersey.

Case closed.

suntimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/17/2009 2:51:39 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Why did Roland Burris lie?

By Scott
Power line

On February 5 Roland Burris quietly filed an affidavit to correct the testimony he had provided to the Illinois House impeachment panel on January 8. Rep. James Durkin closely questioned Burris regarding his awareness of a quid pro quo for his Senate seat. His answer was that he was not. Burris's affidavit reveals that he was solicited for campaign cash (up to $10,000, according to the Sun-Times) by Governor Blagojevich's brother Robert in connection with Burris's interest in the seat.

What prompted Burris's correction of his testimony? The Sun-Times notes that one of Burris's three conversations with the governor's brother was likely recorded by the FBI. In an interesting story on Burris's affidavit, the AP reports that Robert Blagojevich's attorney states his client believes one of the conversations was recorded by the FBI. Surely the thought must also have occurred to Burris.

The last exchange between Durkin and Burris that is reflected in the transcript posted by the Sun-Times addresses what Burris would have done if he had been aware of a quid pro quo:

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. If you were aware of a quid pro quo, what would you have done? [Discussion about the relevance of the question follows.]

***

MR. BURRIS: Representative Durkin, knowing my ethics, I would not participate in anybody's quid pro quo. I've been in government for 20 years and never participated in anybody's quid pro quo.

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is would you have gone to the federal authorities if you were aware of that?

MR. BURRIS: I have no response to that.


Did Senator Burris ever "go to federal authorities" after he was asked for campaign cash by the governor's brother? Senator Burris appears to have done absolutely nothing after he was solicited for the campaign cash except cross his fingers and hope it wouldn't hurt the possibility of his appointment by the governor.
If the true answer to Rep. Durkin's question is "no," as it seems to be, the true answer must go a long way to explaining Senator Burris's original responses to Rep. Durkin's questions before the impeachment committee.

UPDATE: RealClearPolitics includes Mark Brown's "Perjury or not, Burris at least shows that he's a liar" in its lineup this morning. Brown writes that "our new U.S. senator proved himself to be a lying little sneak."

To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/17/2009 3:44:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Burris Spoke to Friends About Fundraiser

By The Associated Press

CHICAGO - U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged trying to raise money for ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich before being appointed to the Senate.

According to a transcript posted on the Chicago Tribune's Web site , Burris told reporters Monday night in Peoria that after the ex-governor's brother called him, he talked to some friends about putting together a fundraiser.

Burris says he told Rob Blagojevich shortly after the November election that he couldn't get anyone to contribute.

Burris testified to a committee that recommended impeaching the governor that he had told only one Blagojevich associate he was interested in being senator and never offered anything in return.

But he released an affidavit over the weekend indicating he had spoken to four others, and that he was asked for fundraising help.

myfoxdc.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/18/2009 5:46:07 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Can Illinois just get rid of all their political leaders?

Betsy' Page

Now that political observers have been gifted with more ridiculous stories from Senator Burris about how he just forgot that he'd been approached by Blagojevich's brother to raise money before Burris was tapped to be senator, we can ask some more questions about the competence of Illinois's elected leaders. The Chicago Sun Times wonders why it took over a week for news of his corrected affidavit to come out.


<<< Burris' attorney alerted House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) on Jan. 23 that Burris wanted to supplement his testimony before the impeachment panel, which she chaired. On Feb. 5, the affidavit was sent to Currie's office.

Currie picked it up with her mail at her Chicago office at the end of the week and brought it to her Springfield office on Feb. 9, said Steve Brown, a spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Currie looked at only the first page of the affidavit, which Brown said involved Burris' lobbying clients. On Feb. 11, House staff attorneys got the affidavit from Currie's office, looked at it briefly and locked it in their office and left town, Brown said. >>>

She gets a correction to Burris's affidavit and doesn't bother to read it or give it to her aides to read for almost a week! Wasn't she curious as to what he was changing? Is there anyone in that state who is at all competent?

Was getting this lying weasel sworn in as senator really worth not running the risk that a Republican might, in this solidly blue state, actually win a special election?

betsyspage.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/18/2009 5:57:13 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Burris's Non-Responsive Response

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Roland Burris gave a speech today, but wouldn't respond to questions about his alleged perjury related to the Blagojevich affair:

<<< “If I had done the things I’ve been accused of, I’d be too embarrassed to stand up here,” Burris said.

"Stop the rush to judgment. You know the real Roland. I have done nothing wrong and I have absolutely nothing to hide," he told the City Club of Chicago.

Burris also attacked the media for picking on him using "selective sound bites," saying he would not comment because of the pending state and Senate probes into his appointment. >>>

Via Twitter, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz sounds a skeptical note: "Roland Burris says he will no longer engage the media. Huh? That's how he got to Senate in the first place. Now journalists can't be trusted?"

A Democratic congressman, Phil Hare, joins those calling on Burris to resign, along with state representatives Lou Lang and Bill Brady.

Any other prominent lawmakers from Illnois want to weigh in on this?

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/21/2009 1:53:59 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
I Only Spoke to One Person About the Appointment. and by That Number I Mean 'Six.'

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

You read details like the following and wonder what, precisely, the likes of Sen. Dick Durbin are waiting for, regarding Sen. Roland Burris:

<<< All told, Burris called [Blagojevich's chief of staff, John] Harris, who resigned after he was criminally charged Dec. 9, four times in the weeks following the Nov. 4 election and appears to have spoken to Harris on Nov. 26, phone records show.

In the Feb. 4 affidavit, which has set off a political wildfire because it dramatically altered earlier sworn statements, Burris acknowledged only reaching out to Harris once last October and getting a return phone call three weeks later.

Burris depicted his discussion with Harris as having included a passing reference to the Senate seat. But sources say Burris made a hard pitch to Harris — as well as other Blagojevich aides — about being named to Barack Obama’s seat.

Burris initially gave the committee a sworn statement Jan. 5 that indicated he had no contact with any Blagojevich representatives about the appointment before Dec. 26. Testifying three days later, Burris altered his earlier account by acknowledging speaking to former Blagojevich chief of staff Lon Monk about his interest last summer.

Then, in a huge turnabout, Burris gave the committee the Feb. 4 affidavit, stating he spoke to five other Blagojevich insiders about the job, including the ex-governor’s brother.

Burris said Robert Blagojevich, chairman of the governor’s campaign fund, contacted him about fund-raising, “but I did not give one single dollar to the governor.” >>>

There's quite a bit of space between "I spoke to one person, once, and only mentioned the position in passing" and "I spoke to six representatives and had at least four phone conversations, made a hard pitch for the job, and tried to do some fundraising for the governor."

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/21/2009 1:59:21 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Blago's Replacement: Burris Should Resign

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Very big deal: Illinois' Democratic Governor, Pat Quinn, just called on Senator Roland Burris to resign.

Mr. President, care to join the chorus?

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)2/27/2009 12:17:50 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
More News from the Distinguished Junior Senator from Illinois

Kathryn Jean Lopez
The Corner

The impeached governor got Burris's son a job.

<<< BURRIS' SON GOT STATE JOB FROM BLAGO

SCANDAL MUSHROOMS: He serves as housing authority counsel despite facing foreclosure on his own home >>>

suntimes.com

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)5/27/2009 4:12:41 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
[edit dupe]



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)5/28/2009 12:14:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
So . . .

By Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

When is the Senate going to eject Roland Burris? It seems pretty obvious to me that he lied to the Illinois House impeachment committee, at a minimum.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)5/28/2009 1:06:11 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Burris Tapes

David Freddoso
The Corner

Sen. Roland Burris (D, Ill.) wants the world to believe that the wiretap in which he was recorded speaking with Robert Blagojevich (brother of the former Illinois governor) somehow exonerates him. In fact, even if it provides no evidence that he "bought" a Senate seat, the wiretap actually shows that Burris has twice offered false information under oath.

The public was already aware of the false information in the first affidavit he submitted regarding his conversations on this matter. This tape confirms that and further reveals that he did not tell the whole truth in a second affidavit, in which he offers an account of the taped Nov. 13 conversation that is incomplete in a way both misleading and self-serving.

By the end of Burris's taped conversation with Robert Blagojevich, Burris says he is perfectly willing to write a check to Blagojevich and get others to do so as well, even if it gives the impression that he is scratching the governor's back in exchange for a Senate appointment (which he surely was doing, in any event).

"If you guys can just write checks, that'd be fine,"
says Robert Blagojevich, near the end of the conversation. "Okay, okay, well we, we, I, I, will personally do something," comes Burris's reply.

In a Feb. 4 affidavit, Burris described the same conversation thus:


<<< I mentioned the Senate seat in the context of saying that I could not contribute to Governor Blagojevich because it could be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with him regarding his decision to appoint a successor to President Obama. >>>

That's all he has to say about the content of the conversation. The affidavit concealed a very important and relevant part of the conversation: Burris's agreement to raise and/or contribute money for the governor.

On the tape, Burris promised to do his "something" for Gov. Blagojevich by Dec. 15. His explanation now that he gave no money to the governor is almost irrelevant.
Burris might have followed through, had the governor not become subsumed by scandal weeks later. Recall that the Chicago Tribune revealed the existence of the Blagojevich wiretap on Dec. 5, days before the governor's Dec. 9 arrest. Moreover, consider Burris's statement in February that he tried to raise money for the governor.

Implicit throughout the taped conversation is the notion that Burris should be doing something for the governor if he really wants to stay in the running — as Robert Blagojevich put it, "[Y]ou and one million other people of every race, color, creed and faith" want the seat. Pushed by the governor's fundraiser-brother, Burris finally overcomes his scruples that any help for Gov. Blagojevich will look like a quid pro quo. He agrees at least to write a personal check, perhaps to tie into someone else's fundraiser, maybe even to make an illegal donation in his lawyer's name. But hey, he adds, don't forget to tell Rod that I still want that Senate seat.

Burris's original untrue statement came in a Jan. 5 affidavit submitted to the Illinois House Impeachment Committee, Burris swore that prior to Dec. 26, "there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Gov. Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment." When questioned under oath before the committee three days later, he offered up a big: "Oh, you mean THAT conversation with a representative of the governor about the Senate appointment!" Burris admitted he had spoken to the governor's former chief of staff, Lon Monk, about the Senate seat, but under oath he couldn't recall speaking to anyone else.

A month later, after receiving the appointment, Burris's memory suddenly improved ("Oh, you mean THOSE conversations!"). And so to clarify the record, he filed the Feb. 4 affidavit — the same one that misrepresents his conversation with Robert Blagojevich. That affidavit also admits that he had spoken about the appointment with John Wyma, John Harris, and Doug Scofield, all of whom could be considered "representatives" for Rod Blagojevich. That is a lot of things to forget and re-remember.
As one Democratic state representative told the Associated Press at the time, "You would think those would be the kind of people you'd remember you had a conversation with."

Sen. Burris did not distinguish himself when he cooperated in the fallen Gov. Blagojevich's attempt at self-rehabilitation — the real purpose of his Senate appointment. But no satisfactory explanation exists for the untrue statements he has offered up to the media and under oath, and the tape only makes things worse for him. If this is not enough for the Senate to do something about Roland Burris, it is hard to imagine what would be.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (29354)6/9/2009 5:41:50 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Culture of Corruption, Part Twelve

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

The editors of the Washington Post rip into Democratic Illinois senator Roland Burris, for his obvious efforts to help out former Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich:

<<< We warned that anyone who accepted the appointment from Mr. Blagojevich to fill Mr. Obama's Senate seat would be suspect. With each passing month, Mr. Burris proves us right. He proves why the power to fill Senate vacancies should rest with voters at the ballot box in a special election. And he proves why he should resign. >>>

Yes, yes, but it is worth noting how, precisely, the people of Illinois ended up in this mess. Illinois Democrats, with the honorable exception of Dick Durbin, staunchly opposed a special election to fill Obama's seat. And the president, who has no hesitation about weighing in on everything from the true interpretation of Islam to who should run GM to whether college football should have a playoff system to whether western democracies should ban the hjiab, suddenly had nothing to say about who should replace him in the Senate or how his successor should be chosen.

If Barack Obama had said there ought to be a special election, there would have been a special election. It's that simple.

campaignspot.nationalreview.com