Roland Burris Subpoenaed
I’m one of those who believes that Blago made no monetary deal with Roland Burris in exchange for the Senate seat (which is not to say that Blago didn’t make it very clear that Burris would have to stop calling on Blago to resign).
But IL’s legislative impeachment committee appears to want more assurances from Burris that that is the case. They subpoenaed Burris on Saturday, to appear before the committee on Wednesday.
The group has also issued a subpoena that was served Saturday on Roland Burris, the governor’s controversial choice to fill Illinois’ vacant U.S. Senate seat. The order compels Burris to testify Wednesday.
Given that Burris will be in DC today and tomorrow trying to be seated as Senator, I’d say he’s got a busy few days.
I concur on the “no monetary payment”.
IMHO, to Blago having a Senator in your pocket – which is where Burris would reside – is more valuable to Blago than campaign cash.
Imagine all the havoc a Senator out-of-control could wreak….
I don’t see how the “in-the-pocket” bit works out. One can surmise, but nothing I see forces Burris to take Blago’s phone calls.
Shocking how quickly some legislatures can issue subpoenas isn’t it? Others, say our national ones for instance, not so much. I wonder did they just ask him politely first, or just treat him like an adverse hostile subject from the get go?
I’d say, sad and not shocking.
After Cheney’s revelations last week, I’d say he is deliberately slapping Reid and Pelosi in their collective faces with his virtual glove, daring them to do something.
Planes fall from the sky, Both have long trips home. Cheney revels.
Does this constitute “a cloud” that helps put obstacles in the way of being seated? If so, questions of collusion arise.
On second thought, this seems a bit far fetched. Just waking up.
I suspect that Burris is squeeky clean. Blago would make sure of that, as he no doubt intends to use that as evidence that there were no quid pro quo’s involved.
And I doubt Burris would be Blago’s pet senator. Every blogger will be waiting for him to try to pay Blago back. Burris has to know this, and at least as far as Blago goes he’ll stay squeeky clean.
This subpoena is GOOD for Burris, I think. It’ll give him a forum to show he’s clean.
Boxturtle (Still thinks the honorable thing for Burris to do is step aside)
Good for them for doing what legislatures should do – the only too bad part is that they didn’t act even a bit quicker and have him in there on Fri, before he goes up to be seated, so that if he makes any fraudulent representation to them under oath it would precede the seating showdown.
Agree with you there, MAry.
They were subpoenaing state organizations with 24 hour notice. Why not Burris? If they can really satisfy that nothing untoward went on, then maybe they can get Burris seated in time to get in line for seniority.
Heck he probably would have come voluntarily on the spot. They do not appeared to have wanted that or asked.
I disagree.
Burris has made big donations to Blago, and he has refused to talk about that.
He is late with his lobbying disclosure forms, which is another concern.
By subpoenaing him, you ensure you get to ask him about the things which he is refusing to talk about.
Then they should have laid that foundation by asking him; it would have helped their case.
Do NOT assume Burris is some sort of innocent bystander whom Blago just out of the blue picked to be a U.S. Senator. The question is not whether Burris is getting something out of this, but how much and in what form.
As EW notes above, Burris has been a Blag enabler, along with others, particularly in the Illinois State Senate.
Realistically, however, about all they’ll have after questioning Burris is even more evidence he’s an unprincipled hack.
In other news, I heard State Rep. Tom Cross, R-Oswego, say the other day he wouldn’t be surprised if the vote to impeach Blago would be unanimous. Cross is the GOP Minority Leader and a generally good guy. And I think he’s probably right. Blago’s strength has always been in the Senate; the House side pretty much hates him with varying degrees of passion.
RAMA ??
lol.. sorry, but I have NO idea what your point is…. but fun to read.
.. Um Burris made $1400.00 to Blago, and that was 4 years ago… tell me a Pol, or any one that doesn’t donate to a Dem in there home state. if this was the case, Obama is guilty. of donating to Blago.
shakes heads
“Which is not to say that Blago didn’t make it perfectly clear that Burris would have to stop calling on Blago to resign.”
Which Burris readily did, in exchange for the seat. :O)
But what was hilarious was Burris covering all the bases by refusing to say that the man who just appointed him to the U.S. Senate should NOT resign from his office.
Burris was like: “Yeah, it’s okay for him to appoint a U.S. Senator (namely, me! :o) ) but that doesn’t mean he’s honest enough to stay in office.”
Too good! :o)
But, happily enough, showing up and banging on the door, complete with the media circus hasn’t changed anything. He can’t even start to do any serious bartering with Reid, etc, until he gets White’s signature, and that situation will be resolved by the Ill. Supremes…and I haven’t heard of them rushing to Burris’ aid. :o) I would expect, and hope, that they are no more interested in helping Blago use Burris to embarass the democrats than is the legislature which voted 113-0 to begin looking at impeachment.
And the “legalists” weeping copiously about the “rule of law” being gangraped by Reid and his Senatorial Huns STILL don’t want to answer the question of:
“What’s the hurry?”
They want this resolved instanter. Only the resolution doesn’t involve nailing down Blago’s fitness to drag the democrats through this mud-bath. Too bad. Every day that passes means that the likelihood of Burris’ being seated, gets smaller and smaller.
And eventually, the people flacking for Blago/Burris (including the repubs who’ve discovered their inner Civil Rights supporting selves…:o) ) may have to be posting in support of their guys, while the team leader is being impeached. And if they’ve got the spittle for that, then we’ll see if their zeal extends to doing it if Blago is removed from office.
Tough work for the people who want to protect the “rule of law” by draping a corrupt governor and his unprincipled hack, around the necks of the democrats. :o)
Regarding the subpoena to Burris: I would think that the last thing that Roland Burris (and Blago) want, is Burris giving sworn testimony about their deal. THAT will be watched rather closely. :o) And it only takes one committee member to point out that Burris changed his opinion of Blago’s fitness to govern (and make appointments) 180 degrees, after Blago picked him, to put a bright spotlight on Burris’…flexibility… :o)
And how can Burris refuse the subpoena and have any claim to that Senate seat?
I don’t think we’re going to be hearing Burris make his maiden Senate speech anytime soon, if ever. :o)
Rama@14 ; I understand your point very well.
You’re talking about Blago’s being impeached VERY soon, and the possibility of that vote being unanimous. :o)
True, you didn’t specifically mention that if that happens, it’s going to make it tougher on Burris and the people who want to see him in the Senate, but I think that’s obvious.
Needless to say, I’m looking forward to it. :o)
And yet, Tan ole buddy, Al Franken lurks about anxiously waiting to help make any senate vote the thing of beauty even Reid wants and needs . . . . *G* Good to see ya out and about, hoss! *waves*
I GUESS, the Senate Dem’s don’t NEED these two votes as bad as I thought they did.
EW, thanks for the Burris heads up, it’s not been reported in MANY places and comes to me a new news. ‘Preciate all yer work, ma’am! *G*
Scribe; imagine the havoc this shit is ALREADY wreaking.
We have idiots calling for Reid to resign because he’s trying to keep Blago from planting this time-bomb/hack in the U.S. Senate to embarrass the dems when the roof falls in on Blago.
And the best that can be said of their opinion that the Senate has zero say on whom it accepts, is that that is legally, very debatable, and may wind up in the courts. Which, despite the continued disruption and distraction from our problems, I wouldn’t mind, since it would probably mean that Burris will be trying to gain a Senate seat from an appointment from a politician who has since been removed from office for trying to sell that seat. :o)
You are being disingenuous, at best, with your “statements” on Burris, which are really effectively ill informed and wrong proclamations, about the law. The law is actually fairly straightforward, it is just that it does not comport with your personal whims and views.
The law and the Constitution, and the considered and consistent following of it is far more important than that. Setting a horrendous and unconstitutional precedent is far more dangerous than Mr. Burris.
Hi, Larue. The difference is, it looks like Franken’s seating will be held up while Coleman plays his last card, that being a court challenge. It’s likely that the court will rule in Franken’s favor, and that should be that.
He will have won the seat in a very close election, but he will have won it. He wasn’t appointed by a governor who’s about to be impeached for trying to sell the same seat that he’s trying to slither into. :o)
Good to hear your voice. :o)
No. You are being inaccurate. and pompously so, when you insist that the law inexorably requires that Burris be seated. Article I, Sec. 5 of the constitution clearly gives at least some leeway to the Senate to decide who is fit to come into the Senate.
And there is nothing “ill-informed” about my pointing out what you, for some reason, are so diligently ignoring. That being that Burris is demonstrably, a political hooker, and that he’s been appointed by a politician who is about to be impeached.
The ONLY reason that Blago appointed Burris to that seat is to bedevil the democrats. It has jackshit to do with any qualifications which he may or may not have.
As for your concerns about the “rule of law”, I’ll just point out that when you start to whine about the Illinois legislature exercising it’s clear right to subpoena Burris, it makes those concerns smell like week old mackeral that’s been sitting in the sun.
And, as always in our little debate, I ask you: What’s the Rush? :o)
BTW, since I haven’t seen it posted here at Empty Wheel, so; instead of MY statements, let’s use BURRIS’S statements on Burris :o) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOIKG_T0TA
Because, when he says:
“The evidence that’s been presented is pretty appalling, should that come out to be the case of what our governor was attempting to do. I find it reprehensible.”
to me, that’s a gilt-edge invitation to find out if that WAS what the governor was attempting to do, plus, Burris then couples it with backing up Lisa Madigan in no uncertain terms, when she called for the Illinois Supremes to oust Blago.
And then we have the sordid spectacle of Roland Burris putting his sense of what’s “appalling” and “reprehensible” totally in reverse, and defending Blago (sorta-kinda) for no other reason than Blago’s choosing he, Burris, for that seat.
When you add that to the fact that Burris’s right to be seated with NO say on the part of the Senate, is up in the air, AT BEST, and to the fact that the people who want to see Burris seated are having the screaming thigh-sweats to get it done before the roof starts to fall in on Blago, then it’s time to put the brakes on, and let the…errr…rule of law come into play. :o)
Incidentally, since you’re so worried about the legality of it all, why should you object to the legislature issuing a subpoena to Burris? If he’s squeaky clean, as some people claim, then it will make it more likely for him to be seated. Same thing with Blago; if the legislature impeaches him and then votes him not guilty of anything, think how good Burris will look, and how bad Reid, etc., will look.
OT; Venezuela has expelled the Israeli ambassador and Israeli embassy personnel. I doubt it will help much with stopping the carnage in Gaza, but it can’t hurt.
Well at least we can agree on that. It is still wrong, and inherently disingenuous and misleading to the readers of this blog for you to state that the law is in some grand state of flux. It most certainly is not. And the argument that personal moral objections are grounds for disregarding the Constitution and rule of law is repulsive.
Glad we agree on Gaza.
I never said the law was in a state of flux. I’m saying that there is, at worst, (or best, depending on which side of this you’re on) no basis for claiming that Burris’ right to be seated is absolute. And until someone can come up with something that proves differently, I think it’s fair to say that.
And what’s really repulsive is that some people are using their VERY selective concern for “rule of law”, to help a corrupt and utterly cynical governor punish the democrats by hanging a political hack like Burris around their necks.
If this were a repub situation, we’d be frothing at the mouth we’d be so outraged at the attempt. And we’d be right.
and there is a bottom line here. It’s highly likely that, in the not too distant future, the roof is going to fall in on Blago. That there are people who are frantic to get Burris into that seat before it happens is getting curiouser and curioser.
What. Is. The. Hurry?
Well, hate to say it, but I would take the same position if it were a Republican. I wouldn’t like it, but then I don’t necessarily like this either. You are really not going to like this; I don’t think the delay until Blago is impeached and a new governor can make a different appointment ploy necessarily works either. My inclination, and from what I have been able to discern, Burris is, as he claims, now officially appointed and a successor governor cannot undo that. Now this is a little less clear than the other issues, but that would be my bet.
It looks like Burris is going to be sitting in the Senate based on the choice of a governor who has been removed from office (Or, finally, forced to resign) with, down the road, Fitz dropping an indictment on him like it was an anvil.
Couple with Burris’ demonstrating the instincts of a political whore, someone is going to have pay a price for that. And with the questions about Holder and Emanuel still on the table, and who knows what else when the lid comes off all of this, I just don’t see how it can hurt the american people, the U.S. Senate, Obama’s administration, and not even Roland Burris, if we wait a few weeks.
I do agree, that a successor governor cannot undo it, and the if the Senate let’s him in and then decides it was a mistake, then neither can they, at least not without an uphill fight.
There is NO harm in slow-tracking this. We should do that.