Burris Did Not Want to Reveal His Conversations–and He Didn’t
Check out this video of Roland Burris’ testimony before the IL Legislative Committee. Here’s the transcript, on the interactions between Burris and his lawyer.
Rep. Jim Durkin: Prior to his arrest, did you have any conversations with the governor about your desire to be appointed to the seat?
Roland Burris: No.
Durkin: OK. Did you talk to any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including with family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including oh, let me throw out some names: John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenlee, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody who was associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor’s arrest?
Burris (confers with his attorney off-mic and says): 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 was closely related to the governor?
Burris (again confers with attorney and says): 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-maybe it was in July of ’08 and you know, ‘If your close to the governor, well let him know that I will feel certainly interested in the seat.’"
Durkin: OK.
Durkin lists off a list that includes all five people whom Burris has now admitted speaking to about the seat and other issues. Burris’ lawyer seems to know immediately that Burris is going to need help with the question and asks for a moment to confer. Burris gives his attorney a short explanation, the attorney responds with one word (seemingly telling him he has to reveal it), and the elaborates that advice. Burris then gives his weasely answer, "I talked to some friends." Durkin tries again and asks what was in effect a simple yes or no question about whether Burris had talked to anyone on the Governor’s staff or "was closely related" to the Governor.
Rather than saying yes, or starting with those closest to the Governor (his brother), Burris launches into a vague answer about Lon Monk.
And he never gets around to revealing that conversation in which Rob Blagojevich discussed fundraising in the context of the Senate appointment. And here–from later in the transcript–is Burris trying to avoid answering whether or not he would have turned the Blagos in if they asked for a clear quid pro quo.
Durkin: At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?
Burris: No sir.
Durkin: Ok. If you were aware of a quid pro quo, what would you have done?
(Burris’s lawyer calls it a hypothetical question and inappropriate. Durkin calls it "highly relevant" and what his response would have been. Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) says his response to something that did not occur was "irrelevant" and "speculative." Durkin says its "germane" to the hearing and a "reasonable request" of what he would have done. Burris’ lawyer says Burris will respond because he wants to be "clear and open.")
Burris: Rep. 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.
Durkin: I guess the point is, would you have gone to the federal authorities if you were aware of that?
Burris: I have no response to that.
Let me answer this for you, Representative Durkin: No. Burris would assuredly not go to the Feds if he were offered a quid pro quo.
Obviously, I’m not a juror or a court of law, but I’d say the evidence suggests Burris operated with clear intent in hiding both his conversation with Rob Blagojevich and the quid pro quo conversation they had.
Marcy reminds of me of Norman Mailer’s campaign slogan from decades ago, when he ran for mayor of New York. He lost, but that slogan? Bessever in amurkan politics:
“No more bullshit!” :o) :o) :o)
If keeping this sleaze out of the U.S. Senate would jeapordize the rule of law, then I say crash it, and let’s start over again.
Well, I will give you credit for finally announcing and making crystal clear the truth; you care much more about keeping this one petty little man out than you do about upholding the rule of law or the thought of setting a horrid precedent that could be infinitely abused in the future. You are about the imperious rule of gilded men and not the rule of law. Thank you for your belated honesty.
Welp, before Burris was seated there was no evidence, only suspicion. Now that there’s some evidence, it’s time to get started using the available mechanisms to remove Burris for cause. Seems pretty straightforward.
I agree. But I see nothing in the testimony that would enable perjury charges. It makes Burris look slimy (again), but there’s nothing there that would prompt the US Senate to reopen this can of worms.
My prediction stands: Burris serves out this term as a non-entity, both Dems and GOP keep clear of him. He’ll be the 2nd most Junior Senator once Frankin is seated and he’s at the bottom of the list now. He’ll be treated as such (at best).
After a short, undistinguished career he’ll decide not to run for re-election largely because the GOP AND the Dems will sponsor a strong runs against him.
Boxturtle (Still holds that Burris is no more corrupt than any other politician)
The perjury would come from the first affidavit, in which Burris said,
Still really hard to prove, but Burris categorically ruled out any contacts with Blago’s representatives. It’s impossible to suggset that neither Harris nor RobBlago were Blago’s representatives.
I think there is a prima facie case here. Not at all sure they will get a conviction if Burris takes the stand and gives a shuck and jive to dispel the intent element, but it does look like a prosecutable case. What are the dynamics in the county attorney’s office in that county? What are the odds that Mike Madigan will have his pliable little daughter do the deed? There is a foundation there apparently; now, as always in Chicago and Illinois, it is up to politics. I wonder how they will play out?
Agree not very forthcoming, and, in fact, seems to be concealing. However, without more, I don’t think Burris’ affidavit lends itself to any determination that there was a quid pro quo“. Not that you would ever expect such an affidavit to admit such a thing, but consistent with that, I don’t think this one did.
he wanted the appointment enough to do what he had to get it… he needs a lawyer to coach him on what to say and not say.. looks pretty obvious to me… as for the law – that is designed by lawyers for lawyers in a not so sophisticated game of bullshit… who wins is anyone’s guess, but is almost never the folks the law is supposed to protect…
is there room for a few more lines of inscription on burris’ tomb ???
we need to add a few lines:
Piece of shit liar
and
second stupidest man on the planet
that oughta do it …
And thus, I have a perjurer representing me in the Senate, at least in part thanks to those who say there is no way for the Senate to block a likely perjuror whose likely perjury involves their very selection to the senate unless we can prove it using the rules of criminal law.
And those same people were the concern trolls worried about how I was lacking representation.
I think the concern trolls who reside here know who they are. Thanks.
Were I in your position, I think my complaints would lie with the slow-to-impeach MN state legislature and with Harry Reid for preventing the special election. And now that there is actual evidence of corruption, I would sure as hell be pressing the MN government to prepare for selecting a Burris replacement with all deliberate haste. As to whether you are currently being represented or not, which of his votes do you think Burris has made as a result of corrupt influence?
Ach, sorry sorry sorry, got Franken/Colemen on the brain — I meant MI, not MN, obviously.
Well chief, would you believe IL?? Heh heh.
LOL! Hey, besides being heavily under the weather, I’m from the Left Coast — so all them damn upper middle states look the same to me… snow, smokestacks, proximity to Canada, etc. …
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa…