« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Burris Now Admits He Tried To Raise Money For Blago
This is getting kind of ridiculous. Roland Burris has now admitted he tried to raise money for Rod Blagojevich, at the request of the former governor's brother.
The Chicago Tribune reports:
U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor's brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.Burris' latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.
In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.
Here's the transcript of Burris' comments.
Josh
Zachary
What a fucking nightmarish clusterfuck.
Personally, I'm blaming Harry Reid more than I'm blaming Blagojevich, since Blago clearly isn't entirely sane, yet he still ran circles around Reid. Bobby Rush is pretty fucking high on my shit list right now too.
February 17, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right on.
Run all of them out of their seats.
February 17, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I certainly blame Harry Reid for seating this guy in the first place, I can't blame him for this eventuality.
Had Burris told the truth under oath, I cannot believe that Even Harry Reid would have caved and allowed him in. Who could have predicted Burris would perjure himself in order to get the seat?
Reid's backbone can be as weak as a noodle, but in this it's hard to put all the fault on him.
February 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, there was no legal grounds for not seating Burris at the time. Had perjury been in question then, Burris wouldn't have been seated.
What I'm pissed at Reid about is not provisionally seating Franken. Okay, that's only one of the things on the Pissed at Reid list, but it's a big one, especially when the Senate still needs 60 votes, even when there aren't 100 senators.
PEACE
February 17, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a surprise. Really. Can you tell how surprised I am?
February 17, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Bobby Rush and his race card?
February 17, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
(yawn)
February 17, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who could have ever predicted this???? :-)
February 17, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Up to this point I was with Burris. But now he has simultaneously admitted that he 1) knew it would be wrong to raise money for Blogo while he was seeking the Senate seat, and 2) He did attempt to raise money for Blogo while he was seeking that seat. He should be quietly notifying the new Govenor that a new Senator is needed, and planning to quietly resign as soon as the Govenor has vetted his replacement.
Where do these distracting jokers come from? President Obama needs to get air time to talk up the economy, and Burris provides the media with another story they are only too glad to dwell on. It's just like William Jefferson diluting the impact of Republican corruption; for every corrupt Republican, there was always William Heferson as the counterbalence -- as if the corruption of one Democrat was equal to all the Republican corruption.
February 17, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else feel like we're getting a Terry McAuliffe preview when watching Burris at work?
February 17, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical democrat behavior. Everyone knew who Burris really was but all he had to do was yell "race" and the democrats fall down like always. I could send the most ridiculous proposals over to Harry and threaten him with national security and he would wimp out ever time, heh, heh!
February 17, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad, but true.
February 17, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the upside, the media can talk about a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington after the Senate votes overwhelmingly to remove Burris after he invariably refuses to resign.
February 17, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blago's gift that keeps on giving. Methinks Blago knew the clusterfuck Burris would be to the Dems who didn't stand by him. Blago gave 'em the finger by making an appointment in the first place, and must've known that a) Burris was raising money for him, and b) that Burris was power-hungry enough to lie about it in order to become senator, and c) that there was no legal way to stop it from happening. Maybe I give Blago too much credit, but he's certainly having the last laugh right now.
February 17, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it possible to be that stupid? How was it possible for Burris to ignore the gigantic warning signs, flashing lights, and blaring klaxon horns surrounding Rotten Rod? Is it possible for Illinoisers to recall or impeach this guy?
February 17, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris is a man who's already built his own tombstone and decided to put his resume on it. Undoubtedly, he'll add "Junior U.S. Senator from Illinois" in short order, and neglect to remark that he only lasted a matter of weeks.
February 17, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He named his two children Roland and Rolanda. Yes, really.
That should give us a clue into the guys psyche and priorities.
February 17, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coulda been worse. He could have named both of them after George Foreman.
February 17, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, no fair! Some of us love our grills. It's a sign of affection to name a child after your favorite cooking machine. Just ask my daughter, Blue Flame - she'll tell you!
February 17, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No disrespect intended, as my son, Toaster Oven, will affirm.
February 17, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet he leaves off the "Junior" part.
February 17, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shiny, shiny senatorial appointment? Ooh. Ah. Precious....
February 17, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sitting here dumbfounded. My mind just can't handle the idea that there are corrupt Democratic politicians in Illinois. Ho Boy! That's a new one for me.
February 17, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what's shocking is the brazen nature of both Blago's and Burris' behavior - knowing that they're being closely watched. Maybe they took their cue from Rove & Co., and Republican Senators like Vitter and Craig.
February 17, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to know my initial suspicions were grounded, and that likely, we'll be rid of this narcissist any day now.
February 17, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked. Shocked! Next up: How much did Burris contribute himself . How much did Bobby Rush?
February 17, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roland Burris is a nightmare for the Democrats. Anyone who thinks that he might do the right thing (i.e., resign) is forgetting the show this character put on last month. (By the way, could someone tell Mr. Burris that the royal "we" is appropriate for sitting monarchs, not U.S. Senators?)
February 17, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If so, will he have "Distinguished U.S. Senator" carved on his monument to himself?
February 17, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And his soprano voice is pretty annoying, too.
February 17, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did anyone really think that this guy had a "straight-up" relationship w/Blago? To know him is to be tainted..
February 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
it seems like just yesterday when the senate was being told that they had to seat burris in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
burris lied.
burris was seated.
now what happens is the interesting question.
February 17, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Up until yesterday, Burris still had a lot of apologists here. I hope everyone is finally convinced that this guy is doing our party and our country No Good at all. He's the fruit of Blago, and just as rotten.
I just heard a suggestion that Burris may have just realized that his Blago shenanigans had been taped by the Feds, so he's coming clean now to give the appearance the he wasn't "caught" in a lie. It would make sense.
No matter the reason, Burris needs to go. He's a liability.
In the best case scenario, the Illinois legislature would call for an immediate special election to replace him. Given the state's budget problems, I don't think it's politically realistic for an expensive state-wide race to be held before the regular November cycle.
The fastest way to get rid of Burris may be for the Illinois State Senate to refer him to the State Attorney General for perjury prosecution.
Though I have to wonder if a criminal case wouldn't drag out past November. One problem is that the Illinois AG wants the Senate seat, so she'd likely recuse herself and appoint a special prosecutor. Like his Mentor Blago, Burris suffers no lack of pomposity. Even faced with criminal charges, I would be shocked were Burris to resign. I expect he would fight the charges with all the might, and perhaps all the 'crazy' as is his mentor Blago.
It's probably a roll of the dice as to whether Burris would be convicted before a November special election pushed him out. Were an election scheduled for November, he would be pushed off the Democratic ticket before the end of the summer. Anyone taking bets that he wouldn't then run as an independent?
February 17, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's say Burris refuses to resign. What steps could or might be taken by others to pull him out of office?
February 17, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The optics stink for D's, because no matter what, Burris is gonna fight - just like Blago - and drag this thing out as long as possible and make the party pay for dumping him. So, the real question is how can the D's dump him quickly, and look good while doing it?
But the other question is how willing are the D's to go without another vote in the Senate, and for how long?
The best scenario is that Burris' ego saves the day. Instead of adding "perjurer" and "impeached from the U.S. Senate" in his resume, he may be willing to accept promises of no prosecution or impeachment in exchange for a quick and graceful exit when a replacemnt is ready. But, given how this saga has played out, I wouldn't put any money on that scenario actually coming to pass.
February 17, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firstly, Burris won't resign. He's crazy arrogant, as was pointed out above, Roland Burris named his son Roland and his daughter Rolanda.
How to get rid of him.
1. Maybe, just maybe someone in the IL Senate could convince him to resign in exchange for an agreement not to peruse perjury charges. I'd say this has almost zero chance of working. Burris is just too arrogant.
2. The Illinois legislature can refer charges of perjury to the Illinois State Attorney General. The problem is that the IL AG wants Burris's Senate seat so she'd have to recuse herself. Burris would fight it with all the might and crazy as his mentor Blago,. This would neither be an easy, quiet, nor fast way to remove him.
3. Special Election - As I pointed out above, SE's cost the state a lot of cash at a time when all States are making drastic cuts. November is probably the earliest this could occur. His replacement wouldn't take office until January of 2010. Once again, neither a fast, easy, nor quiet way to remove him.
4. The US Senate could impeach him. Save actual criminal conviction, I just can't see this happening. The US Senate is going to (very intelligently) push this entire mess onto the Illinois Legislature.
5. The Illinois State Legislature "may" be able to impeach him. I've absolutely no knowledge if this is permitted under the IL or US Constitution. If it is allowed, one would expect that it would be a mirror of the Blago impeachment.
If Constitutional, this remedy would probably be the fastest way to remove him. He could by gone by Spring.
February 17, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm fairly certain that a state legislature cannot impeach a sitting U.S. Senator. Also, even a perjury conviction would not automatically remove Roland Burris from office. He'd still need to be expelled by the Senate.
I suspect a perjury conviction would make the expulsion vote almost automatic, but perjury is difficult to prove. I'm not sure whether a perjury indictment alone would be enough.
February 17, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I can tell, there are only two ways to get him out of office. Either the Senate expels him with a two thirds vote (U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 5, cl. 2) or Minnesota enacts legislation to hold a special election to immediately replace him (U.S. Const. Amend. XVII, cl. 2).
Neither is particularly likely. The Senate historically has not expelled members for conduct that occured before their term. (The latest example of this is Senator David Vitter. The Senate dismissed its ethics investigation of his prositution scandal because the conduct occurred while he was still a Representative.) I think the Senate ought to at least consider conduct related to election or appointment, but the Senate is unlikely to expand their ethics inquiries. They are notoriously deferential to other Senators in ethics matters.
Minnesota is unlikely to hold a special election due to the cost. No state wants to incur additional expense in the current fiscal climate. Also, a special election in the immediate wake of the Blagojevich scandal would seem to present a significant opportunity for Republicans.
February 17, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, doesn't Minnesota have enough on its plate without trying to remove one of Illinois' senators, too?
February 17, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. =)
February 17, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minnesota's highly unlikely, since Senator Burris is from Illinois ;)
Illinois voters just overwhelmingly rejected a measure to amend the constitution, so I don't expect them to want to change it to allow special elections.
I think the only remedy is for the US Senate to expel Burris, and I highly doubt that will happen.
February 17, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As mentioned above: Oops. =)
Why do you think that Illinois would need to amend their state constitution to allow for a special election? I would think it could be done with legislation, unless the state constitution has some special provision for this.
February 17, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's in the constitution, but I could be wrong. Last fall there was a measure on the ballot in Illinois to ask voters whether we should convene a constitutional convention, and one of the arguments for that was to implement a recall provision for the governor. I seem to remember some discussion about also putting in the ability to have a special election instead of an appointment, but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.
The measure was overwhelmingly defeated.
I do know there was some talk in the Illinois legislature about instituting a special election, but it didn't go far. They became consumed with impeaching Blagojevich.
February 17, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Reid, Blago, or Burris to blame. Two are well known liars and the other an incompetent dupe. The person to blame is Patrick Fitzgerald, for getting this ball rolling, without having the goods to back it up. What was the rush in outing Blago? Worry that he might appoint someone, in a pay-to-play move? Well guess what?
February 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about Fitz. He could've done a sting. They already knew Blago wanted something from Obama. The administration could've pretended to play the game to both stall the appointment and set the trap. Lame.
February 17, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember Burris's first interviews immediately after he was selected by Blago ... I've lived long enough to have grown well-developed early-warning BS-detectors, and Burris's attitude back then was screaming at me: an egomaniac, an arrogant liar, an unconscionable power-seeker, and totally indifferent to the people he represents. Hell, I got this from just watching TV. So I don't understand why Congress could not see all of this from the get-go as well.
February 17, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're ALL that way... most are better at hiding it though.
February 17, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Toketee, you called it. I thought he saw a loose shiny thing that someone ought to pick up, ought to be his, though he knew ultimately he shouldn't. Did it anyway. Karma's a bitch.
Or to phrase it another way "Get too close to the taint, t'ain't right."
February 17, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Burris resigns holding the shortest senatorial tenure ever, he can chisel that on his mausoleum wall. Another first!
February 17, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it only me or does anyone else have an uneasy feeling that the Blogo,Burris,??? (fill in the blank) has a big shoe yet to fall? I have an bad feeling this is the tip of the iceberg. It's all coming out one drip, drip, drip at a time.
February 17, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blago is still being investigated on mutiple fronts... plenty could come out of that alone. Burris strikes me as similar to Blago in his blatant narcissism, thirst for power, and reckless lying while under close scrutiny. Maybe the similarities don't end there.
February 17, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out Rebecca Latimer Felton, the first woman senator, and oldest to ever start a senate career at 87, was in the senate for only one day. Too bad, Roland. No new mausoleum entry.
February 17, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course, the only reason anyone is making anything of this is that we're all racists, right?
February 17, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
JimmyBobby, clever user-pic.
This is about the Democrats bringing in Burris in good faith, now we find Burris is a liar and violated that good faith.
And yes, you are a racist.
February 17, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you misunderstood JimmyBobby's attempt at humor.
February 17, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
February 20, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I were laughing as I read this blog. But I don't find anything damning in the linked "transcript" of his chat with reporters.
February 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose our definitions of "damning" must differ. I found his press statements to reflect the most ugly and crass parts of our politics.
The best I could say about his statements is that in and of themselves, they were not 'criminal'.
Those same statements become criminal when compared to the transcript of his testimony Under Oath before the Illinois Senate and the signed affidavit he filed earlier this month.
Burris has committed perjury. He is on tape saying wildly different things mere days apart. It would be hard for a jury not to convict him. Burris may argue that he lied to the press, not to the Senate. I don't think a jury would care.
February 17, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I read the transcript, some time in October, Robert Blagojevich called Roland Burris to ask him to hold a fundraiser to raise $10,000 to $15,000 for then-Governor Blagojevich. In the course of that same conversation, Burris asked Robert Blagojevich about the Senate seat. Burris concluded the conversation by telling Robert Blagojevich to call him back after the Presidential election.
When Robert Blagojevich called him back shortly after the election, Burris said that he had looked into organizing a fundraiser, but had discovered that none of his friends were interested in donating. He then suggested that the two of them and Burris' partner go to some other people to see if they could help out.
When Robert Blagojevich calls back a third time, Burris says that he can't raise money for Governor Blagojevich because he wants to be considered for Senator and doesn't want a conflict.
This narrative raises several questions for me. Most notably:
1. Why did Burris raise the issue of the Senate seat in response to a request for fundraising?
2. Was Burris linking his willingness to fundraise for the Governor to the availability of the Senate seat when he told Robert Blagojevich to call him back after the election?
3. How did Burris overlook all three conversations in his initial affidavit to the Illinois legislature?
February 17, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just your opinion re perjury, and it's clearly counter to US law and common sense.
You don't have to like the guy, but why lie about him?
February 18, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
^^^^ in re M Stevens above
February 18, 2009 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's some sort of myth emerging that Burris didn't "really", "technically" commit perjury. That he danced close to the fire, but didn't get burned.
This myth is completely without merit. Roland Burris definitely, positively committed perjury.
For instance, (and there are other instances) he was plainly asked in the Illinois Senate (under oath) about any and all contacts with Blago's people, he lied.
Check the transcript for the questions from Rep. Jil Tracy.
February 18, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, you are trying to create a myth in the opposite direction. In the video he clearly says "Yes [that he had contacts]". If he had said "No, I had no contacts at all" that would have been a lie, but not necessarily perjury.
To be perjury it must be a material misrepresentation. The questioner (Durkin?) dropped the line of inquiry. He should have asked, "Was there any other contact besides this instance you mentioned?" He didn't.
February 18, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why blame Fitzgerald? Think of the alternative: all that malfeasance and hanky panky in the IL government; an appointed senator who greased the wheel (and palms) getting his seat; Blago in office; and all going on with none of us the wiser. Would that really have been better?
A more pressing concern is the damage this episode has wreacked on the concept of appointed office. Not EVERY civil servant who holds a position he won by appointment vs. election is evil, corrupt, duplicitous, etc. Next we'll be asking who'll be paying off Barack to become one of the Supremes! Confidence in public service of all varieties must be restored, but not at the expense of turning office holder's position into a public referendum.
February 17, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, here is the challenge: find an appointed civil servant who didn't grease the skids to get the appointment. Don't worry if it takes a couple of years, needles can be hard to find in haystacks.
February 17, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer this challenge. Find a public appointed official who denied under oath that they had greased the skids.
This is no longer just a question of pay to play, it's one of criminal perjury.
February 17, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that folks continue to believe that agents for the two mobs in Washington have the slightest intent to be honest?
Those who do not play the game and support the mob NEVER get the endorsement for office!
Still... we continue to believe OUR mob is better than THEIR mob... while we continue sliding down the slope, destroying everything in our path... IMHO
February 17, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
BLACK PANTHER, REP BOBBY RUSH,used race and entitlement, to get the opportunist Burris PRES OBAMA'S senate seat.Harry Reid is a Toothless Tiger. Harry being a Mormon,is suppose to be aggressive,I THOUGHT.
February 17, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly don't understand what all the hand wringing is about.
This is the way the system is SUPPOSED to work. If a person has not been convicted of any wrongdoing, elected officials should be allowed to serve. If wrongdoing comes to light, they should be removed through the appropriate channels. And yes they will fight, and yes it will be messy, but that is the way that things operate in Grown Up World.
The Bush administration was perfect example of the opposite approach -- pretend that no one in his administration has ever done anything wrong (even with plenty of public evidence to the contrary) and frustrate or deny all discovery and legal proceedings to the contrary, so as to keep a neat monolithic appearance of competence.
We see how far that got us.
Are we really so naive that we expect none of our elected officials will be corrupt? Of course they will. We're only talking about the reins of the most powerful nation in the world here.
Clearly, the Obama administration has not blocked or slowed down the efforts for Burris's affidavits to come to light. Burris, egomaniac or not, may have calculated that after he was seated, Obama would "have his back," because he's an African American or because it's Obama's former seat and he wouldn't want things to keep getting messier. He may have been that Obama would choose appearances over principle. If that's the case, Burris calculated wrong.
We should be HAPPY about that. Sheesh.
February 17, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've mistaken hand wringing for outrage, there's a difference. And no, it doesn't have to be a long messy affair.
It's not too much to ask a politican to resign when they're dead-to-rights guilty. Many politicians can actually read the writing on the wall and resign before they're indicted.
Unfortunately, Burris is probably not one of those guys.
February 18, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with M Stevens above, Burris will NOT, under ANY circumstances resign. He has a lust for political office that surpasses even the clintons.
Having said that, since we've pretty much established that he is a lying, hypocritical crook, doesn't he, by definition, belong in the U.S. Senate?
February 18, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this isn't a breach of etiquette, but I thought Steve Benen over at WashMo summed up the current state of play nicely:
'In general, "fifth version" and "evolving series of accounts" are phrases controversial politicians should try to avoid.'
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016935.php
February 18, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink