« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
How Damning Is The Burris Transcript?
So what to make of the transcript of that phone call, released earlier this week, between Roland Burris and Robert Blagojevich, brother of the disgraced former Illinois governor?
The crux of the conversation -- which took place in mid November, before the then-governor's arrest -- involves Burris explaining to Blagojevich frere that he'd very much like to hold a fundraiser for the governor and otherwise help him politically, and is also interested in being named to Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat. But he's afraid of how things would look if he raised money for Blago, then got the Senate appointment. So he mulls organizing a fundraiser "in the name of" his law partner, for appearances' sake.
Here's the key excerpt from the transcript:
BURRIS: And I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this and still be in the consideration for the appointment.BLAGOJEVICH: I hear ya. No, I hear ya.
BURRIS: And, and if I do that I guarantee you that, that will get out and people said, oh, Burris is doing a fundraiser and, and then Rod and I both gonna catch hell,
BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.
BURRIS: And if I do get appointed that means I bought it.
BLAGOJEVICH: Mmmm.
BURRIS: If I don't get appointed then my people who I'm trying to raise money from are gonna look at me, yeah, what, what's that all about Roland. I mean, so, Rob, I'm in a, I'm in a, a dilemma right now wanting to help the governor.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
BURRIS: I mean I, you know I, I have been with him on all of the, all the issues and I'm now trying to figure out what the hell the best thing to do.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
BURRIS: I know I could give him a check.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
BURRIS: Myself.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
BURRIS: And, and my law partner we were gonna try to do something at the law firm. I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright.
BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.
BURRIS: Okay, 'cause Tim is not looking for an appointment, okay.
In terms of the narrow conversation at hand, there are two ways to look at it: the more charitable one, which Burris himself has been putting out in recent days, is that the conversation shows Burris never made any explicit quid pro quo with Team Blago. Doing things like asking one's law partner to hold a fundraiser for an elected official to whom you want to show support is just how politics works. And the fundraiser never happened.
The less charitable one, favored by most of the media, is that both Burris and Rob Blagojevich clearly understood that the issues of political support for the governor, and of Burris' desire for the Senate seat were being discussed in tandem, and that the former could affect the latter. And Burris talked about using his law partner's name to obscure the nature of the fundraising support he was giving Blago. All this contradicts Burris' earlier assurances, including under oath, that he hadn't spoken to the Blago camp about raising money.
But the narrow focus on the wording of the conversation obscures a larger issue. Ever since Burris was named to the seat by the governor -- who by then had been charged with trying to sell the seat, among other crimes -- the public line from both Burris and Blago was that, whatever you thought about the governor's plight, Burris had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
As Rep. Bobby Rush put it at that remarkable press conference the three men held in late December: "[Burris] has not, in 40 years of public service, had one iota of taint on his record as a public servant." And Burris himself, asked soon after whether anyone might have spoken to the governor about the appointment on his behalf, answered: "I have no knowledge of that. And -- and if they did, there was certainly no pay-to-play involved, because I don't have no money." It was only thanks to assurances like those that Harry Reid ultimately agreed to have Burris seated -- bucking the widespread initial reaction that anyone Blago appointed under the circumstances was by definition tainted.
Explicit pay-to-play aside, we've known for a while now that the idea that Burris is squeaky clean -- that is, that he wasn't making an overt pitch for the seat at the same time that he trying to help Blago politically -- is a fiction. But the transcript of the call makes clear just how drastically that version of events obscured the reality.
That doesn't necessarily mean Burris deserves to be tarred with the same pay-to-play brush as Blago -- and it's noticeable that, as far as we can tell, nothing in the transcript directly contradicts anything Buris had said before.
But there are shades of gray here. The call may not show Burris making his fundraising support contingent on getting anything in return. But it definitely paints a portrait of a relationship between Burris and the governor's camp that was a lot more intimate and involved than anyone had previously let on.
It'll be up to the Senate Ethics committee to decide what consequences, if any, should come from that. But it's worth keeping that baseline in mind as we consider what the transcript means.
Josh
Zachary
Normally, I'm a pretty charitable person. But this does not pass the charity smell test, in my book!
May 28, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, and my law partner we were gonna try to do something at the law firm. I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright.
It took two reads of the whole thing. The first time I was like "hmmm, whatever", but the second go-through made me take pause. So either Burris meant to actually stage "this in the name of Tim Wright" or he was just playing with Blago to get the job. The second option is more funny (esp since the fundraiser never happened) than the culpable option....
May 28, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, where'd my blockquote go?
May 28, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is it illegal for one, or a group, of politicians to help fund the campaign of another politician.
This is the entire concept behind the RNCC and the DNCC.
If anyone thinks that the RNCC and the DNCC don't want anything in return for their support, they are totally nuts.
Is it only when that Quid-pro-Quo is expressed outright that this becomes illegal? If it is only assumed by both parties, it is OK? That is splitting a hair which should not be split under any circumstances.
As for conducting a fundraiser for another politician being illegal - hahahahahahaha!
The only reason the politicians are feeding off Burris is because of the way he got into their exclusive club - with an entirely legal appointment by the Governor in accordance with the laws of Illinois.
Can you say BLAGOJEVICH?
.
May 29, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It become illegal when one's perjured himself.
May 29, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong.
Perjuring oneself is separate and distinct from the commission of any other activity, whether criminal or not.
June 1, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He needs to resign ASAP.
May 28, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indicted for perjury in his testimony at the IL legislature's Blago hearings.
May 28, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "fundraiser" in his lawyer's name? I heard the conversation on the radio this morning, and he said a "check" in his lawyer's name. That is even worse than a fundraiser, but since he stiffed Blago for it, he says he's clean. What a creep!
May 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am less charitable than TheraP. Burris stinks.
It was clear that this guy would elbow into that Senate seat (that he couldn't manage to get elected to) employing any tactic available. Throw Blago into that brew and it isn't a puzzlement as to what likely ensued to suit all players.
Reid is an idiot to have acquiesced to the nonsensical pressure to seat him. Of course, Reid is just an idiot in general; there's that.
May 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You put it more clearly than I did. That WAS my meaning!
May 28, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am amused by the press' outrage at Roland Burris. They should get some desensitization training by spending more time in Illinois. One drop of clean water in sewage is sewage. One drop of sewage in clean water is still sewage. If you apply that adage here, all politicians in Illinois are tainted. In Burris' case, he's probably no worse than most Illinois politicians and we in Illinois have suffered a lot worse than Roland Burris.
I read the transcript and my take is "so what." My only surprise is that Burris is astute enough to recognize the potential danger of fund raising for a governor from whom he is seeking an appointment. The bigger issue is that he lied under oath to the impeachment panel last winter. That was just plain stupid.
In any case, it is doubtful that Burris could ever get elected to the senate seat he now holds. He was never that great at the other statewide offices he held. But as long as he votes right, I have no problem with him as the placeholder until the election. At that time I plan on voting against him as I have always done.
May 28, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's more damning, uh, I think, um, in the transcript, um, is how sheepish Burris sounds.
The whole thing reads like a great screenplay: You've got the Governer's brother who obviously has the upper hand and KNOWS it, and then Burris, who is fighting so hard to NOT sound like a crook (but managing anyway, congrats).
Robert just lets Burris talk away, digging further and further as he eggs him on with repeated mutterings of "mhm" and "yeah."
May 28, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> So he mulls organizing a fundraiser "in the name of" his law partner, for appearances' sake.
Isn't that very similar to the situation that got US Attorney Laurie Magid here in Philly in some hot water? She resigned her post just days ago.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter/lawArticleCareerCenter.jsp?id=1202430954518&rss=careercenter
May 28, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's another factor here: Burris says business is terrible and that his firm may break up. Another reason for wanting the Senate appointment: to provide income and, as Senator, to increase his firm's chances of survival, even if his association with it would be limited.
He says he wants to do something for the gov, that he wants the appointment (and needs money!). Is this pay for play or business as usual in (Ill.) politics? It's close enough to the line to say the whole thing is tainted and added to his lie to the committee and misrepresentation to Reid, is enough for an Ethics Committee action.
May 28, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wants improper action without the appearance of impropriety, in other words.
May 28, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If no fundraiser actually took place, i.e., no money exchanges hands either prior to or immediately after Burris' Senate appointment, there's no quid pro quo, and all you have is a very strange conversation.
The contemplation of an illegal act is hardly tantamount to its actual commission, and such due consideration becomes a potential criminal liability, i.e., conspiracy to commit a violation of law, only upon said violation's occurrence within a reasonable time frame following the conversation.
So, based upon my admittedly basic understanding of criminal law, I don't think Sen. Burris is in legal jeopardy.
That said, the political fallout of this wiretap recording is, in one understated word, considerable. Sen. Burris has now been rendered the lamest of ducks. You can stick a fork in this guy, 'cause he's done.
If Burris does stand for retention to his seat, I'd be awfully surprised if he doesn't draw a noteworthy challenger in the 2010 Democratic primary election next spring.
May 28, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me, that's the damning line in all of this. He is stating flatly that if he raises money for Blago then there is an expectation (not just from him but also from donors) that he receive the appointment. Seems to easily meet the definition of quid pro quo. Combine that with the description of Blago's senate seat sale as being an open secret in Chicago politics and this is quite damning indeed.
Sure the conversation didn't go "so if I do a fundraiser for Blago, he will in exchange appoint me for Obama's vacated senate seat?" "That is correct." "How much money will I have to raise?" "Let's say half a million dollars." But then why would it (assuming we aren't in an AG's naughty dream)? This is just the political version of "you got the stuff?" "I got the stuff, you got the money?" "I got the money, show me the stuff." "You don't see the stuff until I see the money." ...
May 28, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter. Do I arrest you for assault, simply because you angrily promised to beat the living shit out of someone if they ever did something, and that implied threat was recorded? Of course not. Your threat only becomes a criminal liability if you actually followed through and fulfilled your promise.
Look, Sen. Burris is damned politically for this conversation, and he might well be hauled before the Senate Ethics Committee. I don't much care for Burris, and as far as I'm concerned, the subject matter of his conversation with Gov. Blagojevich's brother renders him unfit to serve in public office.
But it is also my opinion that this conversation doesn't meet the threshold of criminal liability. As is often the case in high profile cases, the law is as written, and not as currently popular opinion might wish it to be.
Aloha.
May 28, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have a greater understanding of the relevant laws, I would be greatly pleased if you would share them. Particularly with links.
IANAL, but as I understand it, if Blago appointed Burris with the expectation that he would receive money in exchange for the appointment then the law was broken. Similarly, I don't expect that someone who paid for illicit drugs they didn't receive would be deemed innocent of buying drugs.
Perhaps more importantly, this conversation suggests that Burris quite likely conspired to commit a crime. Furthermore, Burris has admitted attempting to raise money for Blago. Conspiracy plus reward plus an attempt at making payment looks like a pretty damning combination to me.
A pay-to-play arrangement is difficult to establish, particularly when the payment and reward are both legal actions on their own. What I think makes this damaging from Burris's side is he talks about an expectation of receiving the appointment in exchange for raising money (quote above).
After my first comment I went and read the full transcript. I think it's a lot more damning in it's entirety.
and
Burris makes it pretty clear at several points that he saw fundraising / a donation as being linked to receiving the appointment. Also, he clearly understands how such an exchange would be perceived.
I'm not seeing a lot of wiggle room on this one.
May 28, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How Damning Is The Burris Transcript?"
Pretty damn damning.
May 28, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It became completely obvious several months back when you could tell there was _nothing_ that mattered to Burris more than holding onto his Senate seat. I remember listening with interest to his words and defense of his position because I thought at the time he seemed like a good guy. However, he came across as completely self-serving and his talk about how the people of Illinois deserved to have 2 Senators was just a bunch of BS. This was about nothing more than getting a meal-ticket punched that would ensure a cushy life for him.
Throw this bum out. Ethics principles apply to ALL.
May 28, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In his defense, Burris wasn't after a meal ticket and a cushy life. He was on the path to higher office that had been divinely intended for him. It's not God's fault that voters didn't want him. Everybody knows Illinois residents are heathens.
May 28, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Between the taint of having been appointed by Blagojevich just before B was required to resign and this scandal, even if Burris is not removed as a Senator it seems very unlikely that he can win the 2010 election.
That tells me the Illinois Democratic Party is probably looking for someone to run against him in the primary, another election Burris seems unlikely to be able to win. They are probably also going to try to strong arm him into resigning before then.
I sure wouldn't vote for him. I don't see how he could possibly clean up his image between now and then, although he must have thought he had a chance in January when (per Wikipedia) he told the FEC he was going to run next year.
May 28, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we all agree now that at a minimum Roland Burris wasn't really the elder statesman of Illinois politics with a sterling character who was utterly removed from and disinterested in all the unseemly jockeying for Obama's empty Senate seat?
YES WE CAN!
May 28, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone interested, here's my opinion:
The Taint of Blago
Long story short, Burris needs to step down.
May 28, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that a lot of skill was displayed at 'not mentioning' specific phrases, while the circumstances would certainly make me think about 'giving a fund-raiser' at that particular point in time.
May 28, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you no decency Mr. Burris, have you no shame?
May 28, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm probably the sap of the month, but I feel for the guy a little. He seems like some sort of semi-delusional character out of Eugene O'Neill revival. It would be easier if the guy was an obvious jerk and he didn't seem so hopelessly out of his league. It just feels a little too pathetic.
May 28, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are all his Chicago peeps that demanded he be seated? Where are all his Chicago peeps that were mad at Obama because he was deny a brother a seat?
This guy is truly emba
May 28, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
(stupid computer)
the word is embarrassing. This guy is truly embarrassing.
May 28, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no "shades of gray" here, Zachary, Burris lied under oath about contacts with Blagajevich and Company. No shades of gray there. He LIED. UNDER. OATH. Perjury, look it up.
May 28, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are about a dozen democrats that repulse me more than Burris and they come in behind all of the republicans. That puts Burris in about 63rd place for asshole senators. Just let the elections work it out.
May 29, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone that has played politics and played it HARD at the state level, I can say that this conversation is nothing unique.
I saw Chris Matthews "grilling" of Burris and was not impressed AT ALL. Matthews KNOWS that crap like this goes on ALL THE TIME in both parties, in the world of politics, he was just trying to burnish his image as a "HARDBALLER", and really he is not even close.
Things like this is the reason it is called POLITICS. In politics it is ALWAYS... ALWAYS a scratch my back and I'll scratch yours interaction.
The fact that Burris actually says on the tape that he is concerned about appearances is further than most politicians would go.
Of course I am a BIG believer in the "to the victor, goes the spoils" way of playing politics. And if they were honest most politicians are too.
May 29, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now Burris is being convicted and must resign because of the money he didn't give for a seat, I'm confused...
What has he done? No one resigns on inference...and he answered the questions as a good lawyer...Matthews so called "depostion" was sad, and shameful. He acted as though he had scored some points on s 76 year old Senator. Just because Burris is from Chicago, it doesn't mean he bought his seat...The FBI said they have no interest in him...
Leave him alone, Jim Warren and Lynn Sweet are too biased...So what he has big ego...He needs one to survive in DC!!! Move on no story here...
May 30, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listening to this "tapped" conversation for the umpteenth time, it stands out that Burris and Blagojevich are talking at cross purposes.
Burris is interested in the Senate seat and keeps referring to it.
Blagojevich is interested in getting money for his brother's political ambitions and keeps referring to that.
Burris keeps saying that he is not in a position to give money of even to be directly involved in a fundraiser.
Blagojevich is interested in getting money for his brother's political ambitions and keeps referring to that.
Burris keeps saying that he is not in a position to give money of even to be directly involved in a fundraiser.
Burris never acted in any way toward providing any money for Blagojevich's brother's political ambitions and making the assumption that there was some sort of Quid-pro-Quo agreement is not warranted by this conversation.
Even if Burris had donated money for Blagojevich's brother's political ambitions, that would not be a crime unless there had been a verifiable agreement between the two, an agreement which is totally missing from this conversation.
This is a crime?
.
June 2, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink