It seems that Roland Burris committed perjury over his senate seat appointment

[signerror]

Blagojevich Camp Asked Burris to Aid Fund-Raising

[...]
The disclosures came in an affidavit that Mr. Burris filed with last week with the Illinois House committee that oversaw Governor Blagojevich’s impeachment, and they are at odds with his earlier sworn testimony before the committee. Mr. Burris said he provided the new affidavit to “supplement” earlier sworn testimony he gave before state lawmakers seeking to impeach Mr. Blagojevich.
[...]
In fact, during his testimony in January before the impeachment committee — just before he was seated in the Senate — Mr. Burris was asked directly whether he had talked to any person on a list of Blagojevich confidants. At that time, he cited an earlier conversation with one former aide to Mr. Blagojevich, but mentioned nothing of Rob Blagojevich’s more recent efforts seeking campaign contributions.

Mr. Burris’s aides said he had testified truthfully and to the best of his recollection before the committee, but was “unable to fully respond to several matters,” thanks to the fluid nature of the questioning. He said he had not realized his oversights until he received a transcript of his testimony late last month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/us/15burris.html

Is anyone surprised? Will he be indicted, or maybe impeached by the senate?

 

[phreak]

More than likely, nothing big will happen unless they prove that he actually raised some of the money asked of him. Also, it is unclear as to whether Burris was aware of the fact that this fundraising was to go toward bribe money. He could have just thought that Blagojevich was asking a fellow Democratic for financial assistance for his campaign. I'm sure it happens all the time in politics.

 

[HallsofIvy]

The fact that he said something that was not true does not necessarily mean it was perjury. To prove prove perjury you would have to show that he had intentionally lied and until that is done there exist the possibility that he simply misspoke by accident.

 

[signerror]

More than likely, nothing big will happen unless they prove that he actually raised some of the money asked of him. Also, it is unclear as to whether Burris was aware of the fact that this fundraising was to go toward bribe money. He could have just thought that Blagojevich was asking a fellow Democratic for financial assistance for his campaign. I'm sure it happens all the time in politics.

The point is he made false testimony under oath, in front of the impeachment committee. And about something very serious.

The fact that he said something that was not true does not necessarily mean it was perjury. To prove prove perjury you would have to show that he had intentionally lied and until that is done there exist the possibility that he simply misspoke by accident.

That's why I qualified with "it seems that".

 

[Skyhunter]

That's why I qualified with "it seems that".

I disagree. It does not seem that he committed perjury. It seems he misspoke.

The fact that he came forth after reading the transcript reinforces the perception that he misspoke.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm not sure it matters whether he did or not. i think certain people are going to do everything they can to unseat him so that they can insert Triple J.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Apparently Sen. Burris' story has changed three times. He was specifically asked about conversations with Lon Monk and Rob (brother of the ex-governor) Blagojevich and initially denied any contact with them. (One conversation allegedly discussed both the senate appointment and a $10,000 donation to Gov. Blagojevich's campaign) When evidence of these conversations was made public, Sen. Burris'...um...memory was refreshed, and now he admits to have a conversation with them. Um...two...wait, make that three conversations.

I couldn't say if it's perjury. However, if the Senator's memory needs that much prodding - he seems to only remember things after they are made public - perhaps he should see a doctor.

 

[Astronuc]

The point is he made false testimony under oath, in front of the impeachment committee. And about something very serious.

Um - please provide the evidence - as in the transcript. What was the context of the questions and subsequent responses under oath to whichever Illinois or US Senate committee such testimony was given?

If he had contact/conversations with Lon Monk and Rob Blagojevich and then denied it under oath, he committed perjury if he knew/remembered he did and lied about it. What if he forgot about a meeting that was last year or years ago? What if the meeting had nothing to do with nomination to Senate? One conversation allegedly discussed . . . . (the key word is allegedly).

If Monk or Rod Blagojevich testify they did have contact, and did discuss some quid pro quo for the senate appointment, then it's up to the Congress to take appropriate action.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What if he forgot about a meeting that was last year or years ago? What if the meeting had nothing to do with nomination to Senate? One conversation allegedly discussed . . . . (the key word is allegedly).

According to the Chicago Tribune, there were three meetings: one in October and two in November. Sen. Burris' latest position is that he was asked for a campaign contribution in meetings where the senate appointment was discussed (this is contrary to previous testimony) but that he refused.

 

[Astronuc]

Burris acknowledges trying to raise money for gov.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_go_co/burris_blagojevich

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged trying to raise money for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich before being appointed to the Senate.

I think Burris needs to pack his bags and go home.

 

[Skyhunter]

Burris acknowledges trying to raise money for gov.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_go_co/burris_blagojevich
I think Burris needs to pack his bags and go home.

I second that motion.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think Burris needs to pack his bags and go home.

I can't argue that.

His response to the Illinois Senate at Blago's impeachment, was apparently intentionally misleading by his failure to specifically answer the question, and not only to answer, but to answer in a misleading way that he now reveals was seemingly crafted too cleverly by half. Too cleverly to the extent that I think intention must be attached.

I figured him for a tragic figure from a Greek morality play, grasping at something that but for the contretemps of poor lost Blago could never have been his in the first place. It seems he has lived up to my estimation of him.

He should seek out the dust bin of history at his earliest opportunity. But like Blago I figure he will twist and cling and clutch at his prize and probably won't be removed (though it could be a close one if he does survive). Then he will retire from office in 2 years to seek out the welcome shade of obscurity, as a new Democrat takes the party nomination.

 

[Astronuc]

It's going to be interesting to look back in 3 or so decades (assuming I'm alive) and see how the history books treat this period. It all seems so surreal. I keep asking myself - "how much more stupid is this whole socio-politico-economic fiasco going to get?"

I'd like to be around a century or two from now just to see what future generations make of us now.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'd like to be around a century or two from now just to see what future generations make of us now.

Hopefully they won't see this period as the golden age - the blossom of the promise of technology and science that dramatically increased humankind productivity but wasn't balanced by thimble full of sense and resulted in decades of adjustment as it took a number of generations to come to grips with the limitations that our excess came to impose.

I remain hopeful that the best years are ahead, and common sense will yet be acquired.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So now we're at story #4?

 

[LowlyPion]

Here is his recent denial. It all seems crafted to play in South Side Chicago, but the intent to mislead seems carefully constructed, apparently with the idea that they could finesse the pre-seating in the Senate period and once in pull a play from the Blago play book and hang on. I'm guessing his re-electability is trashed though. But he can say he served in the Senate on his mausoleum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecWFKIXGGR8

 

[signerror]

Burris is now under investigation:

CHICAGO — The United States Senate Ethics Committee and a local Illinois prosecutor began investigations on Tuesday into the recently appointed junior senator for Illinois, Roland W. Burris...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18illinois.html?hp

 

[signerror]

This is pathetic.

Mr. Burris has defended his omissions, saying he simply failed to mention the additional names in January because the committee conversation had “moved on” before he could cite them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18illinois.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did you see the film of his testimony? He looks even worse there - he had to check with his lawyer several times before answering the question with an answer which was, in the most favorable light to the senator, highly misleading.

I wonder what Harry Reid is thinking now.

 

[LowlyPion]

Harry Reid? I doubt he really cares so long as he can control his vote. And at this point Burris is owned by the Democrats. He has no political base. He has no constituency anymore with the departure of Blago - a dubious constituency of 1 to begin with. He has little prospect of being reelected. He's already a lame duck just a couple of weeks into serving.

But worse than that if he crosses the Dems on any issue they can just convene the ethics committee and boot his behind back to being retired and planning his updated mausoleum.

In short it looks to me like he is just totally owned. Politics rules out.

The ones really calling for his departure are the Republicans and Fox News trying to stir up an issue to get indignant about. What else have they got after getting pummeled in the polls for mismanaging government and being reduced to such impotence that the only thing they can do now is whine about bi-partisanship and voting no because they think they have any actual power? You didn't hear these talking heads demanding that Ted Stevens give it up when he was caught orchestrating renovations to his house.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, Harry Reid made a big stink about ethics, and then accepted Burris (immediately after Burris, perhaps imprudently, said he would be a "reliable vote") and now it looks like Burris has more ethics problems. He's got to be feeling a little embarassed.

As far as the "he may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel" argument, I somehow suspect that they American people are tiring of this. If a vote for "change we can believe in" means that it's only a change in the beneficiaries of corruption, I suspect there will be quite a backlash.

 

[signerror]

As far as the "he may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel" argument, I somehow suspect that they American people are tiring of this. If a vote for "change we can believe in" means that it's only a change in the beneficiaries of corruption, I suspect there will be quite a backlash.

Yes, like the American "backlash" to Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and Randy Cunningham (R-CA), and "$90,000 wrapped in aluminum foil" William Jefferson (D-LA), and Tom Delay (R-TX), and Ted Stevens (R-CA), and George Ryan (gov R-IL), who was replaced with ""How can you replace one Ryan with another Ryan and call that change? You want change? Elect a guy named Blagojevich" Rod Blagojevich (gov D-IL), and his protege Roland Burris (D-IL), and perjurer Scooter Libby, and the entire Bush White House (R-Hades). The voters said "never again!", and they meant it.

(Incidentally, I remind you that the William Jefferson bribes never went to trial.)

Thankfully, we have "change we can believe in" Obama, who so far only had two nominees withdraw over criminal allegations (and neither involved bribery).

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, like the American "backlash" to Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and Randy Cunningham (R-CA), and "$90,000 wrapped in aluminum foil" William Jefferson (D-LA), and Tom Delay (R-TX), and Ted Stevens (R-CA), and George Ryan (gov R-IL), who was replaced with ""How can you replace one Ryan with another Ryan and call that change? You want change? Elect a guy named Blagojevich" Rod Blagojevich (gov D-IL), and his protege Roland Burris (D-IL), and perjurer Scooter Libby, and the entire Bush White House (R-Hades).

:roflcopters:

 

[LowlyPion]

Oh he may well be embarrassed. But when you get down to it Reed is undoubtedly comforted by having his reliable vote. There are bigger fish yet to fry on the legislative front, than worrying about this yahoo's ethics.

I suspect that if his term was a full 6 years there would maybe be more angst towards having him replaced.

While I think that Burris has clearly misrepresented things, within the strict meaning of the definition as it would relate to fraud, by his failure to include all the information necessary to make his response not be misleading at the time, I'd have to say that he may be on a little sounder footing, legally speaking, by virtue of his voluntary filing of the supplemental disclosure that specifically relates this additional information.

Was it a smarmy dodge to say "I spoke with friends, yes." but not supply those details until now? Sure. Is it a violation of law within the context of the rules of the Illinois Senate Impeachment of Blogojevich that apparently permitted him to file supplemental clarifications? No, I am disappointed to think that he may be able to skate on the legal merit of the situation.

Hence I doubt he will be removed, though I also think unless he manages to distinguish himself with the voters of Illinois in the next 2 years, he won't be standing a chance of reelection either.

 

[LowlyPion]

Thankfully, we have "change we can believe in" Obama, who so far only had two nominees withdraw over criminal allegations (and neither involved bribery).

I don't see any felony allegations filed against either of those that withdrew.

 

[Proton Soup]

Did you see the film of his testimony? He looks even worse there - he had to check with his lawyer several times before answering the question with an answer which was, in the most favorable light to the senator, highly misleading.

I wonder what Harry Reid is thinking now.

i don't really have an opinion on his guilt or innocence, but you have to realize that when you've got people trying to prosecute or lawyer you, then everything you say can and will be used against you. so, you have to be very careful and precise about what you say. the best thing to do is usually to say nothing at all and let your lawyer handle questions, but that is a very difficult position for a politician.

 

[signerror]

I don't see any felony allegations filed against either of those that withdrew.

I do.

DENVER — A federal grand jury in New Mexico is investigating accusations that Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration gave lucrative contracts to a California financier because he contributed heavily to the governor’s political action committees, a person familiar with the grand jury proceedings said Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/19richardson.html

Looks like felony corruption.

The changes reflected unreported income from the use of the car service valued at $255,256 for those three years, according to the Finance Committee report. He also amended his returns to cover $83,333 in unreported consulting income for 2007. And he reduced his charitable contributions by $14,963.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.html

Looks like felony tax evasion.

 

[LowlyPion]

I take it then that you will be as easy to call Sarah Palin a felony tax cheat as well?

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/693695.html

Until charges are filed and upheld, I'd say that you are dabbling in libel.

 

[signerror]

I take it then that you will be as easy to call Sarah Palin a felony tax cheat as well?

And an abuser of office too. (It's pretty insulting, by the way, to insinuate that I only criticize Burris because of his party affiliation.)

I'd say that you are dabbling in libel.

Bit of a double standard there? Seeing as how I haven't been convicted yet.

I am not a judge; I'm not subject to judicial review and lawyers and "beyond reasonable doubt" standards of proof. Justice is concerned with minimizing false positives, in order to preserve individual rights against the false convictions. I am a public citizen, and I am concerned with having the best understanding possible, which necessarily means probabilistic reasoning (because there are necessarily gaps in knowledge and uncertainty). I think, unlike the justice system, it would be more damaging if voters systematically maintained a presumption of innocence in the face of pretty strong evidence of political wrongdoing. On the contrary - I systematically, proactively assume legislators are corrupt, because they are delegated trust and have an intrinsic conflict of interest - a moral hazard - incentives to abuse that trust. I want public affairs to be transparent. I want the burden of proof to be on the public officials' side: I want their finances and meetings documented and open to the public. A secretive government only enables corruption.

There is a short Bruce Schneier essay, "The Security Mindset", which I believe applies to the public government, or any other client/agent relationship with intrinsic moral hazards.

And I don't care one whit if there is some elaborate legalese explanation why Burris' flat-out lies weren't, technically, "perjury". I'm satisfied with knowing he's a grating liar and I want him out of office.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm satisfied with knowing he's a grating liar and I want him out of office.

I feel the same way. But I think as a practical matter there is a good chance he won't.

From commentary I've heard today, the idea that he is soiled by his handling of the situation likely ensures that the Dems will have little difficulty bringing another candidate to the general election in 2 years. And of course in the mean time he remains a reliable vote.

He'll be 71 then. I'd guess that he won't be the Senator in 2 years for a number of reasons.

The shrillest voices to see him removed are apparently the Republicans that have been doing themselves no favors in their stroll toward oblivion as the No Party.

 

[BobG]

It's going to be interesting to look back in 3 or so decades (assuming I'm alive) and see how the history books treat this period. It all seems so surreal. I keep asking myself - "how much more stupid is this whole socio-politico-economic fiasco going to get?"

I'd like to be around a century or two from now just to see what future generations make of us now.

This has traditionally been a country of peaceful revolution and now it's become a country of peaceful civil war.

As a civil war, the functioning of government isn't always the #1 priority. In fact, Republicans and Democrats shut down the federal government in 1995 by failing to pass a budget bill, and by failing to extend the government's authorization to spend money until a bill could be passed. That was just the beginning and there's been a long string of incidents since that had no benefit for anyone other than the Republican or Democratic Party.

A century from now, we'll be nothing more than a third world cargo cult.

 

[LowlyPion]

Illinois Gov: Burris Should Resign

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4815691.shtml

 

[LowlyPion]

Oops. The drumbeats are getting closer. My initial guess that he would survive is looking more problematical.

Burris Should Think About His Future, Obama Aide Says
By Roger Runningen and Andrew Harris

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator Roland Burris’s statements about his appointment appear to be inconsistent and he should take time this weekend to think about his future, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

“The people of Illinois have been through a very trying time,” Gibbs told reporters at a briefing today in Washington. “The president is supportive of an investigation that would get some full story out.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aHaU0VRc_e3E&refer=us

 

[WhoWee]

i'm not sure it matters whether he did or not. i think certain people are going to do everything they can to unseat him so that they can insert Triple J.

Burris is a long time associate of Jesse Jackson...I don't see this helping Jr. Had Burris enjoyed a quiet and distinguished service in Obama's seat, with the Blago mess in the past, a fair election of Jr. could have been supported by Burris...but now?

Do you really think the new Governor is willing to risk a JJJ appointment...let's not forget Jr. was supposedly referred to on the still unheard tapes. I think Jr. needs to quietly wait out the election and hope the new appointee doesn't do too outstanding a job.

 

[LowlyPion]

Quinn is already on record supporting an Illinois Senate resolution to determine any new appointment by popular vote.
Apparently he doesn't want anything more to do with it.