Burris Changes His Tune on Blago Contacts
It seems to me that Roland Burris never should have accepted Ron Blagojevic’s offer to have him become a pawn in the corrupt governor’s insane gambits. And he certainly shouldn’t have done this:
Senator Roland W. Burris of Illinois acknowledged in documents made public Saturday that the brother of former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich sought campaign fund-raising help from him in the weeks and months before his appointment to succeed Barack Obama as the state’s junior senator.
Mr. Burris said he provided no money to Governor Blagojevich’s campaign in response to the brother’s request.
The disclosure was different from Mr. Burris’s earlier descriptions, including one under oath, of his conversations with those closest to the former governor. It raised new questions about events that preceded Mr. Burris’s unusual appointment in late December and prompted some Republican lawmakers in Illinois to immediately demand an inquiry into whether Mr. Burris committed perjury.
The good news, though, is that Blago is on his way out one way or another. But meanwhile the equally corrupt Norm Coleman, despite having been beaten at the ballot box, is getting solid support from Republicans across the country in his effort to mount endless legal challenges and keep Al Franken out of the Senate.
27 Responses to “Burris Changes His Tune on Blago Contacts”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 15th, 2009 at 9:32 am
So one guy lied under oath and got a Senate seat for it. The other is resorting to what seem like legal means to contest an election. Unless the lawsuits are illegal?
I like the Washington Monthly piece, in which the writer wrings hands about “constituent services.” because the main concern for national Democrats here is timely consideration of West Point applications. To quote the same piece: “Riiiighhhhtt.”
I am not sure that these situations are exactly parallel.
Look, the GOP has plenty of scumbags. But it seems kind of weird to go through the trouble to admit that your own side is engaged in some shenanigans, only to turn it around and try to make some kind of “But they do it, too!” case.
What does one of these things have to do with the other? This reminds me of GOP types who spent five years replying to every question by saying, “Yeah, but Clinton got a hummer.”
February 15th, 2009 at 10:17 am
“But it seems kind of weird to go through the trouble to admit that your own side is engaged in some shenanigans, only to turn it around and try to make some kind of “But they do it, too!” case.”
For one thing, the Democratic “side” isn’t accused, even by Republicans, of being engaged in “shenanigans.” Burris himself very well may be, and if he is I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Democratic majority in the Senate expel him-you may remember that they were very reluctant to take him in the first place. For another, while Coleman’s lawsuit is legal, it doesn’t mean it isn’t frivolous-the heart of it was just ripped out by a judges’ ruling, and it appears pretty clear to most observers that at this point the only real purpose served by the lawsuit is to keep the lawful winner of the election out of the Senate for some indeterminate length of time. In this, he’s receiving the full-throated support of the institutional Republican party. It may be lawful, but it ain’t legitimate. So there you go-one the one hand, an isolated Democrat who looks to have been underhanded in the obtaining of his Senate seat. On the other, the entire Republican party obstructing the proper awarding of another. Who looks worse?
February 15th, 2009 at 10:26 am
As far as I can figure out Burris crime is that Blago asked him for money. You can go ahead and lock up half the state if that’s a hanging offense. If he didn’t give him any money, he’d be like the .01% of people who he would take a meeting with sans some sort of quid pro quo.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Sam, there is a link from the phrase “equally corrupt Norm Coleman”, and if you follow it you’ll find that it does not refer to Coleman’s contesting of the election.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Ron?
February 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Matt’s complaint that Coleman has been beaten at the ballot box misunderstands the nature of the action in MN. The question is precisely who won the election. And Matt also shows that he doesn’t understand the conceptions “equality” and “corruption.” What a mess.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:07 am
No, Thomas, the problem is you are illiterate. Someone else already said the same stupid thing and was wrong and you are too thick to read the comments before you spout off.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:32 am
So one guy lied under oath and got a Senate seat for it.
Time travel again, Sam. Since Burris’s testimony took place last month and he was appointed to the Senate in December, he can hardly be said to have got a Senate seat for lying under oath unless one of the relevant parties is in possession of a magic DeLorean.
That said, this is a problem and investigation is called for (I’m tempted to say that it merits an investigation of the same seriousness and speed as that given to the lies told under oath by for instance Gonzales and Schlozman, but we should strive to be better than the Bush DoJ).
February 15th, 2009 at 11:34 am
BTW, I’m not sure exactly what Yggi means by saying “Blago is on his way out one way or another,” since Blago is already out.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:50 am
As far as I can figure out Burris crime is that Blago asked him for money.
No, actually it was that he lied in his testimony to the Illinois State Legislature — a session upon which his acceptance in the Senate depended about two things:
(1) being contacted by Blago’s brother Rob (asked not once but twice);
(2) being approached with a quid pro quo for the Senate seat to which he falsely said ‘no’.
Here’s the relevant transcript. Here’s the same bit on YouTube.
At a time when we had every right to expect complete transparency, this charlatan did an Alberto Gonzalez.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
being contacted by Blago’s brother Rob
We know that “Rod” is a nickname for “Milorad.” What’s “Rob” a nickname for? You’re not going to tell me that a self-respecting Serbian family gave their son a name like “Robert.”
February 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
It’s ‘Rob’ for Robert. During the trial, they actually released one of the tapes of him phoning his brother the Gov.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Ed, the accusations against Coleman aren’t new, aren’t as serious as the accusations against Blago, and aren’t proved. So, again, how is that equally corrupt, assuming one understands those concepts? And how can one say that Coleman has been beaten at the ballot box when that’s precisely the issue before the MN courts? You illiterate nitwit. (I through that last bit in just for you.)
February 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
leo, thanks for the link to the transcript in the Trib. It does seem that he responded incorrectly to the two key questions, whether he’d talked with any of Blagojevich’s close associates about the Senate seat — and the former Governor’s brother is mentioned by name as a possibility — and whether he had any awareness of a possible request for a quid pro quo. And while his statement attempts to make an excuse regarding the “fluid” nature of the questioning, in fact he takes it quite slow here and confers with his attorney.
The problem is not only that he may have perjured himself, which is bad enough; it’s that it raises the possibility that he may have done so because he actually had something to hide.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I think it’s conceivable that Burris will get to the Big House before Blago does.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
BTW, I’m not sure exactly what Yggi means by saying “Blago is on his way out one way or another,” since Blago is already out.
It means Matt’s not keeping up.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I can’t speak to the corruption allegations against Norm Coleman. But as for the Senate recount, he’s exercising a statutory right to have ex post judicial review of the recount process. (Under the Minnesota statute, it’s called the “contest” phase of the recount process) And in fact, we liberals should be wary that Coleman might end up winning. The decisions as to which ballots were counted and which were not were quite discretionary; a couple rulings here and there could shake up the count.
Note: in reading this comment, I suspect that others might think I’m a conservative troll. No, I’m a liberal who’s been reading a few Minnesota blogs.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
My dispute with MY: I disagree with the characterization of the governor’s actions as the “corrupt governor’s insane gambits.” I believe instead we are dealing with the insane governor’s corrupt gambits.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Well, with the news out today, looks like Burris doesn’t have much time left in the Senate. He apparently lied about his conversations with Blago’s brother.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Hi, I can
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Great site. Good info
March 17th, 2009 at 2:27 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra