Doesn’t pass the laugh pass. The only consolation in all of this (unfortunately) is that, stupid is as stupid does — we’re sure to be hearing this “questions are confusing” defense quite a bit.

Time will tell.

And the “questions were confusing” argument doesn’t hold at all, especially after the first specific question from Durkin, the one with specific names as well as “…family members, associates, anyone connected to…”

Burris’ lawyer interrupted and they had a little time-out consultation off-mike allowing Burris to frame an answer.

When the question was rephrased after the Lon Monk admission, Burris and his lawyer had another off-mike consultation to frame the second answer.

Now, I would agree that Burris’ lawyer seems to be as dim a bulb as Roland himself, but “…questions were confusing” just doesn’t cut it. If Roland had been on the stand in a trial where he could not consult his lawyer before answering, a case for confusion could be made. Not here.

Even better to me is how Burris himself frames the context of his conversation with Lon Monk, evidently trying to show the Senate seat was just a random unrelated thought.

What the heck was Roland talking about to Lon Monk, a known bag-man for Blago? Why, according to Roland themselves, they was lobbying state business for themselves and their partner.

Burris’s excuse for misstatements in his testimony was that the questions were confusing. If that’s true, though, one would expect that he would make pretty clear public statements about his contacts with the Governor’s representatives. Yet if memory serves me, Burris’s public statements made it appear that he did spoke to no one until Adam approached him about the appointment. We know that’s not true; and I think it’s pretty relevant in deciding whether Burris was intentionally misleading the committee and perjuring himself.