On the Other Hand, This Could Be a Problem
Burris did attempt the I don’t recall bit later in response to Representative Tracy
REPRESENTATIVE TRACY: So you don’t recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed that interest to at that point?
MR. BURRIS: No, I can’t recall.
While that probably isn’t enough for a conviction, it might well be enough for a prolonged investigation. Perhaps Roland can just tell us now that he’s not running in 2010. Because he will lose in the primary and right now, he’s embarrassing the party.
Again, this misses the big picture that Roland Burris misled the people of Illinois and was an active participant in the culture of sleaze with lobbyists being the entree into government. And recall, his conversation with John Harris was about getting a relative employed by the state.
Finally, Harry Reid has to feel great about rolling over and just admitting Roland without hearings and stuff. I mean, what else could have come out….
February 16th, 2009 at
Cross and McKenna will try to keep it alive to soften the seat up for 2010 but just to be clear … there will not be an investigation.
The GOP has no ability to launch one and as deep as the hole is that Roland keeps digging for himself MJM will give up his gavel before he agrees to any such thing. And far be it from Reid to show some juice.
Besides, the US Senate GOPs seem to be having more fun saying that their votes against the biggest middle-class tax cut in US history are somehow “a bad beginning” for Obama.
February 16th, 2009 at
Burris is such bad news. It’s like having Blagojevich hanging around with the impeachment not happening for another year.
My only question is, why did he wait till February to come clean on this stuff (you see, already I’m making assumptions) when everyone else had already said their piece within days of Blago’s arrest.
Did Burris feel he was above this moral responsibility to acquit himself?
February 16th, 2009 at
Rob–as a criminal matter, the State’s Attorney in Sangamon County could investigate.
February 16th, 2009 at
Arch, Can he do so without first being prompted by the Lege?
Over the weekend it seemed that Durkin and Cross wanted MJM or Currie to act first … to have them refer the matter to the State’s Atty.
Politically, why would they?
February 16th, 2009 at
With Roland and his lawyer openly contradicting each other as to requests from “agents” and “the FBI” the timing of this becomes much more suspect.
Did Roland suddenly have a memory fart when he learned his conversations with Blago brother Rob might have been recorded?
Is this convenient papering of his bottom side?
Only some kind of investigation may (or may not) give us some answers.
As for this question from Leo…
“Did Burris feel he was above this moral responsibility to acquit himself?”
…anyone who refers to their singular public persona as “WE” assumes they have Devine Right above the rights of their subjects.
“We” was explaining “our” actions to the press again today. So pathetic.
February 17th, 2009 at
Talking about problems, did anyone notice this article in yesterday’s Sun-Times titled, ‘Burris on wiretaps?‘:
Even if there’s nothing on the tapes, it does kind of explain what’s prompted him to (finally) come clean.
February 17th, 2009 at
Yes, and this snippet from the Burris-Wright joint presser:
TIMOTHY WRIGHT, ROLAND BURRIS’ LAWYER: I thought we’d been absolutely transparent in this matter. Everything we’ve done has been transparent. We’ve answered every question at each point in time.
Asked whether he’d been in touch with the FBI in connection with these new revelations, Mr. Burris and his lawyer responded in their completely transparent manner:
WRIGHT: He said there may have been some contact, and they haven’t asked us for anything.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us when that nature of that contact is?
WRIGHT: No, I can’t. That’s — no, I cannot.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us what…
WRIGHT: No, I cannot.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Have they informed you that you were caught — picked up on a wiretap?
WRIGHT: No, they have not, and we cannot speak to that. OK?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why not?
WRIGHT: Well, because I said we can’t.