<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On the Other Hand, This Could Be a Problem</title>
	<atom:link href="http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/</link>
	<description>Illinois, From Misery</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:34:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BirdWatcher</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19054</link>
		<dc:creator>BirdWatcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19054</guid>
		<description>Yes, and this snippet from the Burris-Wright joint presser:

TIMOTHY WRIGHT, ROLAND BURRIS&#039; LAWYER: I thought we&#039;d been absolutely transparent in this matter. Everything we&#039;ve done has been transparent. We&#039;ve answered every question at each point in time.

Asked whether he&#039;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&#039;t asked us for anything.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us when that nature of that contact is?

WRIGHT: No, I can&#039;t. That&#039;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&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, and this snippet from the Burris-Wright joint presser:</p>
<p>TIMOTHY WRIGHT, ROLAND BURRIS&#8217; LAWYER: I thought we&#8217;d been absolutely transparent in this matter. Everything we&#8217;ve done has been transparent. We&#8217;ve answered every question at each point in time.</p>
<p>Asked whether he&#8217;d been in touch with the FBI in connection with these new revelations, Mr. Burris and his lawyer responded in their completely transparent manner:</p>
<p>WRIGHT: He said there may have been some contact, and they haven&#8217;t asked us for anything.</p>
<p>UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us when that nature of that contact is?</p>
<p>WRIGHT: No, I can&#8217;t. That&#8217;s — no, I cannot.</p>
<p>UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you tell us what&#8230;</p>
<p>WRIGHT: No, I cannot.</p>
<p>UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Have they informed you that you were caught — picked up on a wiretap?</p>
<p>WRIGHT: No, they have not, and we cannot speak to that. OK?</p>
<p>UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why not?</p>
<p>WRIGHT: Well, because I said we can&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leo</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19053</link>
		<dc:creator>leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19053</guid>
		<description>Talking about problems, did anyone notice this article in yesterday&#039;s &lt;em&gt;Sun-Times&lt;/em&gt; titled, &#039;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1433170,burris-wiretaps-blagojevich-021609.article&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Burris on wiretaps?&lt;/a&gt;&#039;:

&lt;blockquote&gt;After contact with federal agents, U.S. Sen. Roland Burris changed his sworn testimony to the Illinois House committee that moved to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Even if there&#039;s nothing on the tapes, it does kind of explain what&#039;s prompted him to (finally) come clean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Talking about problems, did anyone notice this article in yesterday&#8217;s <em>Sun-Times</em> titled, &#8216;<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1433170,burris-wiretaps-blagojevich-021609.article" rel="nofollow">Burris on wiretaps?</a>&#8216;:</p>
<blockquote><p>After contact with federal agents, U.S. Sen. Roland Burris changed his sworn testimony to the Illinois House committee that moved to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.</p></blockquote>
<p>Even if there&#8217;s nothing on the tapes, it does kind of explain what&#8217;s prompted him to (finally) come clean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BirdWatcher</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19048</link>
		<dc:creator>BirdWatcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19048</guid>
		<description>With Roland and his lawyer openly contradicting each other as to requests from &quot;agents&quot; and &quot;the FBI&quot; 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...
&quot;Did Burris feel he was above this moral responsibility to acquit himself?&quot;

...anyone who refers to their singular public persona as &quot;WE&quot;  assumes they have Devine Right above the rights of their subjects.

&quot;We&quot; was explaining &quot;our&quot; actions to the press again today.  So pathetic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With Roland and his lawyer openly contradicting each other as to requests from &#8220;agents&#8221; and &#8220;the FBI&#8221; the timing of this becomes much more suspect.</p>
<p>Did Roland suddenly have a memory fart when he learned his conversations with Blago brother Rob might have been recorded?  </p>
<p>Is this convenient papering of his bottom side?  </p>
<p>Only some kind of investigation may (or may not) give us some answers.</p>
<p>As for this question from Leo&#8230;<br />
&#8220;Did Burris feel he was above this moral responsibility to acquit himself?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8230;anyone who refers to their singular public persona as &#8220;WE&#8221;  assumes they have Devine Right above the rights of their subjects.</p>
<p>&#8220;We&#8221; was explaining &#8220;our&#8221; actions to the press again today.  So pathetic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob_N</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19046</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob_N</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19046</guid>
		<description>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&#039;s Atty.

Politically, why would they?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arch, Can he do so without first being prompted by the Lege? </p>
<p>Over the weekend it seemed that Durkin and Cross wanted MJM or Currie to act first &#8230; to have them refer the matter to the State&#8217;s Atty.</p>
<p>Politically, why would they?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ArchPundit</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19045</link>
		<dc:creator>ArchPundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:10:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19045</guid>
		<description>Rob--as a criminal matter, the State&#039;s Attorney in Sangamon County could investigate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob&#8211;as a criminal matter, the State&#8217;s Attorney in Sangamon County could investigate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leo</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19044</link>
		<dc:creator>leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:57:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19044</guid>
		<description>Burris is such bad news.  It&#039;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&#039;m making assumptions) when everyone else had already said their piece within days of Blago&#039;s arrest.

Did Burris feel he was above this moral responsibility to acquit himself?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Burris is such bad news.  It&#8217;s like having Blagojevich hanging around with the impeachment not happening for another year.</p>
<p>My only question is, why did he wait till February to come clean on this stuff (you see, already I&#8217;m making assumptions) when everyone else had already said their piece within days of Blago&#8217;s arrest.</p>
<p>Did Burris feel he was above this moral responsibility to acquit himself?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob_N</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/02/16/on-the-other-hand-this-could-be-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-19043</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob_N</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:48:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11462#comment-19043</guid>
		<description>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 &quot;a bad beginning&quot; for Obama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cross and McKenna will try to keep it alive to soften the seat up for 2010 but just to be clear &#8230; there will not be an investigation. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 &#8220;a bad beginning&#8221; for Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

