Especially impressive is how Burris contradicts himself in the affidavit.
In the second affidavit he says he was attending a fundraiser for Blagojevich on June 27, 2008, where he made a donation, and asked Scofield and/or Wyma about the potential position.
Next paragraph, Burris says he rebuffed Rob Blagojevich for fundraising because to do so would be a conflict of interest.
It’s like he didn’t read the paragraphs together.
But let’s review what we now know. Burris sought out the Senate seat from
1) Lon Monk Lobbyist
2) John Wyma Lobbyist
3) Doug Scofield State Contractor
4) Rob Blagojevich Chief Fundraiser for Blagojevich
5) Finally, John Harris Chief of Staff
Burris is shocked, he tells you, shocked that there was gambling going on… pay for play going on, but he approached two lobbyists, a state contractor, and a chief fundraiser for Blagojevich as his first contacts to determine if he could be a legitimate candidate.
And it took him one month to set the record straight with the public about all of these contacts suggest it wasn’t only because he wasn’t allowed to answer, but he was actively trying to hide the information from the public.
U.S. Sen. Roland Burris said today he didn’t have any inappropriate contact with allies of ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich about his desire for Illinois’ Senate seat, and he defended his evolving explanation of what happened as an effort to make sure all the information comes out.
“I’ve always conducted myself with honor and integrity,” Burris said at a combative news conference, where his attorney repeatedly stepped in to try to answer questions as reporters insisted the senator take the microphone.
He was just working the system of governance by lobbyist. Fantastic
All the stories I’ve read discuss contradictions between his testimony at the impeachment hearing and his new affidavit. But I think his public statements should give context to the testimony.
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.
….Vasyl, Burris’ public statements are confusing as heck – the impeachment panel’s questioning and his under-oath responses to same notwithstanding.
Vasyl is absolutely correct about the first sworn statement claiming NO CONTACT until the call from Adam.
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.
“Questions were confusing”?
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.