Skip to comments.Why did Roland Burris lie?
Posted on 02/16/2009 8:17:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On February 5 Roland Burris quietly filed an affidavit to correct the testimony he had provided to the Illinois House impeachment panel on January 8. Rep. James Durkin closely questioned Burris regarding his awareness of a quid pro quo for his Senate seat. His answer was that he was not. Burris's affidavit reveals that he was solicited for campaign cash (up to $10,000, according to the Sun-Times) by Governor Blagojevich's brother Robert in connection with Burris's interest in the seat.
What prompted Burris's correction of his testimony? The Sun-Times notes that one of Burris's three conversations with the governor's brother was likely recorded by the FBI. In an interesting story on Burris's affidavit, the AP reports that Robert Blagojevich's attorney states his client believes one of the conversations was recorded by the FBI. Surely the thought must also have occurred to Burris.
The last exchange between Durkin and Burris that is reflected in the transcript posted by the Sun-Times addresses what Burris would have done if he had been aware of a quid pro quo:
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. If you were aware of a quid pro quo, what would you have done? [Discussion about the relevance of the question follows.]
MR. BURRIS: Representative Durkin, knowing my ethics, I would not participate in anybody's quid pro quo. I've been in government for 20 years and never participated in anybody's quid pro quo.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is would you have gone to the federal authorities if you were aware of that?
MR. BURRIS: I have no response to that.
Did Senator Burris ever "go to federal authorities" after he was asked for campaign cash by the governor's brother? Senator Burris appears to have done absolutely nothing after he was solicited for the campaign cash except cross his fingers and hope it wouldn't hurt the possibility of his appointment by the governor. If the true answer to Rep. Durkin's question is "no," as it seems to be, the true answer must go a long way to explaining Senator Burris's original responses to Rep. Durkin's questions before the impeachment committee.
UPDATE: RealClearPolitics includes Mark Brown's "Perjury or not, Burris at least shows that he's a liar" in its lineup this morning. Brown writes that "our new U.S. senator proved himself to be a lying little sneak."
Here’s another comment made by the folks at POWERLINE :
When Roland Burris testified under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel on Jan. 8, Burris was questioned by Rep. James Durkin (R, Western Springs) on a key point:
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Did you talk to any members of the Governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the Governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including let me throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma, did you talk to anybody who was associated with the Governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the Governor’s arrest?
MR. WRIGHT: Give us a moment.
MR. BURRIS: I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is I was trying to ask, did you speak to anybody who was on the Governor’s staff prior to the Governor’s arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the Governor?
MR. BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up, it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of ‘08 that, you know, you’re close to the Governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. Did you speak to any individuals who — any individuals who were also seeking the appointment of the United States Senate seat, otherwise people we’ve referred to as Senate candidates one through five?
MR. BURRIS: No, I did not.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the Governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?
MR. BURRIS: No, sir.
The Chicago Sun-Times now picks up the story. The Sun-Times reports: “Burris changed his answer Feb. 5 in a quietly filed affidavit.” The Sun-Times has posted the affidavit here. In the affidavit Burris discloses that he himself was hit up for $10,000 in campaign cash by Blagojevich’s brother.
Lynn Sweet adds that Burris also failed to disclose the names of Blagojevich associates whom he spoke with about getting the appointment, either to the impeachment committee or to her personally at a January 7 news conference. Sweet has posted a transcipt of Burris’s “evasive answer” to her question on the subject at his January 7 news conference.
The Sun-Times adds that in a statement to the paper Burris said he wasn’t given the opportunity to fully answer the question before the House panel. Burris’s statement does not appear to square with the transcript.
Rep. Durkin is not happy. He comments: “I don’t trust anything that comes out of Roland Burris’ mouth or from his pen.” Under the circumstances, it seems like a fair comment.
It is simple, he’s from Illinois and answers to the Daley machine in Chicago
we do people get re-elected in Chitown?..answer one you answer both
It all depends on your definition of the word LIE is
Its the old saw - How do you tell when a politician is lying. Answer: When his lips are moving. And it has always been thus.
Why? Why you ask? Because he is a liberal, thats what they do thats who they are.
Someone realized that it might be on the FBI tapes & they had to come clean! Typical Crook County & Ill-Annoy ways!
It's called CYA!!
Well he is a DemocRAT and from Chicago:-()
Just a SWAG but I’d guess because he’s a polidiot racists criminal that can do Precedent Stinky BO harm !
Do not pass "Go"
Go directly to jail.
Try “To get the job!”
The question is, why did he first lie and then quietly file an affidavit admitting the truth?
The obvious answer is that he figured that the truth was bound to come out eventually, so it was better if he broached it than somebody else. But then why did he lie in the first place?
The obvious answer is that it’s a lot harder to fire a black Democrat senator from his job than it is to refuse to appoint him. He obviously figured that once he had been appointed and confirmed by the Senate, then he was golden, and there was no chance, realistically, that the Democrats who control the Senate would boot him out.
What, a bunch of white Democrats boot out a black senator? I think not.
Burris was on the radio in Chicago reading the script about how good the bill was and how dire the situation was that called for the vote. It was as if he was an Obama sock puppet. He did his vote and now he is toast.
Why shouldn’t he lie?
It’s not like telling the truth ever advanced a politician’s career.
Where would Obama be if he had told the truth?
Now you may say "All Democrats lie" ... and this may be true. But in Illinois Democrats case, it's bred into them, in-bred into them, and instilled into them from birth.
Illinois Democrats are a special breed. (Take it from someone who lives here, and has been under the control of the Daley state-wide thugocracy for almost two decades now.)
Does the Burris vote on the stimulus bill count?
Every time a liberal opens his mouth,he lies. It’s so natural for them.
Very fitting-In the image of our new U.S. president himself. Is this a black thing, a dimmacrat thing, or a Chicago thing? Or all of the above?
Notice the lie didn’t come out until the Porkulus vote happened.
Oh well, liars, tax cheats, pay for play, treason and treachery, voter fraud, are imbred into the socialist democrats.
Who tipped off Burris about the FBI recording?
The reasons??? He’s from Illinois, he’s a democrat, he’s a fraud, he’s a criminal, as a democrat it is expected of him, he believes being a democrat excludes him being called on it, because you are racist if you accuse him, pick your own reason, any excuse will do because he is (let me repeat this) a DEMOCRAT and it is part of his heritage.
Everybody should realize that it is just impossible for a democrat to lie. only everybody else. /s/
Remember, they didn’t want him in the Senate to begin with.
No Bill Clinton proved perjury under oath is ok in some cases. The question is, in the Burris case, who was wearing a blue dress ?
What happened in the Burris case is that Burris successfully played the race card. No one dared to challenge him, no white man, that is. -and the Obama administration was stuck, they couldn’t call him on the lie without releasing ALL the tapes of Blagojovich, which would have shown that the Obama administration and the SEIU were in the business of buying and selling political positions, as well.
My guess is that Burris was being threatened behind the scenes about being prosecuted and this mea culpa is his way of letting Rahm Emmanuel know that he is going to defend himself, in the press, not behind closed doors. The man is a lawyer, he’s no Uncle Tom, like he presented himself. It’s an act.
I hope the Illinois Republicans don’t push Burris too hard. We WANT to run against him in 2010. He is damaged goods. I would rather run against him than a stronger Lisa Madigan or Tammy Duckworth who would have the benefits if incumbancy.
I really hope they don’t blow it. We have a good chance to win this senate seat if we chose our opposition carefully. Think guys!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.