Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why did Roland Burris lie?
Powerline ^ | Feb 16, 2009

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."

TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: bho44; blagojevich; burris; demlies; il2008; rolandburris
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: SeekAndFind
<"our new U.S. senator proved himself to be a lying little sneak.">

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?

21 posted on 02/16/2009 8:53:26 AM PST by matthew fuller (have they sent in the clowns yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.

22 posted on 02/16/2009 8:56:49 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who tipped off Burris about the FBI recording?

23 posted on 02/16/2009 8:57:09 AM PST by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.

24 posted on 02/16/2009 9:01:01 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sticker

Everybody should realize that it is just impossible for a democrat to lie. only everybody else. /s/

25 posted on 02/16/2009 9:43:50 AM PST by jesseam (Been there and done that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Remember, they didn’t want him in the Senate to begin with.

26 posted on 02/16/2009 10:35:26 AM PST by ducdriver (99% of liberals give the other 1% a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

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 ?

27 posted on 02/16/2009 2:14:42 PM PST by festus (Politics makes for strange bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: festus

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.

28 posted on 02/16/2009 2:23:01 PM PST by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind


29 posted on 02/16/2009 2:35:34 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

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!

30 posted on 02/17/2009 8:05:30 AM PST by ClarenceThomasfan (Hillary Clinton can't hold a candle to Dr. Condolezza Rice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson