Burris needs to go

[airdvr 210]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/burris.blagojevich/index.html
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Illinois Republican leaders on Sunday called for a perjury investigation of Sen. Roland Burris, questioning if he "purposely deceived the public" last month by failing to tell state lawmakers that then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother solicited him for campaign cash.

Another power hungry pol willing to do anything to put Senator on his resume.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[hwt 0]

If the guy had any integrity, he never would have taken the position in the first place. Just shows how some people will do anything to get what they want..

[Andy9o8 2]

I agree. The only proper thing for anyone to whom Blago might have offered that appointment to do would have been to say no - and make it clear to Blago that nobody would be his enabler as he sought to use the Senate appointment as a last-gasp flipping of the bird to the people of Illinois and the US Senate.

Burris was selfish - he let himself get so star-struck at the prospect of becoming a US Senator that he completely ignored the stench on his own name that would leave. Now he's getting burned by his own vanity. Well, tough shit, Mr. Burris.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

I agree. The only proper thing for anyone to whom Blago might have offered that appointment to do would have been to say no - and make it clear to Blago that nobody would be his enabler as he sought to use the Senate appointment as a last-gasp flipping of the bird to the people of Illinois and the US Senate.

Burris was selfish - he let himself get so star-struck at the prospect of becoming a US Senator that he completely ignored the stench on his own name that would leave. Now he's getting burned by his own vanity. Well, tough shit, Mr. Burris.

While I agree that Burris should have refused the appointment, I see no perjury or deceit in his answer to the impeachment committee. Watch the video: He was asked if he had any contact with X, Y, or Z... and he replied "Yes". He was NOT asked with whom he had contact, or what they talked about.

When I've given depositions under oath, I've always been instructed only to answer the exact question asked. I can't see the Burris can be faulted for answering the way he did.

[kelpdiver 2]

There was little uncertainty the the circumstances on his confirmation - the Senate did not want to confirm someone that had any hint of compromise.

At this point, Reid should keep him out of any subcommittees until the next election.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I agree. The only proper thing for anyone to whom Blago might have offered that appointment to do would have been to say no - and make it clear to Blago that nobody would be his enabler as he sought to use the Senate appointment as a last-gasp flipping of the bird to the people of Illinois and the US Senate.

Burris was selfish - he let himself get so star-struck at the prospect of becoming a US Senator that he completely ignored the stench on his own name that would leave. Now he's getting burned by his own vanity. Well, tough shit, Mr. Burris.

While I agree that Burris should have refused the appointment, I see no perjury or deceit in his answer to the impeachment committee. Watch the video: He was asked if he had any contact with X, Y, or Z... and he replied "Yes". He was NOT asked with whom he had contact, or what they talked about.

When I've given depositions under oath, I've always been instructed only to answer the exact question asked. I can't see the Burris can be faulted for answering the way he did.

I can, because I'm viewing his testimony from the perspective of a citizen, not as a lawyer. If he'd given that testimony while a cadet or midshipman at a military academy, it would have qualified as "quibbling", for which he'd have been expelled for violating the honor code. He was deceptive by deliberate omission: he should have made the disclosure to the citizenry and the Senate; and that he did not is an intolerable violation of ethics. In my opinion.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree. The only proper thing for anyone to whom Blago might have offered that appointment to do would have been to say no - and make it clear to Blago that nobody would be his enabler as he sought to use the Senate appointment as a last-gasp flipping of the bird to the people of Illinois and the US Senate.

Burris was selfish - he let himself get so star-struck at the prospect of becoming a US Senator that he completely ignored the stench on his own name that would leave. Now he's getting burned by his own vanity. Well, tough shit, Mr. Burris.

While I agree that Burris should have refused the appointment, I see no perjury or deceit in his answer to the impeachment committee. Watch the video: He was asked if he had any contact with X, Y, or Z... and he replied "Yes". He was NOT asked with whom he had contact, or what they talked about.

When I've given depositions under oath, I've always been instructed only to answer the exact question asked. I can't see the Burris can be faulted for answering the way he did.

I can, because I'm viewing his testimony from the perspective of a citizen, not as a lawyer. If he'd given that testimony while a cadet or midshipman at a military academy, it would have qualified as "quibbling", for which he'd have been expelled for violating the honor code. He was deceptive by deliberate omission: he should have made the disclosure to the citizenry and the Senate; and that he did not is an intolerable violation of ethics. In my opinion.

i agree with you, wow.

[chuckakers 426]

Your wish may soon be granted.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/burris-now-acknowledges-fundraising-effort-for-blagojevich.html

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree. The only proper thing for anyone to whom Blago might have offered that appointment to do would have been to say no - and make it clear to Blago that nobody would be his enabler as he sought to use the Senate appointment as a last-gasp flipping of the bird to the people of Illinois and the US Senate.

Burris was selfish - he let himself get so star-struck at the prospect of becoming a US Senator that he completely ignored the stench on his own name that would leave. Now he's getting burned by his own vanity. Well, tough shit, Mr. Burris.

While I agree that Burris should have refused the appointment, I see no perjury or deceit in his answer to the impeachment committee. Watch the video: He was asked if he had any contact with X, Y, or Z... and he replied "Yes". He was NOT asked with whom he had contact, or what they talked about.

When I've given depositions under oath, I've always been instructed only to answer the exact question asked. I can't see the Burris can be faulted for answering the way he did.

I can, because I'm viewing his testimony from the perspective of a citizen, not as a lawyer. If he'd given that testimony while a cadet or midshipman at a military academy, it would have qualified as "quibbling", for which he'd have been expelled for violating the honor code. He was deceptive by deliberate omission: he should have made the disclosure to the citizenry and the Senate; and that he did not is an intolerable violation of ethics. In my opinion.

Disagree - He was participating in a legal action under the rules of evidence. He was NOT at a military academy.

However, I still think he's a sleaze, his appointment is fatally tainted, and he should resign. I just don;t see any perjury, since he wasn't required under oath to answer questions that he was not asked.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Disagree - He was participating in a legal action under the rules of evidence. He was NOT at a military academy.

However, I still think he's a sleaze, his appointment is fatally tainted, and he should resign. I just don;t see any perjury, since he wasn't required under oath to answer questions that he was not asked.

Sigh. I started typing out yet another clarifying explanation; but you know what - I think my point is expressed quite clearly enough, and I stand by my posts.

[kelpdiver 2]

"The last person who welcomed investigations and inquiries the way Roland Burris is doing now was the man who appointed him, Rod Blagojevich," Franks said. "He said there was nothing but sunshine, nothing to worry about. Look what happened there.”

That line accurately portrays the current state of affairs.