Burris admits Blagojevich donation request **Updated 2/20** Ill Gov. Calls on Burris to resign

[caivoma]

Sorry to bump old thread but I don't want to make a new thread on this subject.

More news: http://www.latimes.com/news/na...9may28,0,3992120.story

The telephone conversation between Burris and Robert Blagojevich, secretly recorded by the FBI as part of a federal corruption probe, became public Tuesday when a state judge released a transcript to the Senate Ethics Committee. The embattled governor appointed Burris to fill the Senate seat vacated by President Obama.

At one point in the transcript, Burris says he could write Blagojevich a check, then muses about giving money through his law firm and says he "might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright." Wright, Burris said, "is not looking for an appointment, OK?"

Burris also said he chose his words poorly during the call, that he was speaking of Wright hosting a fundraiser, not donating money in Wright's name. Contributions made in the name of another person violate state election law.

 

[Lemon law]

Burris is an old fossil and a basic product of the Chicago political machine, certainly not as corrupt as Blago, or Blago's GOP predecessor Ryan who is now in jail. But to a certain extent, we have to understand, that this type of behavior is the normal way things get done around Chicago.

Now in comes the FBI with its sting operation, all kinds of wiretaps whose legality has yet to be demonstrated, and under our legal system, if those wiretaps fail to meet muster in a court of law, the fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine will apply and they will not be admissible evidence.

But still, their public release created an trial by public opinion, and Blago's impeachment is both legal and final. Quite a coup administered by the normally bi-partisan FBI, but I ask, when Blago appointed Burris and the Senate leadership of the democratic party was put in a quandary on seating Burris or not, why did not FBI wait until now to release these wiretaps regarding Burris? Had they been released when Reid first refused to seat Burris, its extremely probable that Burris would have never been seated.

And I am fairly sure that the democratic national committee is asking the same questions, and some heads will roll at the FBI for pulling dirty political tricks. Or we may see a court soon rule that these wiretaps are indeed illegal, and the court will also rule they must not be made public.

Meanwhile what to do now that Burris is now really tainted? Maybe the dems can give him some face saving appointment, he resigns his Senate seat, and Governor Quinn appoints his replacement. Failing that, he may get to serve out the term, but I doubt he will win the democratic nomination for Senate in 2010.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Burris is an old fossil and a basic product of the Chicago political machine, certainly not as corrupt as Blago, or Blago's GOP predecessor Ryan who is now in jail. But to a certain extent, we have to understand, that this type of behavior is the normal way things get done around Chicago.

Now in comes the FBI with its sting operation, all kinds of wiretaps whose legality has yet to be demonstrated, and under our legal system, if those wiretaps fail to meet muster in a court of law, the fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine will apply and they will not be admissible evidence.

But still, their public release created an trial by public opinion, and Blago's impeachment is both legal and final. Quite a coup administered by the normally bi-partisan FBI, but I ask, when Blago appointed Burris and the Senate leadership of the democratic party was put in a quandary on seating Burris or not, why did not FBI wait until now to release these wiretaps regarding Burris? Had they been released when Reid first refused to seat Burris, its extremely probable that Burris would have never been seated.

And I am fairly sure that the democratic national committee is asking the same questions, and some heads will roll at the FBI for pulling dirty political tricks. Or we may see a court soon rule that these wiretaps are indeed illegal, and the court will also rule they must not be made public.

Meanwhile what to do now that Burris is now really tainted? Maybe the dems can give him some face saving appointment, he resigns his Senate seat, and Governor Quinn appoints his replacement. Failing that, he may get to serve out the term, but I doubt he will win the democratic nomination for Senate in 2010.

Unfortunately, this whole debacle is an example of how things get done in big government in general; not just Chicago and not just in the Democratic party. If it was about doing what's right, the Democrats in the Senate would have held true to their word in saying they wouldn't seat anyone that idiot named. Then in just a few more weeks, the new governor would have appointed someone without the spectre of Blagojevich tainting his or her selection. But no... In the grand old tradition of putting the good of the party before the good of the state and country, they went ahead and seated him, thinking it the most expedient way in which to protect their majority in the Senate.

I wish I could say any of it surprised me; but it didn't. It was a quick and handy demonstration of the fact that politicians are politicians the world over. It's not Republicans vs Democrats; it's Republicans and Democrats vs. anyone and anything that threatens their influence and power... including us, the American people.

 

[K1052]

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Everyone here knew Burris promised Blago something for the seat. There is no way in hell he's going come anywhere close to getting elected even if he somehow pulls off the miracle of avoiding a criminal indictment.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Unfortunately, this whole debacle is an example of how things get done in big government in general; not just Chicago and not just in the Democratic party.

No, it's not. It's a terrible exception. Not that government doesn't have a lot of problems, but not like this for the most part.

If it was about doing what's right, the Democrats in the Senate would have held true to their word in saying they wouldn't seat anyone that idiot named. Then in just a few more weeks, the new governor would have appointed someone without the spectre of Blagojevich tainting his or her selection. But no... In the grand old tradition of putting the good of the party before the good of the state and country, they went ahead and seated him, thinking it the most expedient way in which to protect their majority in the Senate.

You're not recognizing the issue. The fact was that under the law, the governor had only been convicted in the press, and he had the legal right to appoint the Senator.

The precedent you want set is for the Senate leadership to say 'based not on the law, but on the perceptions and public opinion, we will start denying states who they want.'

Your precedent could set up its own corruption. Now, I called for the Senate to refuse to seat him on the grounds that they have that right in these unique circumstances - but I'm pointing out that it was hardly the 'no-brainer' decision you lay it out as. The Republicans were attacking Democrats for not following the law, and they had a point, when questions were raised how solid a legal basis Democrats had for denying him the seat. I think it was probably strong enough, but there's a case on the other side.

The media were widely reporting that this was some sort of 'clean' appointment because Blago was trying to look good for the upcoming actions against his behavior.

To be clear, I'm agreeing with your position, but not with your description of the situation as this being an easy clear call for the Democrats.

The Democrats did not approve him as a corrupt act - it was under pressure to respect the law. It's not as if they gained some big corrupt prize for doing so. If you want to say that not having their work disrupted by this as an ongoing issue, that was perhaps a motive, but that's hardly like taking bribes.

I'd like to see this investigated - and while I'd be very glad to see him removed, the question is whether the facts justify it legally. The facts as reported show him to be quite scummy and dishonest; I'm not sure his showing an inclination to be willing to do an act he did not do meets the standard legally for removing a Senator, though. It may just be a mess we have to tolerate until the next election.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, straight from the Constitution

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

All it takes is a 2/3 vote to kick him out. There is no 'legal standard.'

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig, straight from the Constitution

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

All it takes is a 2/3 vote to kick him out. There is no 'legal standard.'

Yes, and at the time under discussion, when Burris was appointed, *he* had little or no proven 'disorderly behavior' to justify kicking him out. Blago was still the legal governor and still legally entitled to appoint the Senator; while the Senate would have been clearly justified to not seat a Senator who there was evidence had 'paid for the seat', it's a lot murkier when refusing to seat an appointee from the governor who has that power for the governor's wrongs.

From a news story at the time:

In the end, Burris' most persuasive argument may have been a 1969 Supreme Court decision requiring that the House and the Senate seat any duly elected or appointed member who met constitutional age, citizenship and residency requirements for the office.

Legal scholars said it would be difficult for Senate leaders to make a case that their reservations about Blagojevich justified barring Burris from the Senate. And lacking any evidence of quid pro quo in the Burris appointment, it would have been just about impossible for leaders to prevent Burris from taking his seat, experts say.

As you can see, the issue, as I said, was hardly as simple as you and the other poster claim. While I supported his not being seated, it was not that simple an issue.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, based on what we know now should Burris resign??

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig, based on what we know now should Burris resign??

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go.

IMO, yes he should. I disagree with your characterization - it's not as if the recording had him discussing the big sums he gave and accepting blago's list for corrupt votes to make.

For what you say to be true, wouldn't he need to have actually given money, not just indicated his willingness to do so? You need to check the hyperbole.

It's sad that I'm disgusted by his behavior and would rather just post my criticism of it, but your overreaching can only be responded to by defending him from your excess.

 

[BoomerD]

Political corruption, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, needs to be a death penalty offense.

Far worse than the money they steal, the bribes and kickbacks they take, the multitude of "campaign contributions" they receive from lobbyists, they steal our confidence in "the system."

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Political corruption, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, needs to be a death penalty offense.

Far worse than the money they steal, the bribes and kickbacks they take, the multitude of "campaign contributions" they receive from lobbyists, they steal our confidence in "the system."

:thumbsup: x infinity

Boot the bastard!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig, based on what we know now should Burris resign??

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go.

IMO, yes he should. I disagree with your characterization - it's not as if the recording had him discussing the big sums he gave and accepting blago's list for corrupt votes to make.

For what you say to be true, wouldn't he need to have actually given money, not just indicated his willingness to do so? You need to check the hyperbole.

It's sad that I'm disgusted by his behavior and would rather just post my criticism of it, but your overreaching can only be responded to by defending him from your excess.

I didn't say anything!!!!

We knew Blago was trying to sell the Senate seat. When Burris was picked we all feared that the pick was tainted with money and gifts and now it seems that fear has come true.

Just because he never gave the money does not make him innocent. The fact that he offered is all we need to know.

 

[Lemon law]

First, Non Prof John says, "Craig, based on what we know now should Burris resign??

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go."

And Now Non Prof John says, "I didn't say anything!!!!"

Aside from that, I was unaware that Craig was any kind of decider.

And there are quite a few ways to look at the matter now that Burris is tainted with a possible perjury charge. If The dems and the larger Senate subsequently force a Burris resignation or impeachment, Illinois Governor Quinn, someone is is not tainted by corruption, will simply appoint a replacement Senator, and if said Senator is successful and popular, a democratic re-election of said Senator is likely in the general election of 11/2010. And maybe the best case GOP scenario may be to have Burris remain as Illinois Junior Senator, where the existing current taint may remain in place and help the GOP win the seat in 11/2010. Meanwhile, before the general election of 11/2010, there is zero chance of any GOP member walking away with that Senate Seat in any kind of run off election or other GOP fantasy.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Political corruption, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, needs to be a death penalty offense.

Far worse than the money they steal, the bribes and kickbacks they take, the multitude of "campaign contributions" they receive from lobbyists, they steal our confidence in "the system."

i agree. i always wonder how the country (well world really) would be if policians were honest.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
First, Non Prof John says, "Craig, based on what we know now should Burris resign??

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go."

And Now Non Prof John says, "I didn't say anything!!!!"

Aside from that, I was unaware that Craig was any kind of decider.

And there are quite a few ways to look at the matter now that Burris is tainted with a possible perjury charge. If The dems and the larger Senate subsequently force a Burris resignation or impeachment, Illinois Governor Quinn, someone is is not tainted by corruption, will simply appoint a replacement Senator, and if said Senator is successful and popular, a democratic re-election of said Senator is likely in the general election of 11/2010. And maybe the best case GOP scenario may be to have Burris remain as Illinois Junior Senator, where the existing current taint may remain in place and help the GOP win the seat in 11/2010. Meanwhile, before the general election of 11/2010, there is zero chance of any GOP member walking away with that Senate Seat in any kind of run off election or other GOP fantasy.

The Non Prof John thing keeps getting funnier every time you post it. It took me a good 15 mins to calm down enough to post this I was laughing so hard. True comedic gold. It totally sways everyone to your side when you discredit him like that. I mean, if we can't trust the identity and expertise of people on the internet, WHO can we trust?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Political corruption, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, needs to be a death penalty offense.

Far worse than the money they steal, the bribes and kickbacks they take, the multitude of "campaign contributions" they receive from lobbyists, they steal our confidence in "the system."

i agree. i always wonder how the country (well world really) would be if policians were honest.

Well there would be no democrats for one.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go.

OMFGWTFBBQ!!! We agree. :shocked:

Burris is still trying to dance ever so gingerly away from his own words recorded by the FBI, and, if you're willing to bend credibility to the point of absurdity, he might get as far as wasting a jury's time claiming he's innocent because he didn't actually give any money to Blago, but it doesn't matter for several reasons:

1. The crime is in making the offer of a quid pro quo, regardless of whether he followed through with the act.
   
2. He is an embarrassment to himself, to the Democratic Party and to the office he holds. Assuming the best case, least credible interpretation of his taped statements, he should resign because nothing he can say will remove the appearance of impropriety.
   
3. In both oral and written testimony before both the Illinois House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate committee prior to being seated, Burris failed to disclose that he had any contact with Blago or any of his staff regarding campaign contributions.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Political corruption, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, needs to be a death penalty offense.

Far worse than the money they steal, the bribes and kickbacks they take, the multitude of "campaign contributions" they receive from lobbyists, they steal our confidence in "the system."

i agree. i always wonder how the country (well world really) would be if policians were honest.

Well there would be no democrats for one.

No republicans either...they set the standard for dishonesty, bribery, and fraud.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to agree with the BoomerD point that corruption is not a monopoly of any party. And sadly, in recent years, corruption and dishonesty has been disproportionally a problem for the GOP. And to add injury to insult, most of the corrupt and dishonest in the GOP have been at the Senior level in the party. Although its intolerable for a junior Senator like Burris, its far more dangerous when most of the GOP leadership was totally corrupt and dishonest. When the GOP Vice President was a serial liar and arguably an international war criminal, the GOP AG was running around committing perjury and other illegal acts, when the current house minority leader is only slightly less corrupt than Tom Delay, its not hard to understand why the GOP was voted out of office. And that is only a GOP short short list. Fair is fair, there are some democrats that should get mentioned also, and Burris, IMHO, should have to go because his past statements just do not square with the facts.

Now the next real question is, given the fact that the democrats dominate the legislative and executive branches, is will the dems step up to the plate and throw that rascal Burris out? Time will tell.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
Now in comes the FBI with its sting operation, all kinds of wiretaps whose legality has yet to be demonstrated, and under our legal system, if those wiretaps fail to meet muster in a court of law, the fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine will apply and they will not be admissible evidence.

What on earth makes you cast doubt on the legality of these wiretaps?

It is well-known that there was long running investigation into Blago's corruption, why wouldn't we assume that a judge issued a warrent for the tap? This ain't FISA stuff.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
But still, their public release created an trial by public opinion, and Blago's impeachment is both legal and final. Quite a coup administered by the normally bi-partisan FBI, but I ask, when Blago appointed Burris and the Senate leadership of the democratic party was put in a quandary on seating Burris or not, why did not FBI wait until now to release these wiretaps regarding Burris? Had they been released when Reid first refused to seat Burris, its extremely probable that Burris would have never been seated.

And I am fairly sure that the democratic national committee is asking the same questions, and some heads will roll at the FBI for pulling dirty political tricks.

How the h3ll is this an FBI dirty trick?

The FBI was wiretapping for the prosecution of Blago, not determining the suitablity of Burris for the Senate seat. They had no reason to release those tapes for that confirmation.

Nor, as settled case law tells us could that release have legally prevented Burris from being seated once all his paperwork was delivered to Reid. The Senate is must vote him out (or he could resign, something I doubt), it's the same now as it was back a few months ago.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
Or we may see a court soon rule that these wiretaps are indeed illegal, and the court will also rule they must not be made public.

Wherea er you getting this "wiretaps are indeed illegal" stuff from?

Why would a judge rule that evidence in the prosecution of a public official must remain secret? That makes no sense, our trials are public.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
Meanwhile what to do now that Burris is now really tainted? Maybe the dems can give him some face saving appointment, he resigns his Senate seat, and Governor Quinn appoints his replacement. Failing that, he may get to serve out the term, but I doubt he will win the democratic nomination for Senate in 2010.

What about the obvious option(s) that either (1) the Senate votes him out or (2) he resigns?

IMO< at this point the least likely option is that he serve out the term. That is unimaginable, or be unimaginabley stupid on the part of the Dems (as regards the mid-term elections).

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig, based on what we know now should Burris resign??

Seems that the worst fears about him and Blago and the money have come true.

I say he needs to go.

IMO, yes he should. I disagree with your characterization - it's not as if the recording had him discussing the big sums he gave and accepting blago's list for corrupt votes to make.

For what you say to be true, wouldn't he need to have actually given money, not just indicated his willingness to do so? You need to check the hyperbole.

It's sad that I'm disgusted by his behavior and would rather just post my criticism of it, but your overreaching can only be responded to by defending him from your excess.

I didn't say anything!!!!

We knew Blago was trying to sell the Senate seat. When Burris was picked we all feared that the pick was tainted with money and gifts and now it seems that fear has come true.

Just because he never gave the money does not make him innocent. The fact that he offered is all we need to know.

It appears that your reading comprehension has sunk to a level we can't communicate.

You bounce around all over, apparently oblivious.

Here's the sort of exchange we have as a result:

PJ: OJ Simpson is the worst sort of murderer in US History!!!!

Craig234: Don't make me defend OJ, who murdered two people, but there are worse.

PJ: I didn't say anything!!!! And his only killing two people doesn't make him not a killer!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Political corruption, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, needs to be a death penalty offense.

Far worse than the money they steal, the bribes and kickbacks they take, the multitude of "campaign contributions" they receive from lobbyists, they steal our confidence in "the system."

i agree. i always wonder how the country (well world really) would be if policians were honest.

Well there would be no democrats for one.

this is not just a democrat thing though. there are just as many repubs that are currupt and dishonest.

this is one of the things that sickens me about politicians. very few care abaout the people. its all about what they can get out of it.

 

[Lemon law]

Thank you Fern for at least addressing the FBI dirty tricks question plus the admissibility question, for a while I thought no one had noticed the questions I raised in that post. It may be all well and fine for you, Fern, to poo poo the possibilities, but its a legal question, and you can damn well bet, that the upcoming Blago trial will focus on those questions of admissibility.

Which also fails to address the FBI dirty tricks question, lest we forget, the DNC can't fail to note and possibly eliminate some possible GOP operatives.

Its worth noting, that the Ted Stevens conviction has already been reversed for similar Prosecution misconduct and evidence gathering.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: waggy

this is one of the things that sickens me about politicians. very few care abaout the people. its all about what they can get out of it.

It's more like "if you want to win, you have to raise outrageous sums of donations that are mostly available from special interests. How do you want to pick your donors?"

Corporations have vast sums of money with which to hire people to advocate for them. The public donates relatively little money for its own agenda. What's going to happen?

IMO, we're lucky to have as many 'good' politicians as we do, few as they may be, that the whole thing isn't one big cesspool where they're all bought and paid for.

 

[heyheybooboo]

<singing>

"" Buh Bye, Burris. Buh Bye.
Buh Bye, Burris. Buh Bye. ""