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

[dali71]

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree:
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor.../politics/6148832.html

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

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.

Lemon -- We agree on most matters, but you're way off base on this assertion. Last December, U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald publicly announced the arrest of Rod Blagojevich and released previous recordings of phone calls involving him and his staff, and Fitzgerald announced that there were more recordings and others involved.

No one, including Blago, himself, has raised any questions about the legality of those wiretaps. What makes you think this recording is anything other than one more recording from that same collection?

 

[Lemon law]

Harvey notes, "No one, including Blago, himself, has raised any questions about the legality of those wiretaps."

How can Blago, at this point, raise those questions? The wiretaps were simply released after a judge gave Fitz some legal cover

The forum where the legality of the wiretaps will be tested is in the upcoming Blago trial, which is yet to happen. Think a year or two in the future. Like I mentioned to Fern, Ted Stevens had to wait post conviction before he was able to finally get a tainted evidence ruling.

And I also have to wonder why Harvey is not connecting the dots. If the FBI had wiretaps of Burris as a party to some conspiracy to buy the Senate seat, the democrats needed that information then, before Burris was seated, and not three months later. In my mind, the FBI with holding that information amounted to a dirty trick and a lack of integrity. Even if Fitz and friends may not have been able to release the full transcript then, he should have at least clued in some knowledgeable dems that Burris was not telling the truth about his contacts before Reid adn the Illinois sec of State cleared Burris to be seated.

After all, if you had a friend about to commit a terrible mistake due to ignorance, would you let them just make that mistake or would you figure out a way to clue them in.

 

[dali71]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Harvey notes, "No one, including Blago, himself, has raised any questions about the legality of those wiretaps."

How can Blago, at this point, raise those questions? The wiretaps were simply released after a judge gave Fitz some legal cover

The forum where the legality of the wiretaps will be tested is in the upcoming Blago trial, which is yet to happen. Think a year or two in the future. Like I mentioned to Fern, Ted Stevens had to wait post conviction before he was able to finally get a tainted evidence ruling.

And I also have to wonder why Harvey is not connecting the dots. If the FBI had wiretaps of Burris as a party to some conspiracy to buy the Senate seat, the democrats needed that information then, before Burris was seated, and not three months later. In my mind, the FBI with holding that information amounted to a dirty trick and a lack of integrity. Even if Fitz and friends may not have been able to release the full transcript then, he should have at least clued in some knowledgeable dems that Burris was not telling the truth about his contacts before Reid adn the Illinois sec of State cleared Burris to be seated.

After all, if you had a friend about to commit a terrible mistake due to ignorance, would you let them just make that mistake or would you figure out a way to clue them in.

The moonbattery is strong with this one. :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

One would think that if dali71 had any functioning battery to jump start his mind, that he would rebut the points I made one by one.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dali71

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree:
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor.../politics/6148832.html

Wish I could say Obama had found a way to get around the issue of campaign financing needing way too many donations from corporate interests, but that's not the case.

Even with his fundraising advantage and the Republican policies destroying the economy in the weeks approaching the election, it was still close. It's nuts how people voted (R).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
<singing>

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

At an end your rule is, and not short enough it was.

 

[Lemon law]

The other point to make is that Burris really committed no crime in humoring Blago's brother.

It was Blago's brother that was essentially trying to extort a bribe or a price for naming Burris to fill the empty seat.
And Burris was essentially verbally fencing as discussing future hypothetical in the ways he could help raise funds for
the democratic party and how those ways could appear to observers.

Since no deal was consummated, its not a crime, but the Burris mistake was denying the conservation took place under oath.
And IMHO, that should require the resignation of Burris, but had he not lied under oath, there is nothing in the conversation that
was criminal on the part of Burris. Any potential crime was committed by Blago's brother.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Harvey notes, "No one, including Blago, himself, has raised any questions about the legality of those wiretaps."

How can Blago, at this point, raise those questions? The wiretaps were simply released after a judge gave Fitz some legal cover

The forum where the legality of the wiretaps will be tested is in the upcoming Blago trial, which is yet to happen. Think a year or two in the future. Like I mentioned to Fern, Ted Stevens had to wait post conviction before he was able to finally get a tainted evidence ruling.

And I also have to wonder why Harvey is not connecting the dots. If the FBI had wiretaps of Burris as a party to some conspiracy to buy the Senate seat, the democrats needed that information then, before Burris was seated, and not three months later. In my mind, the FBI with holding that information amounted to a dirty trick and a lack of integrity. Even if Fitz and friends may not have been able to release the full transcript then, he should have at least clued in some knowledgeable dems that Burris was not telling the truth about his contacts before Reid and the Illinois sec of State cleared Burris to be seated.


After all, if you had a friend about to commit a terrible mistake due to ignorance, would you let them just make that mistake or would you figure out a way to clue them in.

There is a good possibility that the amount of information within the tapes had not been analyzed/catalogued. Tapes should then be reviewed by multiple people after being recorded and transcribed. Whle Fitz may have been incharge of the investigation; he would have underlings processing that data, filtering it and then informing him of specific content.

Fitz was after Blago not Burris.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

The other point to make is that Burris really committed no crime in humoring Blago's brother.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The act of making offer, itself, constitutes a crime. Burris' excuse is that he never intended to follow through and give him the money. On the tapes, he promised to send money by December 15. Blago was arrested on December 9, so we'll never know what Burris really intended. That will be for a jury to decide.

It was Blago's brother that was essentially trying to extort a bribe or a price for naming Burris to fill the empty seat.
And Burris was essentially verbally fencing as discussing future hypothetical in the ways he could help raise funds for
the democratic party and how those ways could appear to observers.

More for a jury to ponder.

Since no deal was consummated, its not a crime,...

As wrong, here, as it was in your first sentence.

...but the Burris mistake was denying the conservation took place under oath.

That's another crime called purjury.

And IMHO, that should require the resignation of Burris, but had he not lied under oath, there is nothing in the conversation that
was criminal on the part of Burris. Any potential crime was committed by Blago's brother.

At least, you came to the right conclusion, even without all the right reasoning.

 

[FoBoT]

Senate ethics committee inquiry gives him no punishments

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jF7SXGgu8OLW-FiUWbzInTE4pBEgD9C3CFO80

Ethics committee: No punishment for Burris
By LARRY MARGASAK (AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — The Senate ethics committee on Friday admonished Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., for making "inconsistent, misleading or incomplete" statements about the circumstances surrounding his appointment to the seat once held by Barack Obama. The committee didn't recommend any punishment.

 

[Ausm]

Sheesh.. is there a single democrat thats not corrupt?

We would run out of bandwidth listing the members of the GOP on the take.