Comments on: Burris Lied About Blagojevich Contact

By: Drew

Drew — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:19:51 +0000

A concensus seems to be forming that they can't prove pergury. This from better legal minds than mine....which means an awful lot of people.

If Buris simply obfuscates it appears he can muddle through.

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:58:58 +0000

PD,
Wasn't the testimony given in DC?
If so it should be federal or DC law in play, right?
I would imagine that the law would be similar. Republicans would like nothing better than to have a front page scandal with a Democratic senator and the Democrats don't look to want to spend political capitol defending the man that they didn't want to let in in the first place.

By: Drew

Drew — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:43:30 +0000

PD Shaw -

On your last comment. That appears to be exactly where this is headed. Or at least where it should go.

Let's see if the powers that be - even here in Illinois - have the balls to do what is obviously the right thing.

I'm waiting for the race card........or for Obama to weigh in: "for the good of the country in these tough times........" or even James Carville: its purgery, but its just about money, so its OK......

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:14:09 +0000

Someone who lies in his subpoenaed testimony to a legislative investigatory committee has committed perjury and is subject to criminal punishment.

Link

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:51:01 +0000

What are the legal consequences of lying to a congressional committee?
Was he under oath? If so how does that effect the legal consequences?
Investigate and follow the law. If that means he is gone, hold a special election.

By: Drew

Drew — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:28:01 +0000

Just as a suspected. Someone got on the scent. It is now being reported that there may be a taped conversation with Blago's brother. Ooopsey. Hence, a "new and improved" Burris affidavit. Some are giving him a pass, however they are the type who continue to be flummoxed over the meaning of "is," and believed Obama when he says he investigated Rahmmy and he was clean. "Move along. Nothing happening here." On your way........shooshh

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:45:44 +0000

Dave, the more I think about it, the less sure I am that the legislature cannot call a special election to continue out Burris' term. Usually, courts invalidate retroactive laws only if they impact constitutional rights, the most likely are the rights guaranteed by the due process clause (property and liberty). But one does not have a due process right to an elected office. The Illinois Constitution doesn't appear to say anything about the U.S. Senate seat; I think one would have to find some federal principle in jeopardy. It would be an interesting, perhaps litigious, question.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:37:47 +0000

Drew, the problem being overlooked is the original affidavit. The problem with identifying corruption here was always the issue of intermediaries. Burris said in his first affidavit that the number of people on his staff that spoke with people on the Governor's staff about the appointment was zero. Then in his personal testimony, he said one. Now, an affidavit says five, plus the Governor!

By: Drew

Drew — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:43:18 +0000

The way the Tribune reported it this morning, he lied "under oath" (their words) to the impeachment committee, and is now changing his story. Did the impeachment committee have the same legal status as a prosecutor? I don't know. If so, its purgery. Supporters of course tell us he's just "amplifying his remarks." Right. We all need to "amplyfy" after lieing sometimes, right? Some would say he better get out in front of this because someone is on the scent. Whether this has legal standing only time will tell. But only a dolt doesn't understand he flat out lied. Of course, here in Illinois they all lie.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:12:43 +0000

The Illinois legislature really should take measures to have a special election for this seat.

I agree that the Illinois legislature should have taken steps to prevent this nightmare from occurring in the first place. However, I think it's beyond their powers now to correct it since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the U. S. constitution. Consequently, anything the Illinois legislature did now would apply only to Burris's successor.

By: Steve Plunk

Steve Plunk — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:58:59 +0000

If I lied to investigators I could go to jail. We are seeing the emergence of a two class society.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:15:06 +0000

Just me:

Given the recent Revelations of how politics are still conducted in Illinois, the presumption that any special action would be as they say "fair and balanced" seems unjustified.

I think what really needs to change in this case is the presumption of the people of Illinois the Democrats are the way to go. This kind of incidents been going on for some time, and yet, they keep marching.... goosestepping... down that same well-trodden road to destruction.

Given that facts seem to have very little influence on their voting choices I wonder if such change can ever be achieved.

By: just me

just me — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:59:16 +0000

The Illinois legislature really should take measures to have a special election for this seat.

The seat and how it was filled has a pretty large stench to it-either directly from Blago or from liars who apparently "forgot" things in order to get the seat.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:11:57 +0000

Three different sworn versions of the events; if he gets the Scooter treatment he will be convicted (and then have his sentence commuted).