Scandal-plagued Republican says Burris should resign

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

Scandal-plagued Republican says Burris should resign
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 02/24/09 01:38 PM

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R), who survived a 2007 sex scandal, called on Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) to resign Tuesday for his ethical shortcomings.

Vitter was connected with a prostitution ring two years ago and dismissed any suggestion of hypocrisy given his own refusal to resign in the wake of that scandal.

"I honestly don't know anybody who would compare these situations," he told The Hill on Tuesday. "They are dramatically different."

Vitter said that Burris "clearly, at a minimum, misled the Illinois Legislature and the voters of the Illinois" by giving incomplete answers about his contacts with and fundraising efforts for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) as Blagojevich was considering appointing Burris to the state's Senate seat.

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/vitter-no-burris-comparision-he-should-resign-2009-02-24.html

[Bozita]

1. shit ... n/t

[demoborn47]

2. WOW

Those are some big repuke cojones..... oh wait he's a hypocrite.

[Rosie1223]

3. Pot, may I introduce Kettle?

[nykym]

7. That's

diapered kettle to you!

[No Elephants]

4. Vitter is a boil on Louisiana's ass, but he's correct about this. Corruption and lying under

oath about how you got your office is NOT in the same category with seeing a prostitute. One goes directly to Burris' right to be in the Senate and his trustworthiness as a lawyer. The other, in a sane society, would be a purely personal matter.

[struggle4progress]

8. I'd be interested to see any evidence that Burris lied under oath: download the

transcript of the impeachment hearing for 8 January (Testimony by Burris is in Volume VII) and read it

The material question was whether Blagojevich attempted to sell the Senate seat, and in that context the question regarding Burris was whether he knew of, or was involved in, any such attempt

There is, at present, to my knowledge, no evidence that Burris knew of any effort to sell the Senate seat or that he actually raised any funds for Blagojevich.

In reading questions and responses, the natural presumption will be, that Burris always presumed that the question he was asked was intended to cast light on whether he knew of, or was involved in, attempt to sell the Senate seat -- since more general fishing expedition questions would have been disallowed as immaterial

Thus, for example, if a questioner asks what might be a very broad question, but indicates he is clarifying an earlier and narrower one, the natural reading of the intent of the question by the witness would be that scope of the new question is contained within the scope of the earlier one and within the general scope of the hearing (namely, did he know of, or was he involved in, any attempt to sell the Senate seat?)

A fair rule for discussion is questions and answers must be read in the context of what information relevant to the hearing was sought by questioners and what opportunity Burris was given to answer fully

If Burris starts to answer a question, and then the questioner moves on after Burris has said a few sentences, without attempting to determine whether Burris said everything he could say about the topic, the questioner has indicated lack of interest in the matter, and it is not at all clear that Burris was lying or evading the question

[marshall]

12. Blagojevich didn't do anything technically illegal either

But he got booted just the same--on trumped up charges mind you, but they wanted him out and they got him out.

Burris would do better to go gently into that good night and save us all a lot of drama.

[Raskolnik]

13. Let me guess--you're not from Illinois, are you? n/t

[marshall]

15. Thankfully no

I do believe the former governor broke the law with the children's hospital extortion, but I don't think he broke the law by negotiating for something in return for a senate seat. Tacky yes, and done with more discretion many times before, but not what he was impeached and removed from office over.

[struggle4progress]

18. You seem to hold a novel theory about when people should resign from office

I don't know whether Blagojevich did or didn't try to sell a Senate seat: we'll have to wait until April to see if the Feds can get an indictment and prefer charges; if they do, there's still the small matter of trial

If Blagojevich didn't try to sell a Senate seat, Burris could scarcely be guilty of lying about knowledge of Blagojevich's effort to sell a Senate seat -- and even if Blagojevich did try to sell a Senate seat, there's the small matter of showing that Burris actually knew about that and concealed it from the Committee: currently, I've seen no evidence suggesting that

If one suspected Burris tried to buy the Senate seat himself, there would be the further issue of showing that Burris actually and corruptly did something for Blagojevich as part of the alleged purchase: currently, there seems to be no evidence that Burris raised any money for Blagojevich

So what do you have materially on Burris now, beyond a lot of wingnut huff-n-puff?

[marshall]

20. Nothing--other than Burris's integrity and willingness to sacrifice for the good of the party

My only notion is that people should resign when they realize they cause more problems than are balanced by their contributions. It is ultimately up to the individual.

But we can thank our lucky stars that Burris isn't going on a Blagojevich-style media tour.

[No Elephants]

22. It is not only the impeachment hearing in Illinois. He's "modified" his story five times in

different affidavits, etc. And, he was asked by Blago's brother to try to raise money for Blago in the context of his Senate seat and did try. And was less than honest about it until his fifth try.

[catgirl]

10. Except prostitution is illegal

Not to mention he had a diaper fetish.

[Soylent Brice]

5. sacrificial lamb of the republicans. think about it.

they want to make noise about burris. no one wants to stick their necks out. so what do they do? they sacrifice the one dude that's screwed in the next election anyways. they put him up to it. of course it sounds stupid coming from him, but he'll get all kinds of coverage. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

bullshit tactic if i've ever seen one. K&R for exposure of fascist tactics.


edit: to expand my point.

[madrchsod]

6. i`m not happy at all about burris

i thought he`d be ok but it looks like he has big problems. if he resigned we would have a special election in the spring then another in 2010. rove and steele have been in illinois fluffing up the boys and girls so they can be ready for the special election and 2010.

i would`t bet the farm that a democrat will win

[Politicalboi]

9. I'm sorry but seeing a prostitute

Is against the law in 48 states. Where did this diaper change take place anyway? A personal matter would be an affair. What David Shitter did was against the law.

[No Elephants]

21. It is against the law, but should it be, really? Why isn't it a personal matter? If it were,

the income could be tax and the business could be regulated to cut down on spread of disease and other undesirable side effects

[Lost in CT]

11. Hey Depends Vitter is right... Throw Burris OUT NOW.

[montanto]

14. Considering that these two things exist in the realm of

mere accusation, conjecture, and speculation I'd have to say that being accused of trying to buy a seat in government is worse than being accused of seeing a prostitute. Then again, I'd rather be tried and convicted before being hanged. Hell, I don't even mind if Republicans get a trial before they are found guilty.

[TroglodyteScholar]

16. I wonder what size diaper it takes to accommodate a set of balls that big...n/t

[tanyev]

17. How about you both resign together, OK?

[bemildred]

19. LOL. Vitter wants to draw attention to himself?

Send him a case of PullUps.

http://www.pull-ups.com/na/default.aspx