I guess "Senator" Burris is history ... buh bye.

[Hieronymus]

[Bonn1997]

1. Really embarrassing

[RB TexLa]

2. And what grounds do you think the Senate has to expel him?

[Gman]

3. Perjury is a good start

[RB TexLa]

6. What question do you feel he did not answer truthfully?

[Hieronymus]

9. He lied ....

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/1432691,CST-NWS-stein16.article

[RB TexLa]

13. I guess the columnist forgot to put the question and the senator's untruthful answer in his

column.

[Hieronymus]

21. Perhaps if you read the article....

[RB TexLa]

25. I did, I didn't see what question he thinks the senator answered untruthfully

Like I said I think the forgot to put it in there.

Really I'd like to see what answer to what question you and this columnist thinks was untruthful.

[qanda]

4. I'm not in the loop. Did something new happen?

[DCBob]

8. Burris may have been caught in contradiction of his testimony.

Something about talking with Blago brother about a donation which he did not disclose during his testimony. It sounds like he is toast.

[qanda]

14. Oh, I heard about that. I thought maybe something new just happened.

[hfojvt]

5. some people seem to hope so

like Margaret Carlson on KeithO.

I wish Margaret Carlson could be history after she disgraced herself in the War on Gore

[Hieronymus]

11. Margaret Carlson was right. For some reason you like Burris?

[hfojvt]

18. I like Burris for many reasons

I like him more than I like Carlson. I have not been impressed by the piling on Burris nor with the piling on Blago.

[rvablue]

26. So lying during the impeachment hearings was OK with you?

That's sad.

We wouldn't tolerate it from any Repub. and we shouldn't tolerate from our own party members.

[hfojvt]

28. am I supposed to tolerate it from you though?

Because Burris did not testify at Blago's impeachment hearing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/blagojevich-impeachment-hearing

Of course, he did testify to a house committee considering impeachment, so you are correct in a sense. However, you are also wrong in a sense and that wrongness is gonna be blow up into the moral equivalent of a huge lie. You said something that wasn't true, and like Daschle's taxes, we cannot possibly think it was a mistake.

If you read the testimony, there is no lie. Nothing in the testimony is untrue is it? It is just that it is incomplete.

"Durkin: I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor's staff prior to the governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who was closely related to the governor?

Burris (again confers with attorney and says): I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business and I did bring it up, it must have been in September-maybe it was in July of '08 and you know, 'If your close to the governor, well let him know that I will feel certainly interested in the seat.'"

Durkin: OK."

Durkin said "OK" instead of asking another probing question, like "Was that the only such contact?" and then he went off on other hypotheticals. Nowhere did Burris say it was the only contact.

But the media weaves a story, writes a script that proves Burris' dishonesty, stupidity or calculating dishonesty. Such tales have a certain amout of plausibility. They could be true, but they don't have to be true. They are just cynical stories that smear mud on Democratic politicians. The Democrat is pre-judged and every action is put into a frame where it is explained in the worst possible light, it confirms the pre-judgement.

[elizfeelinggreat]

12. I second that. Why in the world is Margaret so popular lately?

I guess I know why but I don't care for it.

Find another corporate-approved Democrat, please.
Margaret is no great D supporter, IMO.

[tritsofme]

7. Did something new happen in the past few hours?

Or are we just commenting on the general embarrassment he is?

I will vote against him in the primary (if he lasts that long) and if necessary I will vote against him in the general election as well.

I refuse to give this man even the appearance of my blessing.

[Maru Kitteh]

10. Harry flippin' Reid should have stalled long enough for the impeachment.

Instead of folding up like a cheap map to nowhere.

[stillcool]

15. He is the Senator from Illinois..

I would hope the Majority Leader of the Senate does not have the power to refuse a Senator from any state, for any reason.

[RB TexLa]

16. The appointment would still have been valid. Do you think everything the governor did all of a

sudden became null and void after he was impeached?

[Renew Deal]

23. They could have refused to seat Burris.

Like Reid said he would.

[Renew Deal]

22. I agree

If Reid did what he said he would do, we wouldn't have this problem. There was no way Burris was going to be clean.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

17. He won't go quietly

Egomaniacs are stubborn folk.

[rvablue]

27. Nope. He still has all that empty space on his prefab mausoleum to be etched. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

19. I'm betting he will put up a fight.

He's an embarassment to be sure, but corrupt politicians are always quick to act like they are the wronged party. Just look at Blago.

[Fgiriun]

20. Its not perjury...in my opinion

I dont like the guy a bit since he appears to be quite narcissistic; but he has commited no perjury from what I know. He was given a series of names that included Blagojevich brother and a few others, he only responded about one of the names that was given to him. It was not a specific question and he might as well claim that he didn't hear the name when it was asked.

Edited:
I assumed most of you knew what question he disregarded or lied about.
From what I heard he was in the Illinois impeachment panel and was questioned over which Blagojevich aides he talked to.

[4 t 4]

24. Oh come on this

is republican bullshit. Even if he had conversations with whomever they are asking him about now. He didn't pay a penny for anything. Between Al Frankin and him can't you see what they are doing. Can you tell me that none of * picks Had tax problems. This is a witch hunt because A dem won the presidency. Tell me in the 8 years of * no one picked had tax problems and I will sell you some Florida Real Estate

[bigtree]

29. Once he gets tired of all the sniping

. . . he'll mount an adequate defense against these 'charges'.

I'm going to enjoy watching and listening to all of his detractors fume and fuss about all of this. I don't believe he deliberately lied or mislead anyone on the new revelations (which he volunteered). I've read all the crap surrounding this dust-up and it looks to me like standard opposition politics (with a few willing Dems chiming in). He's done nothing other pols haven't done themselves. I think it's hysterical how folks want to indict him for clumsily practicing the politics as usual that Washington legislators thrive on. Go Burris!

[KharmaTrain]

30. Look Whose Making The Noise Here, Folks...

I've been seeing Jim Durkin...a failed candidate...really failed. The GOOP was so desperate to find someone/anyone to run against Dick Durbin in 2002, they chose this loser in hopes they could fool voters into confusing one name with another. That's how credible this party is...and why they've been totally shut out of power in this state.

The skinny is the GOOP wants to force a special election and hope they can get one candidate in there vs. a field of a bunch of Democrats and steal the seat. They'll take it for the two years, they don't care...remember, the party is desperate to keep Democrats from 59 votes.

The good news is Pat Quinn is NO Blago...a lifelong Progressive who is moving quickly to restore some sanity to state government. If Burris perjured himself, he can now be forced out and a clean nominee will be selected. Burris would have a tough time in a 2010 primary and this revelation all but seals his fate...even within the black community. There's sure to be one hell of a Democratic primary in 2010 and Quinn and Illinois Democrats will make sure there won't be an election until then.