From What I Heard Today, Burris Should Stay in the Senate

[stopbush]

Not that he'll be effective as a Senator, but I don't see how his new affidavit and his earlier testimony constitute perjury. If we look at Durkin's questioning of Burris, this much becomes clear:

1. Durkin asked Burris if he had had contact with a laundry list of people. Burris answered "yes." No one can say that Burris in any way said "No, I didn't have contact with those people."

2. Durkin presented Burris with a loophole to walk through in the way he presented the question. Burris answered the question in an appropriate manner. What Durkin should have done - and what any decent prosecutor would have done - would have been to have asked Burris a separate question on each person in question, as in, "Did you speak with Rod Blago, yes or no? Did you speak with his brother, Rob Blago, yes or no?" etc. By asking the question the way he did, Durkin allowed Burris to answer the way he did. Burris was under no obligation to provide information or answers beyond what Durkin asked, and as a lawyer being advised by a lawyer, Burris was careful to answer the question only to the extent he needed to answer it. Durkin's phrasing of the question would be like asking a witness at a murder trial if he knew any murderers, allowing the witness to answer, "sure, we've all seen them on TV."

The problem was not that Burris failed to provide information that wasn't asked for. The problem was that Durkin fucked up in his questioning. It was Durkin's job to ask more specific follow-up questions to get specific answers about specific people from the under-oath Burris.

At this point, Burris emerges as nothing more than an extremely able and well-trained witness who avoided incriminating himself, not by refusing to answer questions, but by answering them only to an extent, an extent that Durkin and the rest of the Illinois legislature failed to press him on when they had the chance.

[ecstatic]

1. Burris aside, the repugs newfound interest in "the law" means

that this is the perfect time to prosecute Bush for his crimes. They want justice--we should bring them justice!

[stopbush]

3. Agreed. Americans have wimped out when we'll go after presidents for

getting blow jobs but not for war crimes.

It would be like the cops arresting jay walkers while the liquor store across the street is being held up at gunpoint.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Good point. n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Why would he have asked about Blago's brother?

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not up on Illinois politics, and I don't know what Blago's brother's role was.

[4 t 4]

4. Yes he should stay in

this is republican bull once again. Think about it him out Al not seated. The way they have acted over the last three weeks-They can't handle it!

[mucifer]

7. blago's brother rob blago asked Burris to donate $10,000 to rod blago's campaign fund

Burris refused to do it. Republicans are upset that this didn't come out in the trial.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. Yes, I know that from the news

But, what I don't know is what the brother's relationship was to Blago's job. Did he have a role in his administration? Did he have a job in his political campaign?

See, I'm trying to get at what the OP wrote about the lawyer not asking Burris the right question - "Did Blago's brother offer you any money?"

So, what was the brother's role? I want to know why the attorney should have asked about him.

[stopbush]

12. It wasn't a matter of people offering Burris $. It was the opposite.

The question was whether Burris did a pay-to-play to get the Senate seat. Burris says he didn't. I don't think Durkin is saying that Burris did pay to play. I think Durkin is saying that he asked Burris if he had had any conversations with anybody about getting the Senate seat, and that Burris perjured himself because he (Burris) didn't take it upon himself to go through Durkin's list and deny or admit talking to them one by one. Burris said yes, he had talked to his friends. Durkin accepted that as an answer and moved on.

It's like my wife asking the kids to wash their hands before dinner. They come to the table and she says, "did you wash your hands?" They say, "yes." I then say, "when did you last wash your hands?" They say, "this morning." They gave my wife an honest answer. And they gave me an honest answer.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Sorry, I was sloppy

Of course it was about Burris offering the money. I just got careless.

So Durkin should have followed up with a specific question about Blago's brother?

That was my original question. Everyone is giving me all sorts of answers, for which I'm very grateful, but the lawyer in me wants to know what it was about Blago's brother that would have put his name on any kind of list.

Did he work in the Blago administration? Or in the campaign? What was his role, and why would Durkin have asked about him specifically?

That's all I want to know. The rest of it is in the news.

Thank you.

[stopbush]

8. If I heard the reporting correctly, Rob Blago was one of the people named in

Durkin's question. Burris holds that he said "yes" to that list, which technically means that he admitted that he had talked to Rob Blago.

Burris' new affidavit also identifies Rob Blago as a person who called him asking for $ and adds some details. Burris says that he told the gov's brother at the time that he could not donate or even raise $ for Gov Blago because he had already expressed interest to the Gov about Obama's Senate seat and it would now be inappropriate for him do so.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Thank you

That was the information I was looking for.

[MrPerson]

5. He should go back to WR for teh Giants.

[BlooInBloo]

6. It constitutes perjury because DUers say so. Durr.

[rwheeler31]

10. I agree this is not legal it is all political.