Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Burris on Monday tries to save himself with another statement.


WASHINGTON--Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) trying to save his sinking Senate career, delivered a brief statement Monday morning where he argued he answered questions about the contacts he had with former Gov. Blagojevich team leading up to his appointment. He did not take questions.

Said Burris, "Very brief statement is that we said in our testimony before the impeachment committee -- my lawyer stated that we will have to file official information in our report because there were some questions asked where we had to get some additional information for the committee. He also stated that we might be incomplete in our report, therefore, we -- if we check the transcripts -- that we would file supplemental information -- (off mike) -- because we might not have answered all questions."

"When we got the transcript it was determined that I had said yes in the transcript to all those names, but we had not addressed those names. So that's what's prompted me, then, to make a decision to file a separate affidavit that will show who we talked to and what we said. There was no change any of our -- of our testimony. We followed up, as we promised the impeachment committee. We've done everything here that we said that we were going to do. So the information that has been reported in terms of -- that this was done because there was a..... statement is absolutely, positively not true. It was done because we promised the committee we would supplement information in case we missed anything. End of story.

"God bless you all. Thank you very much."


I'm not sure why there is such a fuss about this case.

Burris did NOT contribute to Blog. and he told the Governor's brother he would not contribute.

It is in an affidavit, so he is not hiding anything.

Therefore Blog. chose Burris knowing that he wouldn't get anything in return.

Everyone, including myself receives calls and letters asking me to make political contributions.
That shouldn't disqualify me from office, especially if I don't agree to contribute.

What did Burris do wrong? He did not offer a bribe. He did not pay a bribe. He can't be blamed for someone else doing the offering. Get a grip. There is not a story here unless you can't find anything else to write about.

This man should never have been able to take a seat in the US Senate until a THOROUGH investigation was completed.

folks must go to some kind of "spin class" while they are in college, boning up for a career in politics.

God help us all from such clowns.

It all depends on how you look at the TRUTH,huh?

Was he asked under oath to "describe all contacts you have had with the governor preceding your nomination?" If so, then he lied when he failed to disclose his brother's receipt of the governor's demand for campaign funds. If so, he should be removed from office pronto. Lying under oath politicians should be a thing of the past.

I just read the statement out loud for my husband (we're on vacation at the moment) and it still didn't make any sense.

Guess you could all it an "unprepared statement."

People, people, people,

Politicians only have to tell the truth after someone else catches them in a lie

It was apparent from the very beginning that Burris
wanted the Senate position regardless of the obstacles. He did not have to research his original transcript to learn he had not answered all questions. The fact is that the transcript clearly reveals Burris' supposedly dodged the main question deliberately about having had a timely contact with the governor and/or his closest allies before the appointment.

We can hope that Reid will follow up on this, but I wouldn't bet on it. What a smelly deal,
and it is "business as usual.' One can hope that reporters will start digging into Burris'and associates financial affairs. "Follow the money trail."

the question is of ethics and morals. It was never did he take a bribe. The issue is whether Burris was completely honest and forthright to the committee. His press conference was a dance around the issue. 'I did not take money' No one is accusing him. Rather were you frank and honest. And the answer is undeniably "NO". That is why there were no questions allowed.

the point is that he was less than completely forth coming during an ethics investigation. He may not given contributions, but if he's telling half and incomplete truths this represents a violation of trust.

I'm a Democrat and an Obama supporter, but I don't agree with the 'no harm/no foul' comments. His testimony came while the US Senate was considering whether to seat him. It's a fair speculation that he was trying to dodge any connection with the Blago circus, knowing that would likely crater his candidacy. The Feds seem to be on his trail, hence this 'explanation'. What part of the question didn't he get?

He seems to be a self aggrandizing wannabe, who would do anything to put the word 'Senator' before his name. Now he got caught fudging. If he was a Repub, I'd be all for making him face the music and I don;t know why this should be any different.


Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets


Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on February 16, 2009 10:32 AM.

Lynn Sweet on NBC talks about Obama family Sweet Home Chicago visit was the previous entry in this blog.

Burris explaining himself. Transcript of Feb. 15 press conference. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.