Burris explanation preposterous

Mark Brown:

I'll leave it to the proper investigative bodies to decide whether Roland Burris committed perjury last month in testimony before the Illinois House impeachment committee. From a strict legal perspective, maybe he didn't.

But I'll tell you straight up, our new U.S. senator proved himself to be a lying little sneak.

The word preposterous comes to my mind to describe Burris' explanation -- and accompanying performance Sunday -- in which he basically says his previous failure to disclose relevant contacts with Rod Blagojevich's inner circle about the Senate vacancy was simply a matter of everyone else's failure to ask him the right questions or give him time to answer.

I was at that hearing, and I have reviewed the transcript. Burris had plenty of opportunity to tell the whole truth and, for whatever reason, failed to do so.

The senator now wants us to believe he never knew we might find it relevant that the governor's brother Rob was putting the arm on him for campaign donations during the same period in which the governor is accused of trying to sell the Senate seat -- and while Burris was practically begging everyone he knew for the appointment.

And he doesn't want us to think his newfound truthfulness has anything to do with the intervening disclosure that some of Rob Blagojevich's calls were caught on a wiretap.

The whole point of Burris going before the House committee was to clear the air about his dealings with Blagojevich prior to the day the governor announced him as his surprise pick. Burris' Springfield appearance wasn't a time for playing lawyer games. It was a time to be completely truthful and aboveboard.

Instead, the senator started by submitting an affidavit stating that prior to getting a call from the governor's lawyer Dec. 26, "there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United States Senate."

...

There is more.

Burris's explanation lacks credibility. The latest revelation goes to the heart of the inquiry so it begs credulity to suggest the questions he was responding to did not include that inquiry. comes across as at best a light weight legal thinker as well as a man of questionable integrity. Even if there are no legal consequences for this testimony, there should be political consequences if he seeks to retain the office.

For Democrats this continues the embarrassment that has surrounded their attempt to place someone in Obama's Senate seat. They should pay a political price too.

Republicans in Illinois want an investigation and Democrats are struggling to explain why the changed testimony was not revealed at the time. The Democrats in the legislature should not try to block this investigation unless then want some of the taint that goes with defending Burris.