• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Dems playing games ?????

Tam

Well-known member
Roland Burris lied under oath in Jan about being asked for pay to play before being sworn in as Ill. Senator. The Republicans in the Ill government is asking him to resign do to investigation on perjury charges. But some Ill. Dems knew about his lying ten days ago but nobody else knew until after Burris voted on the Stimulus bill which gave the Dems the 60 they needed to get it passed. :? :???: :? :???: :?

Now says He was asked for $10,000 in campaign donations by Blagos brother Robert But under oath he said he never spoke to anyone about pay to play especially not Blago's brother.
 

alice

Well-known member
I suppose it's possible...anything is possible in D.C. politics. IF there is truth to this, I hope he's busted. I am sick and tired of political duplicity and chicanery, I don't care what "side of the aisle" it occurs on. Just my 2 cents...

Alice
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I believe it was he was asked to 'help raise funds'......BIG DIFFERENCE!


Politicians ask anyone and everyone to help ' raise funds' for them.....
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I believe it was he was asked to 'help raise funds'......BIG DIFFERENCE!


Politicians ask anyone and everyone to help ' raise funds' for them.....

You might be right, but I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone, including a Democrat, you accepted that Senate seat from Blagojevich.

If this is true, I hope Burris is forced to resign so the Democrats can put up a better candidate.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I believe it was he was asked to 'help raise funds'......BIG DIFFERENCE!


Politicians ask anyone and everyone to help ' raise funds' for them.....

It's not about what Blago asked him to do, it's about him lying to the investigators.

What does one expect from the Illinois Democrat party?
 

Tam

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I believe it was he was asked to 'help raise funds'......BIG DIFFERENCE!


Politicians ask anyone and everyone to help ' raise funds' for them.....


Burris confirms request for Blagojevich donation
1 day ago

CHICAGO (AP) — A newspaper says Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois has disclosed that a brother of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich asked him for up to $10,000 in campaign donations before the governor appointed him to the Senate.

The Chicago Sun-Times says Burris didn't make the donation.

Burris was appointed to the Senate in December to fill the vacancy created by Barack Obama's move to the White House.

Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office after federal charges were filed alleging he tried to sell the Senate seat.

Burris said he rejected the requests for money and made it unequivocally clear that he considered the request inappropriate. He says he gave a sworn statement about the campaign cash solicitation to the head of the Illinois House impeachment committee.

He was asked about pay to play in the impeachment trial. Burris said in a Jan affidavit he had spoke to no one in the Blago camp about the appointment. Then changed his story under oath and said he talked to several about the seat. Then he sent another affidavit in Feb. where he changed his story once again. The Dems in Ill. knew of the last affidavit but it didn't come to light until after the Friday Stimulus vote.
 

Tam

Well-known member
another source

Burris Says Blagojevich Wanted $10,000 Donation Before Senate AppointmentSen. Burris didn't make the donation but failed to disclose the request under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel

FOXNews.com

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Sen. Burris didn't make the donation but failed to disclose the request under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel.

Now state House Republicans say they want Burris investigated for perjury.

The Chicago Sun-Times first reported on its Web site Saturday that Burris made the disclosure in a new affidavit sent to the head of the state committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

According to the newspaper, the affidavit is dated Feb. 5 -- three weeks after Burris was sworn in to fill President Obama's former Senate seat.

Burris says he sent the affidavit to Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie when he realized his testimony before the committee wasn't complete.

"There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony," Burris said in a statement provided to FOX News. "I voluntarily submitted an affidavit so everything was transparent."

Burris says he had three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who led the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund -- and one of those likely was recorded by the FBI.

Now MSNBC

Burris admits Blagojevich donation request
He says ex-governor's brother sought $10,000 in campaign funds


updated 5:18 p.m. CT, Sat., Feb. 14, 2009
CHICAGO - Sen. Roland Burris admitted Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for a campaign contribution before the governor appointed Burris to the Senate.

The disclosure is at odds with Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

State Rep. Jim Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, told The Associated Press that he and House Republican Leader Tom Cross would seek an outside investigation into whether Burris perjured himself.

Burris issued a statement Saturday saying he voluntarily gave the committee a Feb. 4 affidavit disclosing the contact with Robert Blagojevich because "there were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony to the impeachment committee."

The affidavit, released Saturday by Burris' office, said Robert Blagojevich called him three times — once in October and twice after the November election — to seek his fundraising assistance.

Robert Blagojevich's attorney said his client believes one of the conversations was recorded by the FBI.

Would Burris and the Dems have come clean if the conversation wasn't believe to have been recorded by the FBI?? :?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
But isn't MSNBC the Main Stream Media.....which, according to you ,we should not believe one thing they say??? :???: :???: :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
But isn't MSNBC the Main Stream Media.....which, according to you ,we should not believe one thing they say??? :???: :???: :???:


Notice how I put Fox was reporting this article I believe them, MSNBC was for your liberal bias side as I doubt you would believe Fox. :wink:
 

VanC

Well-known member
From a recent post of mine:

Burris is a good man, IMO. He's been a good public servant for Illinois for many years and there hasn't been a hint of scandal about him that I'm aware of, which is rare for someone who's been involved in Illinois politics as long as he has. Better yet, he's from southern Illinois, so he doesn't have the stench of Chicago hanging over his head. I even voted for him in the Dem primary when he ran against Blagojevich in 2002.

OOPS!! :lol: :lol:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
VanC said:
From a recent post of mine:

Burris is a good man, IMO. He's been a good public servant for Illinois for many years and there hasn't been a hint of scandal about him that I'm aware of, which is rare for someone who's been involved in Illinois politics as long as he has. Better yet, he's from southern Illinois, so he doesn't have the stench of Chicago hanging over his head. I even voted for him in the Dem primary when he ran against Blagojevich in 2002.

OOPS!! :lol: :lol:

Hey Van, what can you tell me about Pat Quinn.

From what I've heard, he's got a pretty clean record.

But I suppose like with Burris, sometimes looks are deceiving.
 

VanC

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
VanC said:
From a recent post of mine:

Burris is a good man, IMO. He's been a good public servant for Illinois for many years and there hasn't been a hint of scandal about him that I'm aware of, which is rare for someone who's been involved in Illinois politics as long as he has. Better yet, he's from southern Illinois, so he doesn't have the stench of Chicago hanging over his head. I even voted for him in the Dem primary when he ran against Blagojevich in 2002.

OOPS!! :lol: :lol:

Hey Van, what can you tell me about Pat Quinn.

From what I've heard, he's got a pretty clean record.

But I suppose like with Burris, sometimes looks are deceiving.

He's been around for a long time, and has the reputation of being somewhat of a maverick, which, I suppose, could be seen as either a good or a bad thing. He's from Chicago, but so far hasn't been involved in any scandals that I'm aware of. Of course, I said the same thing about Burris not long ago. :wink: I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that I don't believe that every Chicago politician is dirty.............. just most of them. 8)

Quinn was constantly at odds with Blagojevich and retired Senate President Emil Jones, even though all are Democrats. It's been reported that Quinn and Blagojevich haven't spoken to each other for the past 2 or 3 years, so he's got that going for him.

Right now, people are so thrilled that Blagojevich is gone that they haven't yet taken a hard look at Quinn. I would imagine that will change, especially if he runs in 2010. I certainly hope he works for ALL the people of Illinois, not just Chicago. That would be a refreshing change from Blagojevich.
 

VanC

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
This forum was critical of Reid and others opposing Burris, if you will remember... You all clamored for him to be seated.

Yes, I was very critical of the senate Democrats, and I stand by it. They didn't know Burris was dirty any more than you or I did. The only reason they had for refusing to seat Burris was to cover their butts and distance themselves from a major scandal involving another Democrat. They looked bad doing it, and the fact that Burris turned out to be dirty doesn't change that.

As I said when this was going on, refusing to seat someone simply because you don't like the person that appointed him would set a bad precedent. As for Burris, I was wrong about him. If the senate decides to expel him over this, I would support it, but it doesn't change my belief that the senate's reasons for not wanting to seat him before were dead wrong.
 

alice

Well-known member
VanC said:
reader (the Second) said:
This forum was critical of Reid and others opposing Burris, if you will remember... You all clamored for him to be seated.

Yes, I was very critical of the senate Democrats, and I stand by it. They didn't know Burris was dirty any more than you or I did. The only reason they had for refusing to seat Burris was to cover their butts and distance themselves from a major scandal involving another Democrat. They looked bad doing it, and the fact that Burris turned out to be dirty doesn't change that.

As I said when this was going on, refusing to seat someone simply because you don't like the person that appointed him would set a bad precedent. As for Burris, I was wrong about him. If the senate decides to expel him over this, I would support it, but it doesn't change my belief that the senate's reasons for not wanting to seat him before were dead wrong.

I agreed then and I agree now!

Alice
 

alice

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't follow this thread closely but the Senate Democrats can't be criticized first for refusing to seat him and next for seating him. They did what they were legally required to do in the absence of evidence that he was dirty.

If they benefited from his vote, it makes no never mind, because they would have benefited from any Democrat's vote.

And that is one hell of a good point! Ain't America grand?!!!! Thanks to you both for proving that!

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't follow this thread closely but the Senate Democrats can't be criticized first for refusing to seat him and next for seating him. They did what they were legally required to do in the absence of evidence that he was dirty.

It wasn't that most criticized them Dem leadership for seating him.. it was for the stand the dem leadership took and how they caved in on that stand..

a stand that was followed by thier Ill. dem leaders failure to call a special election...

when you add the latest hidden facts... it sure looks like Chicago muck is deeper then the little dirt exposed..


follow the law and avoid making grand statements that fly in the face of the law and you will always come out clean...

with that said... this little fiasco is going to leave a stain..
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
alice said:
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't follow this thread closely but the Senate Democrats can't be criticized first for refusing to seat him and next for seating him. They did what they were legally required to do in the absence of evidence that he was dirty.

If they benefited from his vote, it makes no never mind, because they would have benefited from any Democrat's vote.

And that is one hell of a good point! Ain't America grand?!!!! Thanks to you both for proving that!

Alice

It's grand because the Democrats can replace one crook with another without losing a beat?

Hold your head high, Alice.
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't follow this thread closely but the Senate Democrats can't be criticized first for refusing to seat him and next for seating him. They did what they were legally required to do in the absence of evidence that he was dirty.

If they benefited from his vote, it makes no never mind, because they would have benefited from any Democrat's vote.

How can you say any Democrat's vote would have benefited them? :?
Did you forget that there was 9 Democrats that voted nay in the House. Since you don't know who would have been appointed to the seat if Burris hadn't lied you have no idea what way that person would have voted. :roll:
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
alice said:
reader (the Second) said:
I didn't follow this thread closely but the Senate Democrats can't be criticized first for refusing to seat him and next for seating him. They did what they were legally required to do in the absence of evidence that he was dirty.

If they benefited from his vote, it makes no never mind, because they would have benefited from any Democrat's vote.

And that is one hell of a good point! Ain't America grand?!!!! Thanks to you both for proving that!

Alice

It's grand because the Democrats can replace one crook with another without losing a beat?

Hold your head high, Alice.

No problem...

Alice
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I believe it was he was asked to 'help raise funds'......BIG DIFFERENCE!


Politicians ask anyone and everyone to help ' raise funds' for them.....

He perjured himself on the question concerning whether he had "talked with any of Blogo's family members" about these matters. He said NO, yet the FBI has tapes of the conversation.
 
Top