* This won’t go over well, but it seems reasonable, and it’s from a Republican state’s attorney, so it’s tough to scream politics….
A four-month investigation by the Sangamon County state’s attorney’s office has found insufficient evidence to charge U.S. Sen. Roland Burris with perjury. […]
Sangamon County state’s attorney John Schmidt said some of Burris’ statements were vague, “but vague statements cannot support a perjury charge.”
“Moreover, an individual does not commit perjury if he corrects the known falsity before the adjournment of the tribunal,” Schmidt said in a letter delivered today to House Speaker Michael Madigan explaining the reasons behind his decision. […]
“These were not substantive discussions concerning how to get the appointment, but rather Sen. Burris imploring the listener to tell Gov. Blagojevich he was interested,” Schmidt wrote to Madigan.
From Schmidt’s letter today to Speaker Madigan…
When Representative Durkin asked Senator Burris if he spoke to members of the Governor’s staff or family members regarding his interest in the senate seat, Burris responded, “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.” Transcript House Impeachment Committee January 8, 2009 page 941 lines 9-20. This is a truthful answer. While Senator Burris failed to mention the phone conversations with Rob Blagojevich or John Harris, he did say he spoke to friends about his interest. The Illinois Supreme Court has consistently held the burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down as to the specific object of the questioner’s inquiry. People v. Robert Willis, 71 Ill 2nd 138 (1978). Next, Senator Burris was asked:
REPRESENTATIVE 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 is closely related to the Governor.
MR. BURRIS: I recall having a conversation meeting with Lon Monk about my
Partner and I trying to get continued business . . . Transcript January 8, 2009
Page 941-942
Senator Burris answered the question by recalling a conversation with Lon Monk. The fact he did not mention others does not make the statement perjerous. It makes it incomplete. Again, the burden is on the questioner to ask specific questions. Senator Burris truthfully stated he had a conversation with Lon Monk.
The same analysis applies to Senator Burris’s responses to Representative Tracy. Senator Burris is asked to whom he expressed senate seat interest and the time frame September of 2008 or as early as July of 2008. Transcript 998 Lines 13-17. Burris responded that one person he spoke with was his law partner. Chairwoman Currie stated, “Is that when you talked to Lon Monk?” Then Representative Tracy asked, “Was it Lon Monk was that the extent of it Lon Monk.” Transcript pages 998-999. Senator Burris reiterated his conversation where Lon Monk told him he was qualified to be in the U.S. Senate. Transcript page 999. Senator Burris was asked, “So you don’t recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?” He responded, “No, I can’t recall because people were coming to me saying Roland you should pursue the appointment . . .” Id. Moreover, Senator Burris volunteered to give names of individuals the committee could contact regarding his interest in the senate seat. See Transcript page 1000, Line 17-21.
Burris’ responses cannot support a perjury charge. He said he could not recall anyone specific because there were many individuals urging him to run. The answer was incomplete, but that is not perjury given the form of the questions.
This is not a criticism of the questioners. The committee was finding facts concerning the possible impeachment of Governor Blagojevich. Asking broad questions allowed a great deal of information to be discussed without the need to constantly ask follow-up questions. However, such questioning makes difficult the prosecution the crime of perjury which is a knowingly untruthful answer to a precise question. Case law clearly mandates very direct specific questions be asked and knowing false answers be given to support perjury. Answers subject to different interpretations or incomplete are insufficient to support perjury.
The two affidavits signed by Senator Burris dated January 5, 2009 and February 4, 2009 are not inconsistent, thus do not support a perjury charge. The January 5, 2009 affidavit only describes the actual appointment process of Governor Blagojevich appointing Roland Burris to the vacant senate seat. It is insufficient to support perjury charges based upon Burris’ testimony before the House Impeachment Committee.
*** UPDATE - 12:01 pm *** Statement from Sen. Burris…
“I am obviously very pleased with today’s decision by State’s Attorney John Schmidt. His investigation was both thorough and fair, and I am glad that the truth has prevailed,” Burris said in a statement emailed to my colleague Manu Raju.
“This matter has now been fully investigated; I cooperated at every phase of the process, and as I have said from the beginning, I have never engaged in any pay-to-play, never perjured myself, and came to this seat in an honest and legal way. Today’s announcement confirms all that,” he said.
- Boxing Cross - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 10:49 am:
Capt Fax:
Good job, I bet BoxedTom and his posse will complain about how the evil Madigan has spread his control over those poor, Sangamo Co GOPs.
What about SuperLawyerDurkin?
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 10:52 am:
Good for Schmidt. I’m sure he has a lot of real work to do.
Trying to determine when and if Roland Burris is telling the truth is a full-time job probably best left to psychiatrists, not prosecutors.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 11:07 am:
Burris might have been appointed by Rod Blagojevich, but he was physically barred from entering the US Senate, and couldn’t get certified by SOS White. It was Dick Durbin who allowed Burris to crawl under the low ethical bars that he and Reid set up, and threw White under the bus to allow Burris to become US Senator.
Roland Burris is Dick Durbin’s senator, that is when Durbin isn’t publically backing Burris’ replacement or publically recommending that Burris not seek election. But when the votes are counted, you can always expect Durbin to deliver two senate votes from Illinois, his and his senator’s.
- Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 11:11 am:
Maybe Mr. Ego did not commit perjury in the eyes of the law, but his shady attitude since being forced on us by Blagoof make me feel like an unrepresented constituant
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 11:12 am:
It’s as good as he could have gotten and certainly consistent with the law. But not committing perjury and not being amazingly evasive are not the same thing.
- just sayin - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 11:12 am:
Sounds like the right result. These elected officials lie on a almost constant basis. I always thought this was blatant hypocrisy by Durkin and others. And yes, I know the difference between under oath and not, but let’s face it, it’s really all the same at the end of the day.
- Team America - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 12:29 pm:
The sinking S.S. Burris just got thrown a life preserver. It’s probably not enough to keep him afloat against Alexi, Chris and Lisa individually, but it might be against all three (or maybe even only two) of them. The already-facsinating senate race just got more interesting. Wonder what Mark Kirk thinks of all this.
- fedup dem - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 12:36 pm:
While in the eyes of the law Roland Burris is not a no-good perjurer, the eyes of the electorate tell another story altogether. Burris is toast!
- Conservative Republican - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 12:36 pm:
REPRESENTATIVE 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 is closely related to the Governor.
MR. BURRIS: I recall having a conversation meeting with Lon Monk about my
Partner and I trying to get continued business . . .
Durkin failed to ask the necessary follow up question: “Anybody, else?” Burris’s answer to that question would have determined whether he perjured himself or not. Of course, we will never know, and the State’s Attorney’s conclusion is legally correct and sidesteps a prosecution where defense counsel would have probably successfully made the points Schmidt acknowledged in his memorandum.
On the other hand, politics is not law, and the commenter above is correct in stating that Burris was being egregiously evasive — it is not a crime to be craven and grasping, but the outing of all these private communications is showing Burris to be exactly that. He has well earned his low approval ratings.
- Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 1:41 pm:
Will the next inscription on the tomb stone be: “Vindicated of Perjury”?
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 1:55 pm:
While he didn’t perjure himself, he still didn’t tell the WHOLE story. If the committee members would have done their job they would have pressed him harder.
It doesn’t matter, he won’t be Senator after this term, and hopefully he will fade away.
- Larry Mullholland - Friday, Jun 19, 09 @ 2:25 pm:
It seems appropriate to point out that both Black and Durkin were hurried and or chastised by Lang and Curry while trying to probe into Burris’ actions and responses.
I recall at one point after Lang and Curry interjected Bill Black shouted; “it seems we cant ask any questions!!”
Would it be different is Lang and Curry had not rush the the questioners? We will never know.