* This exchange at the House impeachment committee hearing between GOP Rep. Jim Durkin and Sen. Roland Burris is quite problematic in hindsight…

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the Governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?

MR. BURRIS: No, sir.

However, Burris swears in his new affidavit that the governor’s brother and campaign committee chairman Robert Blagojevich said he heard that Burris was on the list for US Senate and still asked him three times to contribute and raise money for the then governor…

During the first conversation I asked Rob Blagojevich what was going on with the selection of a successor if then-Senator Obama were elected President, and he said he had heard my name mentioned in the discussions.

Even so, the governor’s brother asked him three times “to seek my assistance in fund-raising for Governor Blagojevich.” That could easily be interpreted as at least an indirect quid pro quo for the appointment. It certainly appears to have been interpreted that way by Burris, who swore in his latest affidavit about a chat he had with Robert Blagojevich…

In one of the other conversations (I believe the last one), I mentioned the Senate seat in the context of saying that I could not contribute to Governor Blagojevich because it could be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with him regarding his decision to appoint a successor to President Obama.

So, according to Burris’ sworn affidavit, Robert Blagojevich said he believed Burris was in the mix for an appointment to the Barack Obama Senate seat in early October. At that point and then twice after the 2008 election, Burris talked with Robert Blagojevich about fundraising, finally saying that he couldn’t give or raise money because of an appearance of impropriety.

Burris’ original testimony to the impeachment committee that there was no attempt at a quid pro quo for the seat is misleading at best and possibly perjury at worst. Whether this is worth a full-scale investigation is another question.

* Meanwhile, the Tribune attempts to make another Burris problem into a he said, he said affair instead of just quoting the record itself…

[Burris was asked by the House impeachment committee] specifically about any contact he had with insiders that included Robert Blagojevich, the former governor’s brother, as well as chief of staff John Harris and former aides John Wyma, Lon Monk and Doug Scofield. Burris testified only about a discussion he had with Monk dating back to July. […]

Asked why he went on to answer a follow up question by Durkin that only detailed contacting Monk, the senator blamed his Republican questioner who “took us off in a different direction” that didn’t allow him to give a complete answer. “Why didn’t he come back to those [others] if he was interested in them?” Burris said of Durkin.

After Burris’ news conference, Durkin said it was “pretty clear what I was asking” at the hearing. “There’s nothing from what I heard in the press conference that changes my mind” in seeking a perjury investigation, he said.

Check the transcript. After Burris testified about his meeting with Lon Monk, this is what Rep. Durkin asked…

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. Did you speak to any individuals who — any individuals who were also seeking the appointment of the United States Senate seat, otherwise people we’ve referred to as Senate candidates one through five?

Durkin clearly changed the subject. The New York Times ought to be ashamed of itself for printing this…

Mr. Durkin scoffed at the notion that Mr. Burris had not been granted time to mention such relevant conversations or that lawmakers had moved on.

Durkin moved on to another subject. Period.

Should Burris have offered up information about his other contacts with several Blagojevich insiders about the Senate seat? Absolutely. Was he legally obligated to do so considering how the questions were asked at the impeachment committee hearing? No.