* 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.
