Roland Burris has Honesty Problems

Illinois: Roland Burris Problems

 

I called it in December, and now I am basking somewhat in smug satisfaction. Ongoing work in the Illinois Congress with regard to the investigation of former Governor Rod Blagojevich has brought forth new affidavits from Roland Burris. Roland Burris was appointed under something of a cloud of dubiousness by the former governor before Mr. Blagojevich’s impeachment at the hands of the Illinois legislature. During the appointment process, I wrote that I thought Mr. Burris, now holding President Obama’s vacated Senate seat, was devoid of the character that the people of Illinois and the Democratic Party should require. Mr. Burris’s new affidavits indicate that Mr. Burris lied to the Illinois Congress when he stated that he had no prior contact with then Gov. Blagojevich regarding the Senate seat or requests for money in return for that same seat. Mr. Burris has revealed that he had been contacted on at least three occasions and that Rod Blagojevich’s had asked him for $10,000 in “campaign contributions” to secure the Senate seat.

 

One can read about ongoing issues here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1432864,CST-NWS-brown16.article, in a Chicago Sun-Times piece by Mark Brown

 

Following is the piece I posted in December regarding my thoughts on the then potential Burris nomination. I have added emphasis to the parts most foretelling and important.

 

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has appointed long time Illinois politician Roland Burris as a replacement for President-elect Barack Obama’s seat in the US Senate. This appointment comes in the face of criminal indictment and probable impeachment for the Illinois governor, who allegedly attempted to trade Mr. Obama’s vacated seat for cash and/or favors. Democrats from the Illinois state house to Washington have instructed Blagojevich to not make any appointment, but the governor has refused to heed the call and warning. In appointing Roland Burris, Rod Blagojevich has made what, at first blush, appears to be the appointment of a an acceptable, reasonable, seasoned politician to take over representation of the State of Illinois in the United States Senate; this is not the case.

 

In 1992, against the advice of his own staff, which possessed more intimate knowledge of the case and its problems than did Mr. Burris, Roland Burris authorized the re-prosecution of Rolando Cruz, and was actively seeking the death penalty. By that time, Rolando Cruz was known to have been the innocent victim of a police frame job. In 1985, Rolando Cruz, in a highly controversial case, was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10 year old Jeanine Nicario. The original conviction was secured through alleged “confessions” which were subsequently discredited as police fabrications with no corroboration. Subsequent convictions were obtained with the assistance of false witnesses, including one who was a barmaid girlfriend of one of the investigators and others who recanted in later testimony, and a return to the originally discredited “confessions”. In 1995, DNA evidence, which had been available and sufficient for analysis for many years, exonerated Cruz, but the DuPage County State’s Attorney and Illinois Attorney General Burris continued to claim Cruz’s guilt. No one ever offered an apology for the obvious railroading of the defendant. Ultimately, the continuation of prosecution, under the recommendation of Roland Burris when he had the opportunity to have the case dropped, of Rolando Cruz led to the investigation and prosecution of police and county  prosecutor’s office personnel for evidence and witness tampering, as well as perjury and other crimes.

 

Mr. Burris' support for the continued prosecution of an obviously innocent man is far worse than showing leniency to one obviously guilty. Roland Burris' actions in this case alone show him to be more interested in political preservation than in sound judgment or moral,ethical, and legal decency.

 

Roland Burris has made a career as the also-ran politician of the Chicago/Illinois system. His lack of judgment in the Cruz case along with his general lack of campaign performance do not qualify him for the Senate seat being vacated by Mr. Obama. Mr. Burris’s actual campaign to ascend to Obama’s Senate seat only began in earnest after the indictment of Rod Blagojevich. This may be because Mr. Burris did not have the resources to entice Blagojevich’s notice. It makes the case for one lackluster in-trouble politician offering a helping hand to another so that both might mitigate the apparent unsuitability for their offices. There have been no real scandals surrounding Mr. Burris, but that seems to be more a lack of opportunity than of desire.

 

Some have suggested that it would be good for the GOP to push for the seating of Roland Burris in the US Senate; this suggestion represents a problem in itself. If there is an idea among conservatives that seating Burris will help the GOP overall, then perhaps the Burris nomination is more fraught with peril for the Democrats than currently believed. I believe that Mr. Burris should be dropped like the moldy potato he is; he isn’t hot, he isn’t fresh, and he just might be poison. There are plenty of other candidates available, and Mr. Blagojevich should not, as a matter of good sense and good ethics, be involving himself in appointments for which he has been accused of crimes.