Burris "Revises" Testimony Regarding Blago

If he was tainted before, he is covered in Blago stain now:

Roland W. Burris acknowledged Saturday that the brother of former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich solicited a campaign contribution from him several times in the weeks and months before Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to succeed President Obama as Illinois’s junior senator. . . . Mr. Burris said he provided the new affidavit to “supplement” earlier sworn testimony he gave before state lawmakers seeking to impeach Mr. Blagojevich. . . . [D]uring his testimony in January before the impeachment committee — just before he was seated in the Senate — Mr. Burris was asked directly whether he had talked to any person on a list of Blagojevich confidants . . . , but mentioned nothing of Rob Blagojevich’s more recent efforts seeking campaign contributions.

. . . “If it turns out this was some sort of attempt to avoid this coming out as part of the appointment process, then he doesn’t deserve to be senator,” Christine Radogno, the Republican leader of the State Senate, told The Sun-Times. “I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven.”

The Burris appointment always stunk to high heaven. This revelation makes it stink on the other side of the universe. And yeah, 'I told you so.' SusanG has the Illinois GOP demanding a perjury investigation. Guess what? There are grounds for it.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes you did (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    I'd say there's a reasonable chance that Burris could be expelled from the Senate before his term expires. Sooner rather than later, I hope.

    What's Bobby Rush doing these days? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:39:03 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    Saw him on CSPAN (none / 0) (#13)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    yesterday.  He didn't say anything.  Not a word.

    That sir (none / 0) (#49)
    by weltec2 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 06:55:37 AM EST
    is class.

    Though I was very disappointed that he supported BO over HRC.

    I must confess that I still like him.


    Good point (none / 0) (#58)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    Good points, Donald.

    I seem to recall (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    dozens and dozens of comments from people who swore up and down that this was an obviously untainted appointment, that there was no reason to even question it, and how dare we.  Perhaps some of them would like to revise and extend.

    I think getting snowed (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    by Rod Blagojevich is probably embarrassment enough.

    Shrug (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 08:59:23 PM EST
    Failure to mention this contact with Blagojevich's brother during his sworn testimony strikes me as a rather significant omission.  But maybe you're right and no one will notice anything if we just all keep our heads down.

    You may want to brush up on your mind-reading skills by the way, they are really poor.


    You are unpersuasive (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:31:19 PM EST
    particularly when you prattle on and on trying to convince me that you know my motivation, when you obviously don't.

    Being a condescending @ss is a sport (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    for that commenter.

    Condescending or confrontational? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:37:29 PM EST
    Confronscending. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lobary on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:56:45 PM EST
    Plenty of that going around (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 07:28:15 AM EST
    all over this blog.

    Condescending, no question. (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:38:49 PM EST
    Talex (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    I see you are just as capable of a deranged rant as ever.  Bye.

    Beward: Steve M is making a list (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    and checkin it twice.

    Query:  is there wiggle room in "elections, and returns" to throw this bum out of the Senate?


    Wrong question (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    He's already been seated, that's a done deal.  He could be thrown out by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate, for any reason at all, but I have to disagree with andgarden in that that's exceedingly unlikely to happen.

    Oops. How could I have (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:29:24 PM EST
    forgotten so quickly.

    One just can't help feeling that if (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:03:21 PM EST
    only people really understood the Chicago Way, they wouldn't have to get so darn worked up over these things.

    Paging Howie Mandel: new show idea, Chicago-based, titled, "What's the Big Deal???"

    Don't get me wrong - it stinks - but it's interesting how people pick and choose which Chicago stuff they're going to get all indignant about.  This latest outbreak of the vapors over Burris would put Scarlett O'Hara to shame.

    By all means, investigate him for perjury - just stop acting like this is something new in Chicago politics.

    Thanks doesn't work with some people (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kidneystones on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    You're one of them.

    Try to have a nice day.

    Perjury? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    The story BTD quotes says, "[D]uring his testimony in January before the impeachment committee -- just before he was seated in the Senate -- Mr. Burris was asked directly whether he had talked to any person on a list of Blagojevich confidants . . . , but mentioned nothing of Rob Blagojevich's more recent efforts seeking campaign contributions."  I'd like to see the exact question Burris was asked and the full answer that he gave, not a characterization (and definitely not one with an ellipsis at a key point) but a quotation of the Q&A.  Without that, you aren't even beginning to talk about the very serious, and narrowly defined, crime of perjury.

    However, I don't agree with some of the earlier comments that if the conversations occurred prior to the election, and if Burris blew Blogojevich's brother off, it is unimportant.  The Governor had every reason to think he might have this important appointment to make after the election, and so even then he might have been getting his ducks in a row to see what he might be able to get, either politically (not corrupt) or personally (corrupt) for that exercise of discretionary power.  That makes the Q&A with Burris "material" (in the legal sense) to the impeachment hearing, even if Burris told the Blogo boys to pound sand.  On the third hand, if Burris in fact was approached, did refuse to "contribute" and then later did receive the appointment, doesn't that reflect well on him, not poorly?

    Sucking Up To The Ruling Party (2.33 / 3) (#10)
    by kidneystones on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:06:04 PM EST
    Is there a loyal opposition within the Dems? I've no idea, but the fierce urgency of now, (inc), would do well do construct a subsidiary arm, asap.

    The press has been effectively hamstrung over the last 8 years. The former and current administration have not been shy about questioning the integrity and motivations of critics.

    While the Wapo is trumpeting the stimulus package as an historic victory for the administration, informed critics argue the banking portion of the package will produce failure rather than success. Timid, inept, and corrupt. Unfortunately for us all, these terms accurately describe far too many fat-cat Dems right now.

    The challenges we face together require more than lip-service to transparency and accountability. Lies, deceptions, and back-room deals further erode public confidence in a system that, while admirable in many ways, has failed far too many far too often, especially in recent years.

    The stuff is too serious for pitch-forks and hyperbole. Rendition, the Stevens case, and now Burris suggest a deeply-rooted culture of Dem corruption and double-standards that bodes ill for us all.

    Most 'liberal blogs' have become nothing more than propaganda arms of the ruling party. How many will stand-up and speak out? Your guess is as good as mine.

    kidneystones, who are you? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:25:29 PM EST
    I never noticed your comments before, and after I read this extremely intelligent, funny, well-formed, and well-linked little essay, I bounced back to your profile, and the more I read the more impressed I was, and likewise with your activism at the Global Fund.

    The internet is full of surprises, most of them unpleasant, and this is a rare exception.

    Do you have a blog of your own, or do you comment elsewhere?


    Question authority, always. (none / 0) (#28)
    by kidneystones on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:41:20 PM EST
    I appreciate the kind words and recommend. Let's leave it that.



    Informed "critic" = Hirofumi Gomi, (none / 0) (#70)
    by wurman on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    a top official at the Japanese Financial Services Agency!!!!!

    You probably could not have found a less "informed" source.  He may be a very astute economist & advisor, but his view of the USA economy is distorted--especially in terms of the overall size of GDP, the actual nature of the Federal Reserve Bank system, & the population differences.

    The Japanese debacle began several years ago, in 1996.  The US overall economy has very little resemblance to the Japanese economy & the 2 financial systems are not structured at all alike.  The parliamentary system of government is functionally, & totally, different than the USA's almost "federal" republic approach to politics & governance.  Gomi's opinions seem quite remote from the situations in New York & Washington DC.


    Please elaborate (none / 0) (#74)
    by kidneystones on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 06:56:00 PM EST
    First, you're correct in several respects. The Japanese parliamentary system is different from that of the US and there are several other important differences that distinguish the Japanese experience from that of America.

    You'll know more about the Federal Reserve than I, but the principal problem of trillions of bad debt buried on the books seems very similar. Japan began auditing all 900 banks in Japan and culled about 300 that were deemed too weak to survive.

    Yves Smith, of Naked Capitalism, and several others called last year for the nationalization of all US banks. Perhaps you could point out specifically why they are wrong, too.

    This is a world-wide problem and, rightly or wrongly, America is holding the can. You'll need to do more than tell us to clap louder.


    My apology. Left town for a time & couldn't (none / 0) (#75)
    by wurman on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    reply to your comment.

    My statement is not equal to "clap louder," but more likely "stop clapping" or "don't clap at all."  You referenced a source who asserts that the USA stimulus bill will fail.  I demeaned your source as unqualified to make such a wild guess.

    Then almost immediately the current Japanese finance secretary had to resign after a perhaps "drunken" performance on international TV.

    What took place & his still occurring in Japan is not, in my opinion, informative to the USA events.  Their debacle is 12 years old, of very different origins, & is not responding to the various attempted fixes.  Their national savings rate is huge; we have almost none.  Home ownership is minimal for the average Japanese; it it practically a USA birthright concept.

    Our economy is vastly larger & far more diverse.  A trillion dollar problem here is a billion dollar problem there.  Japan has few natural resources; the USA functions in some business areas almost as a commodity supplier to the world.

    The USA banking system has no parallel.  We have the Federal Reserve, but it is not a government-run central bank system.  It can perform some similar functions, but it is not an entity that can be directed by the SecTreas or the Pres., & it operates independently--often at odds with administration policies & politics.

    I'm not opposed to nationalizing the banks--or, in another methodology, creating a national bank system.  At present we have a hodge-podge, such as credit unions, savings & loans, state banks, national banks, federal reserve banks, & the nationwide conglomerates that resemble cartels.  [Again, Japan has no such spectrum.]

    The only intent of my comment was to assert that Gofi may not be a useful voice about the potential success or failure of Pres. Obama's ARRA.


    Too bad (2.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    Well, there wasn't any reason other than guilt by association to refuse him, but there is now.

    Too bad. I had to admire the public relations finesse of the rain-and-umbrellas routine. He seemed to handle the situation with grace and dignity and determination. All down the toilet now.

    If they pull him out, though, won't there be calls for a special election -- an election the Dems are likelier by the minute to lose? Given the situation in the Senate now, do they want to risk losing another vote?

    Plus won't that draw attention to the cesspool BHO came from?

    What I wonder now is: Why did Burris come clean?  Was there a fuse about to blow somewhere? Was it about to become public anyway? How and by whom?

    I did predict -- correctly -- that if they quietly seated Burris that Blago would be out of the news for awhile.

    Welcome back, Blago. And happy Black History Month!

    Motion to strike your last sentence. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    No reason except guilt by (none / 0) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:01:30 PM EST
    association? Please.
    If you see a guy get in a car with a hooker, you know what's going on, even if you don't see the money change hands.
    I said over and over that Burris' appointment was corrupt on its face. What  a suprise, I"m right, for once.

    AP article (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    I think the whole lot of them in Chicago are tainted -- including He Who Must Not Be Named in all this. I think some of the fury directed at Blago, Burris & co. is some sort of displaced denial of BHO's probable culpability. These were his buddies. The connections go way back. I don't think he was the only virgin in the whorehouse.

    But the AP report says that Robert Blagojevich's attorney (they're all lawyered up now, apparently) says he believes that one of the conversations was recorded by the FBI.

    So that's why Burris's sudden amendment to his testimony.

    hm... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Thanin on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 02:24:20 AM EST
    "I don't think he was the only virgin in the whorehouse."



    and a cliche (none / 0) (#60)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    You did tell us so. Now about theI (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    Secretary of Commerce, . . .

    Okay, so will this now make Reid look good? (none / 0) (#5)
    by DFLer on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:55:45 PM EST

    No (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:56:48 PM EST
    Why should it?

    Yep, you said it. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:08:04 PM EST
    I'm always the first to say it's the Chicago Way -- but I didn't want to say or see this.  

    Um, I said nothing about Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:23:44 PM EST
    in this, and I do not see reason why you did.

    Look, I think Steve M on this thread and others like him were and are wrong to gloat that they always knew, blah blah blah -- because there was nothing illegal known before that justified blocking Burris from being legally seated.  I'm not a lawyer, but I buhleeve they're held to evidence.

    However, now there is evidence from Burris himself of what certainly could be perjury.  There it is.


    I knew nothing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:34:33 PM EST
    but I said the Dems would do well to conduct an investigation into the circumstances before seating Burris, rather than simply assuming that nothing embarrassing could possibly come up.

    Those who angrily insisted that Burris was obviously a clean appointment had nothing to base that statement on, and they deserve to have egg on their face at this point.

    I don't have to look back to know that you were not among those people, given your familiarity with Chicago politics!


    Obama will probably not allow it. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    I don't think he wants this open up again. Especially something concerning his home state. Also  It would resemble the Sec Of Commerce fiasco.  Plus if he allowed Burris to be investigated and removed then how does he answer the Sec Of Treasury Geithner  who was allowed to get through for the same reasons that Daschell could not.  Just a can of worms.

    IMO Geithner  should have resigned after the Daschell incident.  Obama's statement after Daschell quit,  that their could not be two set of rules on paying taxes one for ordinary citizens and those in power did not make any sense since he did not ask Geithner to resign.

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 07:45:39 AM EST
    not allowing it will open up a big can of worms too.

    Blago played chess with Obama and checkmated him with this appointment imo.


    yup (none / 0) (#9)
    by blogname on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:57:46 PM EST
    as an opponent of the taint argument, i say - yes, investigate him for perjury. i still think taint is an invalid basis to override a legal appointment, he has opened the door it now - but i think there would still be constitutional issues with trying to remove him. normally expulsion requires post-election or post-appointment misconduct. presumably, the appointment has already been made. wow...

    Go ahead (none / 0) (#29)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    But are you honestly going to pretend that race wasn't made a major issue in this appointment?

    Please This Guy.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by wickedlittledoll on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    had sleazy written all over him. Are you going to tell me that Roland "No Taint" Burris was appointed by a scumbag like Blago because he really thought he was the best man for the job? Please. It was more like a bleeping golden opportunity for both of them.


    Dangerous precedent (none / 0) (#57)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    I still think it would have been a very dangerous precedent to cherry pick the decisions you are going to reject from a sitting governor who, at that point, hadn't even been impeached.

    Even while Clinton was being impeached, he continued to make decisions that held.

    It doesn't take too much imagination to see how that kind of a precedent could justify all sorts of abuses.


    Not cherry-picking at all--- (none / 0) (#61)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    quite the opposite. I don't know any other decisions made as a sitting governor after Fitzgerald's announcement which are being subject to the same scrutiny. I know why Burris' appointment is suspect. From your comments, I'm not sure that you get it.

    I'm saying the same thing you are. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    Ok, thanks for clarifying. (none / 0) (#65)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    I do agree with the people who say that nothing will come of this new revelation.

    Failure of Senator Roland Burris, maybe not... (none / 0) (#48)
    by joze46 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 06:43:52 AM EST
    Over time it has appeared to me our whole justice system has morphed into a dysfunctional apparatus, or better, a very partisan operation. As one has already said about the party that rules controls the judicial rudder. And please understand that I have no special connection or interest in the success or failure of Senator Roland Burris, or former Governor Blagojevich.

    It's so obvious now that Americans have been skunked by the Bush administration. Bush and Company have planted or organizing prosecutions in the Attorney Generals office, plus likely any and all departments including NSA wire taps on anybody is at the same time a funny but a horrendous outrageous thought.

    For me the political Grandstanding with Blagojevich is an out standing example of fixed politics threaded in our very own FBI. Done and executed at the eleventh hour and, for me, blazingly bannered as a political tool rather than addressed as a legal challenge is overwhelming in your face Media Bias across the cable spectrum. The media is part and core of today's shield in freedom of speech used to propagandize prosecution in the general wide open media induced confusion with bias which is the wrong way in justice.

    The whole concepts to think just Democrats are political scoundrels that exist to funnel money into secret Swiss trust bank accounts are a person in denial. The Madoff issue exposes anybody is game. The whole concept of America's political system has shifted to what one could consider "tricky perjury".

    That coupled with flea bargaining, and violations under the term Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct has totally circumvented the basics in Tort Law. Here, one can see why America is in a banking mess because our political and judicial system is a mess.

    Don't forget the Republicans have had control of the legislative part of our government for a very long time. Through at least the Clinton administration, to and through the majority of the Bush administration.

    Don't forget Newt Gingrich was at one time leading to shut down the government because Clinton would not give the Republicans what they wanted. Shutting down the Government and putting America at risk in wide open media was deliberate fear and extortion to the American public at the time. That just forgotten by friends of the media that have been totally embedded in a war that everyone is having a hard time to justify, but willing in a crazy way to blame Obama now for everything.  

    Republican's own this mess American's are in and the media is covering up that very core problem. Everyday handing out drivel deceit and confusion to characterize political persons for advantage. Then with lame perjury charges because of telephone conversations that amount to no pay for play or money transactions seem to taint anyone. Then we are all guiltily and tainted to talk about such stuff over the water cooler let alone the telephone.        

    Hey! The Democrats won! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    Get over it! Demonizing the Republicans, however justified, isn't going to cut it for the next four years. When you win, you've got to take a little responsibility.

    This thread is about a Democratic scandal, coming out of a Democratic cesspool in Chicago.

    Everyone has known for years what Chicago was. The people of Chicago refused to clean it up by voting these folks out.

    And the Democratic party, far from reforming it, moved their national headquarters to Chicago.


    Burris (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 07:50:15 AM EST
    Will not be ejected from the Senate.  

    1. As we saw this week, they need every Democratic vote they can get because "60 is the new 51";

    2. There are too many serious problems in this country and the voters will not stand for hearings and expulsion when other things need to be addressed;

    3. Either way this situation gives Republicans ammo, but by keeping it in the news, it prolongs the story. By ignoring it this story, which was dumped on Friday of a three day weekend, when the stimulus bill and Buffalo plane crash are the only things on the news, it will be nothing but a rumble by Tuesday.  This story is even less important than the Commerce Secretary.

    4. The Dems are spineless and Harry Reid doesn't want to say there may be a problem.

    The only time this will be mentioned in the future (if there actually is anything to the story) will be in 2010 around Illinois.

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    the Dems have already designated dead zones in every community so that the rabble of poor won't hurt the eyes of the affluent as they pass by in their Escalades and Mercedes on the way to buy their third Plasma for the garage..

    How can anyone (none / 0) (#53)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    possibly be falling for the idea that a bunch of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and bankers are going to "save" us from problems they have caused?

    Can anyone explain that logic?

    Didn't think (none / 0) (#54)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 09:26:57 AM EST

    The Great Malaise (none / 0) (#55)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 09:50:56 AM EST
    Part 2

    I don't really care ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    whether Burris stays or goes.

    But I doubt this will have any effect on it.  

    Politically this story just doesn't have legs.  

    It will cause the usual burbling.  But that's about it.

    Burris (none / 0) (#64)
    by caminito on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    I am always wondering regarding the reluctance of the bloggers to call things by their name.

    What Burris is doing is accepting to be complice of Blago in order to accede to a Senate seat. It seams obvious that he struck a deal with the latter through his brother, offering "donations"
    (visible or not!), as well as his main asset,
    i.e. being an African American, with the implicit support of the Black Caucus and counting with the racial inhibitions of the Dem's leadership.

    What Burris is needs no comment. What decent person would accept a nomination by an individual
    as Blago and when asked expressly if he
    interacted with his brother a few weeks ago, deny it ??
    And of course, his sudden "remembering" intended
    to be a preventive strike, as he knew that the
    Press already had unearthed these facts !!

    And finally: the best way for racism to survive is
    that organizations as the (reverse)racist Black
    Caucus support immoral (or worse) individuals
    only because they are black !!!


    Seams like it, eh? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    It seams obvious that he struck a deal with the latter through his brother, offering "donations"
    (visible or not!), as well as his main asset,
    i.e. being an African American, with the implicit support of the Black Caucus and counting with the racial inhibitions of the Dem's leadership.

    Heaven forbid that our justice becomes based in what seems to be reality. Nothing is known until the evidence is produced. Guilt still needs to be well proven before anyone is convicted and removed from their position in life. I fear that is slowly being lost in media courtrooms where the lawyers and judges become famous during the process.