The Chicago Tribune says: Roland Burris, resign:

Let’s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama— unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor’s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn’t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

The story gets worse with every telling.

Enough. Roland Burris must resign.

Hey, at least they got his vote on the stimulus. That might’ve been tough if he had told the truth right away . . .

Of course, they already knew before the vote was final:

Burris, I’m told by several sources, strolled up to Durbin, the No. 2 Senate leader, and Reid on the Senate floor while they were in the midst of overseeing the vote on President Obama’s stimulus bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of this nation.

Meanwhile, an agent who worked on Ted Stevens’s case says exculpatory evidence was withheld from him during his trial, a federal judge held several prosecutors in contempt, and now six of them have been removed from the case.

In unrelated news, today Barack Obama (one day earlier than promised) signed the death warrant for our children’s financial future — which passed by exactly 60 votes in the Senate. A Senate where we have one Democrat who made it in by hiding the fact that he was asked to pay to play — and where a Republican lost an election after losing a criminal trial where the government hid evidence from him.

Does that pretty much cover it?

Burris story #1: I said I wouldn’t raise money for Blago:

Burris, a Democrat like the former governor, said he told Robert Blagojevich he would not raise money because it would look like he was trying to win favor from the governor for his appointment. But he said he did ask the governor’s brother “what was going on with the selection of a successor” to Obama in the Senate and “he said he had heard my name mentioned in the discussions.”

Burris story #2: OK, you got me:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

One is naturally reminded of the witch scene from the Holy Grail:

BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?

CROWD: No, no… no … yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.

D’oh!

Roland Burris has a long, storied future ahead of him as an evasive, Bill Clinton-style weasel. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown says:

Sen. Roland Burris says the transcript of his Illinois House impeachment committee testimony proves he is not a lying little sneak.

It doesn’t. But judge for yourself.

The key question asked of Burris:

Rep. Jim Durkin: “Did you talk to any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names — John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody . . . associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor’s arrest?”

Note that he specifically names Rob Blagojevich — the very man who called Burris three times seeking his fundraising assistance. He also names Doug Scofield, John Harris, and John Wyma — three associates of the governor’s whom Burris only later admitted he had spoken with.

Why did Burris not mention those contacts? Well, Burris recently told the public: “there were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony to the impeachment committee.”

Burris wasn’t given the opportunity??? You just saw one question where he was. And how did he answer that?

Burris: “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.”

Burris is then “given” several more “opportunities” to disclose Blago’s brother’s contacts:

Tracy: “You said that you had visited friends perhaps in September of ’08 or July of ’08 concerning a desire to perhaps be appointed as a senator if our president-elect was elected. And could you give me the names of those friends?”

Burris’s response is essentially: that depends on what the definition of “friends” is. He quibbles about the time frame and says as part of his answer: “I mean I don’t know who you want as my friends that I consider as persons.” He was deprived of the opportunity, you see! It was all the questioners’ fault for not being specific! Oh, here’s the same person trying again to get an answer:

Tracy: “But I think I earlier heard you today testify that in September ’08 or perhaps as early as July ’08, you had visited with some friends about your desire to seek the seat.”

Burris: “No, I think I testified that that’s when I began to express an interest in it. As I saw that –”

Tracy: “And I just was wondering who those friends were.”

Opportunity number three! Did he mention Blago’s brother? Or Scofield? Or Harris? Or Wyma?

Burris: “One of them was my law partner.”

Burris is pressed thrice more whether that was the extent of the contacts:

Tracy: “Was it Lon Monk, was that the extent of it was Lon Monk?

. . . .

Tracy: “So you don’t recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?”

. . . .

Tracy: “Is there anybody that comes to mind in that light that you can –“

Burris ends up mentioning a friend of his from New Jersey.

Why, oh why, didn’t they give him the opportunity to tell the truth?

Tell me this guy doesn’t have a future as a politician.

UPDATE: Oh, man. The weaselling has gotten far, far worse.

Mark Ames:

[T]here’s still time to prove that you’re not passive, pathetic serfs. That’s right Americans, here’s your chance to prove that you’re not slaves, that you won’t just sit there and take it when they steal from you. We know who stole everything from you. They don’t even hide—they’re all over the TV networks, bragging, strutting, laughing at you. We know where they work, and we know what they look like. They’re literally asking for it. Shouldn’t you, Americans, with your guns and your high and mighty talk about how you protect your rights and your property and your families—shouldn’t you, like, do something? They’re responsible for throwing you out of work, out of your house, bankrupting your retirement, destroying your life and your family and everything you’ve worked for. And they don’t even hide it! So, what’re you gonna do about it? Sit there and complain? Call another fucking rightwing radio talkshow and kvetch like an old Jewish grandmother? Do you have any fucking balls left at all?

There are so many deserving targets out there—or rather, let’s call them “opportunities” out there to prove that you’re not the world’s biggest suckers and most passive, pathetic slaves that the planet has ever hosted. I’ll give you one, a real shocker. Her name is Betsy McCaughey . . .

[Ames proceeds to explain that McCaughey opposes socialized medicine — although the way Ames puts it is: “BETSY MCCAUGHEY WANTS TO KILL YOU IN ORDER TO ENRICH HERSELF.”]

So, here is what I’m going to ask readers: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE BETSY MCCAUGHEY LIVES? DOES ANYONE KNOW HER HOME ADDRESS? If you do, please send it to us and we’ll publish it. Then Americans can prove to Russians that they are not slaves, they do not sit back passively and allow themselves to be killed by vampires like McCaughey. Americans fight back, right? We’ll see. Send your information on her address to: ames@exiledonline.com

Mr. Neiwert? Is this eliminationist rhetoric?

Care to weigh in?

Bueller? Bueller?

(Thanks to Well-Armed Lamb.)

UPDATE: Here is from comment #8 to Ames’s post:

Timmy, don’t be such a pansy. What all decent people want to see right now is these rich fucks being dragged out of their mansions by a mob, shitting and pissing themselves with terror, then being shot with their blood and brains blasting over the snow. Then watching it again and again on Youtube with your mates. Fuck criminal charges. Preach on, Brother Mark.

Comment #27:

Drag her into the streets and burn her. Once everyone sees one of them getting it, the other 60,000 who lost their jobs the other week can get to work on the rest of em.

We’re getting closer and closer to that elusive leftist eliminationist rhetoric . . .

• Former astronaut is global warming skeptic. (For what it’s worth, I’m not.) (h/t: John Hitchcock.)

• Obama coins: a piece of history turns out to be attractive on the surface — but the substance is paper-thin, flimsy, and worthless. Ah, the symbolism. (h/t Pablo.)

• Professor allegedly calls student a “fascist bastard” for his speech against same-sex marriage. The complaint is here; it includes the professor’s comments, including one that says: “Ask God what your grade is”:
  

• One vote short of the number needed to raise taxes by $14 billion, Arnold prepares to lay off thousands of state employees. Yes, please: more dramatics! Just don’t cut spending in any long-term, structural way, whatever you do!

• Kansas becomes the latest state to welch on tax refunds.

• Will Obama roll back welfare reform?

• New York Times: Is the Supreme Court About to Kill Off the Exclusionary Rule? Matthew J. Franck: Uh, no.

• Death from above!

This blog is six years old today.

According to my dashboard, there have been 9,810 posts, and 255,738 approved comments.

Thanks for reading. Please spread the word.