As AG, Burris Ignored Evidence of Innocence

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:06:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Given the stink adhering to the Blagojevich administration, the principled decision of Rep. Denny Davis to decline a possible Senate appointment might call into question the wisdom of Roland Burris' decision to accept one. It's true, as Burris pointed out, that Blago is presumed innocent, but the taint of criminal allegations that Blago tried to sell the Senate seat should have caused Burris, like Davis, to step back and await an untainted opportunity for the job.

Does Burris deserve the job on his merits? Apart from accepting questionable campaign contributions (what politician hasn't done that?), this is cause for concern about Burris' fitness to hold political office:

[more ...]

In this archived column, a Tribune columnist recounts that in 1992, Mary Brigid Kenney, the assistant AG whom Burris had assigned to fight the appeal of Death Row inmate Rolando Cruz, sent Burris a memo identifying numerous errors in the investigation and trial that had put Cruz on Death Row for the 1983 murder of an 11-year-old girl.
According to the column, Kenney’s memo concluded:

"I cannot, in good conscience, allow my name to appear on a brief asking . . . to affirm this conviction." Rather than re-examining the case, Burris took Kenney off it. She then resigned with a stinging letter to Burris. “I was being asked to help execute an innocent man,” she told him. “Unfortunately, you have seen fit to ignore the evidence in this case."

TalkLeft discussed the Cruz case in this 2002 post.

Working to affirm the conviction of an innocent man elevates the desire for a "tough on crime" image above the desire for justice, and raises questions about whether Burris has a conscience. Combined with his ready willingness to say yes to Blago, Burris hasn't shown the ethical sense we should demand of our politicians.

< It's New Year's Eve | Times Square With Hillary and Bill >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

As AG, Burris Ignored Evidence of Innocence | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

disgraceful (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by txpublicdefender on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST

I consider his conduct in that case disgraceful. Not only was the Cruz case rife with police and prosecutorial misconduct, but he was actually innocent, as has since been demonstrated through DNA evidence.

Working to affirm the conviction of an innocent man elevates the desire for a "tough on crime" image above the desire for justice, and raises questions about whether Burris has a conscience.

And this wasn't just working to affirm the conviction. The man was on death row. It was working to execute an innocent man.

I don't need to know anything else about Mr. Burris.

What are the legal grounds for (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:45:30 PM EST

the Senate not seating Burris? I'd like to stick to that discussion, since it applies to anyone that Blago may have appointed. If now people are trying to make the argument that this guy in particular is not acceptable it weakens the other argument that no one Blago appointed is acceptable.

I heard on NPR this afternoon that one reason for Senate review of incoming Senators can be the outcome of an extremely close election, for example the one in MN. If Reid & co in their infinite wisdom get themselves maneuvered by the Republicans into some MN for IL swap and we are deprived of Franken for the sake of ...what, exactly? teaching Blago a lesson he won't already learn in prison? it would be a disaster. No less than I expect of Reid these days though.

I am probably paranoid, but I've scene too much in the last 8 years to be anything but.

And a question to be asked may be (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:50:53 PM EST

whether, if Blago was out and Illinois' lieutenant governor moved up to governor, and then he appointed Burris -- would it merit Senate refusal?

Is it the process, or is it the persons involved -- and if the latter, is it the governor or the appointee?


It has to be the process (none / 0) (#6)
by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:58:13 PM EST

unless there's a crime involved which takes 'the person' out of the running.

Otherwise, we're going to have to analyze the voters and the candidates they elect. For a look at how that works, see Adam Clayton Powell and Ed Edwards.

The law provides the process.


So I don't see why Reid (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:12:24 PM EST

would make this fuss, or why Obama would side with him -- especially now that the Repubs are running, so I see today, old tv ads and interviews of Obama endorsing Blagojevich. Ouch.

That is, you make this fuss and oppose this appointment just to make a fuss, if it serves your party. How it serves Dems to do so, I don't see.

But then, Dems in Congress do not impress me. . . .


: I suppose Reid and the Senate (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:25:20 PM EST

Dems wanted to distance themselves (and their P-elect) from Blago and thought they could play the 'power card - we won't seat anybody he sends us.' Obama needs the Senate for his legilative program and also wants distance from Blago. Obama and the Dem Senate are in synch.
What they didn't count on was time passing and Blago surviving to play the Illinois race card and finding a patsy to take the bait (the appointment).
Now they're in a spot. It's all up in the air, particularly after the extension request today. They can't just make it go away.
Change seems to be here before they were ready.

Another thought on the process (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 10:28:22 PM EST

-- and I agree, it has to be the problematic part, so that's the problem in this situation is being positioned -- anyway, another thought is that I have a lot of problems with political processes lately.

For example: I am horrified by the primary-and-caucus process as conducted by Dems this year, the states deprived of votes, the conduct of Brazile's Rules and Bylaws Committee -- indeed, the convention's aborted roll call, too. Therefore, ought I lose trust in the Dems? Perhaps in their manipulated pick for POTUS?

Yes. I have lost a lot of faith in the party and no longer call myself a Dem. So ought I call for the Senate to refuse to acknowledge Obama, because the processes by which he was picked were so flawed? Just how far do we extend this?


To be clear, at this point (none / 0) (#12)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST

I don't see the evidence that the process is flawed. Blago is not even indicted, much less convicted. (Yeh, I think he probably is guilty, but that's just because it is Illinois, after all. However, that hardly is evidence of crime as yet.)


It's just the process (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:00:09 PM EST

However, I think TChris is free to offer his objections specific to Burris, whom I'm happy to learn more about.


: I don't mean to be cranky for TChris (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST

even bringing it up. I want to know more too - certainly can't hurt.
But when we've got Larry Craig sitting in the Senate after going through possibly the most embarrassing scandal ever (and good for him, say I) , I don't know how the Dems hope to shame Burris into not showing up next week.

: The Process Agreed (none / 0) (#36)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:26:12 AM EST

I think the Senate Dems are ill-advised to pursue this, unless there is evidence of something truly improper in Blago's selection. Why do I think this? The "process" is the only grounds for failure to seat Burris. But more importantly, the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot: they are feeding Republican talking points about corruption among Dems, particularly in the President-Elect's home state, and they are deflecting everyone's attention from the issues that really matter. Do we really want the Senate to convene in January, focusing all energies on the business of trying to unseat Burris, or do we want them taking care of the financial and foreign policy crises we have at hand? Much ado about Burris seems to me the beginning of the Dems' demise. There is a lot of good will right now toward the President-Elect, and most Americans want an 'activist' Senate, with Dems using government to address real problems. But if the Dems allow themselves to get side-tracked, and give the media another reason to focus on something other than the crises that face the nation, they will pay for it at the polls in 2010. Speaking of 2010, it is possible that Burris will not win either the Dem primary or the election for Senator.
Do I think Blago is a problem? Of course. Do I think corruption in government is an important issue? Sure. But unless I see evidence that Burris' appointment is more than a brilliant 'gotcha' by Blago, I look at the risk/reward ratio of tying up a lot of people's time trying to show that Blago can't push us around. Speaking of risk/reward, having read the 78-page indictment of Blago, I trust Fitz will do his job well. So I'm left with the question of what should be the Senate's priorities? To me, they should be the financial and foreign policy crises we have before us. And, I,too, welcome informative posts from TChris.
"Speaking just for me"

Well, I bet Burris voted in every election (none / 0) (#1)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST

and heck, being in Illinois, he may have voted more than once in every election. Frankly, it may have to be faced that Obama may have managed to keep his record cleaner than your usual Dems in Illinois.

So with what's left among Illinois Dems, TalkLeft may have to settle. Look at it this way: At least, as one with political experience and as a regular voter, no doubt, Burris is more qualified than Caroline Kennedy.

I'm sure there are some downstate (none / 0) (#14)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST

blue dog Dems he could have picked.

There is a reason Obama was a sight for sore eyes in Illinois.


: Burris is from downstate Illinois (none / 0) (#20)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST

so I guess it just goes to show what Chicago will do to ya.
And if you know Illinois, and if you want an African American, it just about has to be a Chicagoan.

Sounds like a Clarence Thomas (none / 0) (#5)
by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:54:27 PM EST

clone.

If it's good enough for the Supreme Court, it should be good enough for the Senate.

Gawd (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Fabian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:07:32 PM EST

talk about bringing up painful memories.


: Sorry, but they're practically (none / 0) (#26)
by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:35:12 PM EST

the only kind of memories I have these days, triggered by current realities...

Well (none / 0) (#8)
by Steve M on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:05:14 PM EST

this certainly seems like a fair issue to raise.

Sure, but why, if you want Dems (none / 0) (#11)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM EST

to land running in Congress to start doing that change for which we've been hoping for or waiting for or whatever? It could bog down the Senate, and perhaps for no good end in the end, when there is real work to be done.

Or, with Obama's statement adding to this fuss, is this a delaying tactic -- or an explanation down the line for why Dems in Congress won't get their agenda done again?


I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Steve M on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:41:20 PM EST

it just seems like something that's relevant to me in evaluating a public official. I'm not really focused on whether what I post on a blog is good for Dems or whatever, down that road lies madness.

Clearly, no matter what the facts are of this death penalty case, there's no imaginable way that Reid will end up blocking Burris over THIS - so it's a completely separate issue, really. I just want to know how I ought to feel about this guy.


Exactly (none / 0) (#15)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:32:04 PM EST

Besides just the strategic flaw I see in the Senate Dems stance here - jumping immediately to shoot themselves in the foot to distance themselves from Blago - when no one was accusing them of being connected to him in the first place - there is the issue of starting the Senate term in turmoil. Just seat the guy for his two years and be done with it. What is the good of making such a fuss?


NOOOOOO (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:35:43 PM EST

the can't facilitate Blago. And sorry, but this is a clearly tainted appointment.


ha...well, couldn't they (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM EST

have put out a suitably disapproving statement, but not made any promises about how they would handle an appointment?

Anyway, what's done is done...we'll see how it plays out. never a dull moment.


You do know how THAT would have (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST

been criticized, don't you?


Would they rather have one less Dem in the Senate (none / 0) (#29)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 09:32:38 PM EST

than be criticized?

They were betting Blago had the decency to resign, and they lost. I think they would do it differently if they had it to do over.


: Having one less Democrat (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 09:33:45 PM EST

just reduces the filibuster threshold. No biggie.

Burris ick (none / 0) (#22)
by lentinel on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:09:03 PM EST

Just on the level of a bullsh-t detector, Burris does not pass the test - if you watched the video of Blago announcing his appointment.

It's the same guarded, above the people, detached, imperial bullsh-t that we have become accustomed to from these hacks.

Further examination of Burris bears out what the smell detector indicates.

God almighty.

We need a full fledged revolution.

Well, you can bet that the revolution (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:13:08 PM EST

will not start in Chicago.

And that's where this appointment starts, so there 'tis.


Although Burris was a Black (none / 0) (#24)
by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:30:45 PM EST

Panther and a SNCC member...pretty revolutionary for those times, in or out of Chicago!


The first Af Am state officer in Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST

itself was revolutionary for Illinois -- and for a lot of states still unable to accomplish that.


: Race (none / 0) (#35)
by lentinel on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:35:51 AM EST

Malcolm X spoke, many decades ago, about the election of a black person having no meaning if that person was following an agenda dictated by a white power structure.

Burris look very, very pleased (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:32:47 PM EST

with himself to me. Smug even. Enjoying himself thoroughly during the announcement by the Governor and during Bobby Rush's comments.


id doesn't matter who (none / 0) (#28)
by cpinva on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM EST

blago appoints. were it jesus christ himself, blago's taint would still be upon him.

He seems to be the perfect fit (none / 0) (#32)
by bayville on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:02:27 AM EST

Considering most of the establishment Dems in D.C. have spent the past eight years ignoring torture, the outing of an undercover CIA agent, the dismantling of the Constitution, the War in Iraq, Joe Lieberman's transgressions and the root cause of the ongoing global financial crisis - this Burris seems like the logical choice to join the Congressional Caucus.

: They also ignored (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by ricosuave on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:24:38 AM EST

David Vittor and Ted Stevens in their midst. And they had real grounds to kick those guys out.
In this case, I don't think they have a leg to stand on in not seating him. But they can refuse to let him in their caucus, give him appointments, etc. So in a tight senate, they are willing to do without another caucus vote for--what exactly?

: since you put it that way, (none / 0) (#33)
by cpinva on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 04:44:08 AM EST

Considering most of the establishment Dems in D.C. have spent the past eight years ignoring torture, the outing of an undercover CIA agent, the dismantling of the Constitution, the War in Iraq, Joe Lieberman's transgressions and the root cause of the ongoing global financial crisis - this Burris seems like the logical choice to join the Congressional Caucus.

where the heck is boss tweed, when you really need him?