Ill., on whether he committed perjury before the legislative panel that ultimately impeached Rod Blagojevich, I figured the motivation was politically partisan.I figured the chief prosecutor for the Springfield area who is Republican was trying to get himself some legal attention at the expense of one of the top-ranking Democrats in Illinois government. My only question was how blatantly partisan would the resulting case against Burris be?
SO CONSIDER ME relieved when I learned Friday that Schmidt (who is NOT the same one-time gubernatorial candidate whose name sort of “happens”) decided there’s no basis for a charge of perjury against Burris.
Reading the reports about the letter Schmidt sent to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, to explain why he couldn’t justify the charge against the man who once was Illinois attorney general, it almost seemed like Schmidt had read my mind.
Either that, or the commentaries I wrote earlier in the year and published on this site that explained why the people who despise the thought of Burris as a senator are wrong in their eagerness to get the criminal justice system involved.
I’m not so filled with a great sense of my own importance that I think the state’s attorney is truly a regular reader of the Chicago Argus. So I’ll assume that the logic that Burris didn’t commit the offense of perjury was so obvious that even Schmidt saw it.
AS SCHMIDT EXPLAINED in writing, Burris provided vague answers to the legislative committee that interviewed him as part of their proceedings that ultimately resulted in the impeachment and removal from office of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
But then again, Schmidt noted that the questions Burris was asked were vague in and of themselves.
So Burris did not provide inaccurate information in responding to their inquiries. Schmidt also noted that letter Burris sent to the impeachment panel before it adjourned did provide a few additional details.
So in a purely legal sense, Burris made a technical effort to elaborate on his information while the panel could still have acted. So claiming that the offense of perjury took place is too much of a stretch in the legal sense.
NOW FOR THOSE people who are about to respond that Burris’ less than truthfulness means he was not being honest, and that means he lied, which means he deserves some sort of criminal punishment, I have to seriously argue that they need to take some sort of sedative.
Those people are the ones who are the true problem in our society today. They want to take someone who, for whatever reason (either disgust with Burris’ tie to Blagojevich or with any public official who doesn’t use the “Republican” label after their name) they don’t agree with, and they want to put ‘em away in prison.
That is a police state at work, and that is so contrary to the ideals upon which this nation was created that the only phrase I can think of to describe how those people feel is to say they are “un-American” (even though I’m sure some of them will argue they’re the only true patriots).
If anything, there was one part of Schmidt’s letter that surprised me. I had always thought that the legislative panel could have asked more specific questions of Burris. Schmidt agreed.
BUT SCHMIDT DOES not think that is any reason to look down on the Legislature, or to be critical of their performance as an impeachment panel.
He points out that their purpose in questioning Burris was to put out vague inquiries that would help them elicit a lot of general information, some of which they could then hone in on in their attempt to determine whether it was appropriate to remove Blagojevich from office two years prior to the end of the term to which a majority of the people of Illinois elected him.
By Schmidt’s view, the impeachment panel had a larger purpose than singling out Burris, who made an effort to say as little as he had to say when testifying under oath. That actually is a sensible course of action.
In one sense, it is his right (a person has the right not to provide incriminating evidence against themselves). I think anyone who has a problem accepting that concept is confused about what our system of justice is truly based upon.
SO IT WOULD appear that Burris, who on Friday issued pronouncements claiming he is “vindicated” by Schmidt’s decision, can now breathe a sigh of relief.
He has one less venue to worry about. He can be the guy whom people shun in the District of Columbia, while also struggling to gain attention in Chicago. He doesn’t have to cope with the idea of being a criminal defendant in Springfield as well.
But he still has his problems. A lot of people in Washington these days consider him to be “persona non grata” and probably will not have much sympathy when the Senate ethics committee decides what to do with Burris.
They are investigating as to whether Burris’ answers do not comply with the way a U.S. senator is supposed to behave. That requires a much lower standard of behavior to constitute as improper, and the people who are eager to dump on Burris are quick to point out that the Senate could bump him from his seat altogether.
PERSONALLY, I THINK they’re more likely to issue some sort of censure against the man – which would put a mark on his legacy. I’d go so far as to say it would ensure he would not get the Democratic nomination for Senate in next year’s elections, but I think that was already set.
Censure won’t make much difference. But at least he won’t have to suffer his political humiliation from a jail cell of sorts.
He’ll just get to slink back to Mahalia Jackson’s former house in the Chatham neighborhood and live the rest of his life in retirement.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: The State Journal-Register newspaper in Springfield makes it possible for us to read (http://extras.sj-r.com/pdfs/burris.pdf) John Schmidt’s actual letter to Michael Madigan.
No comments:
Post a Comment