That didn't take long - Burris "confesses"

Ah, the truth starts to emerge. And so soon after clearing the hurdles of his appointment to a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Why would U.S. Sen. Roland Burris speak up now? What could possibly prompt him to “remember” that there actually were several others with whom he discussed the Barack Obama's Senate seat? Why now, instead of later? Or at all?

Could the rantings of Blago on the talkshow circuit be making him nervous? Could the fact that people often choose to save their own skins be an effective memory-jogger? If you might get pushed out in front of the bus, is it better to leap out in front of it and hope the driver brakes in time?

His attorney provided the excuse of “fluid nature.” Poor Burris. He "was unable to fully respond to several matters." And maybe we still believe in the tooth fairy.

Several news sources reported that Burris “quietly” filed an affidavit on February 5 with State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), head of the impeachment committee that heard sworn testimony from Burris. Be sure to reach today’s article on www.chicagotribune.com, which is much more complete than today's article in the Northwest Herald. The Tribune article includes this wonderful statement: “Currie, who is House majority leader, said the affidavit suggests Burris wants to be 'very forthcoming.'"

That’s kind of like saying, “Now I’m going to tell you the truth.” Every time I hear that one, I immediately wonder what is it that I have been told previously!

You’re a little late, Sen. Burris.

Did Burris perjure himself at the impeachment committee? What will be the effect, if he did? Criminal prosecution? Removal from the U.S. Senate? How long will that take? Is Pat Quinn already picking out a replacement for Burris?

Just what, exactly, do you have to do to get kicked out of the Senate?

Jack Franks not to testify?

One of the governor's most vocal, local critics has been McHenry County's own Rep. Jack Franks (D-63rd). And for good reason.

However, this morning's Northwest Herald carries, in my opinion, an inaccurate explanation of the reason he will most likely not testify.

Reporter Amber Krosel wrote a short sidebar that got a front-page position. Jack is reported as saying his decision to testify will now depend on the length of the trial. Like it's his decision. Jack is quoted as saying that his testimony might not be necessary "seeing as the governor isn't showing up."

I didn't watch the entire opening day's proceedings, but I did see the part when House prosecutor David Ellis said he would present numerous motions to the Senate and, if they were accepted, then the testimony of many would not be needed. And the testimony of Jack Franks was named as one that would not be needed.

So, my question is, is Jack's explanation accurate? What is his reason for phrasing it as he did? And why didn't an editor catch it? Surely editors must have been glued to the online video streaming of the proceedings.

Impeachment Report - Read This

Last week I vented to local elected politicians about the difficulty of finding the voting record on the Blago impeachment, and I would like to thank the offices of Sen. Althoff and Rep. Tryon for their replies and information.

The vote was apparently 114-1-1, not 114-1 as was reported in the mainstream press. Representative Milton Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone "No" vote on impeachment, but the voter of "Present" or whatever it was remained unidentified. Who is Milton Patterson? You can read all (little) about him at http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1306. No years shown for his term in office. No biography. Who is this mysterious man from Chicago's South Side that had the intestinal fortitude to stand alone and vote against Blago's impeachment? Hey, it takes guts to do that.

If you'd like to read the whole sordid mess in the Final Report of the Special Investigative Committee (on Impeachment), go to
http://www.ilga.gov/house/committees/reports.asp?CommitteeID=758&GA=95

There you can read of the multiple (alleged) attempts to "trade officials acts for campaign contributions" and other (alleged) misdeeds. One that jumped out at me was "The Governor's I-SaveRx Plan".

I had complained continually to the governor's office and to Rep. Jack Franks that this plan was illegal. It turns out that the FDA had informed Blago that the importation of prescription drugs was illegal on multiple occasions, Blago launched the I-SaveRx Plan, anyway. And Jack promoted it on his website for a long time, right on the homepage.

Foreign pharmacies were inspected by Illinois State personnel who were not drug compliance investigators, as required by Illinois law. Forty (40%) percent of the drug inspection forms were not completely filled out. The Report states that the Illinois Attorney General identified many problems that were violations of State law.

Where was the AG when I complained to that office about the illegal importation of prescription drugs? It certainly would be interesting to learn how my complaint was handled!

It took a complaint to the Illinois Legislative AG (who was hard to find!) to get Jack's attention and the removal of the I-SaveRx Plan from his website. Once the L.A.G. got involved, that information was off Jack's website within three days. But let a constituent complain about a violation of Federal law? No action!

Section IV (F) concludes with "In sum, the Governor knew the program was illegal but allowed it to go forward; and then the program, once implemented, violated numerous State laws relating to safety and quality control of prescription drugs. The Committee finds that the Governor abused the power of his office."

Read this Report. This is serious stuff!

Now, why is the Senate waiting two weeks to begin its impeachment trial? Gotta get ready to get ready; right? The trial should have started today!