Roland Burris Once Sought Death Penalty For Innocent Man

Former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris, embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, is no stranger to controversy.

Public fury over the governor's alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris' decision to continue to prosecute -- over the objections of one of his top prosecutors -- the wrong man for a high-profile murder case.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Paul Peete - Huffpost Blogger]

In defending his appointment by Blagojevich, Burris has shown an affable yet insincere nature that refuses to even discuss opponents' position on Blago's tainted office, and how his appointment, in light of that taint, has any possibility of a reasonable basis to be rejected. Political expediency is at the base of his Senate appointment, both by an embattled Blago and Burris, who sees his last chance to be a successful pol. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he would let an innocent man languish on death row to further his career.

[Bobleblah1]

Question:

What court of law has convicted Gov Blagojevich of ANY crime?

Where in the US constitution does it say that an accusation is sufficient
enough to deny a sitting Governor from carrying out his constitutionally granted power?

I guess it's just a matter of taste then? Who's taste.....­I guess the media

Who elected you or the media to ANYTHING?

[derekc06]

you're missing the point... the senate can reject burris if they want regardless­...

[javagirl322]

Blago: an arrogant piece of work...

[wembakoy]

Leave Burris alone. I did not do anything wrong. Becareful with guilty by association thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a14EXiryriY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a08L8fcNZLk

[Bobleblah1]

Hey everybody here is a joke that will have you laughing for hours.
Its a tale of Hypocrisy of astounding proportion.

The Same Democrats who are currently engaged in this lawless vendetta against Gov Blagojevich,
That aims to deny Roland Burris ( A distinguished 30 plus year public servant) of the opportunity to serve in the US senate,

Are the same Democrats telling you Caroline Kennedy ( A person with NO EXPERIENCE) should be the Senator from New York.

Oh Yeah, Even those who have VOWED to block him admit he is more than qualified for the post.

Just think about that for a minute....­..........­..........­..........

Both would be elevated to the Senate via appointment, yet the National importance of having a Senate
with at least 1 African American in it, is trumped by Nepotism that on its face makes a mockery of the Institution.

You cant even make this stuff up.

[AsISaid]

Even you must have the intellectual integrity to know the difference­......

[Bobleblah1]

Actually I dont
And If your so smart, then explain it in a way that I cant refute.
Use any tactic you like.

[Palemoon]

Althought I am in favor of both being seated in the Senate, I am able to still see your point. One of the big debates during this past primary was first Hillary attacking Obama as inexperienced and unqualified, unable to win the big states or blue collar votes. After Obama overcame that hurdle of ignorance by his first opponent, he then had to go through the same thing against McCain. What's more, the Dems also engaged in it by going after Sarah Palin.

Now, here we are with the Dems attacking Burris who is almost over-qualified for the job, and nary a word about Ms Kennedy.

[Bobleblah1]

You've got it.

It's really ludicrous, but also very revealing.

You know what moral of the story is?

People engaged in pursuits that are this out of balance, require such an overwhelming
amount of lies to prop up the undertaking that a simple nudge will send them
reeling at break neck speed.

There's a greater literal lesson here as well. It has to do with the sustainability of actions. You seem to be a thinker so I "trust" that you can apply it to larger events.

[AsISaid]

Dems are not in opposition to seating Mr. Burris because of his qualifications. Blago was careful to choose a candidate that would be hard to say no to.

[Querent]

Unlike the way things are in your party, the Repugnants, where all the members are required to adopt the ideas of whoever the current Party Boss is, or be accused of being traitors, there are many points of view and differences of opinion in the Democratic Party. It's nonsensical to talk about "the Dems". The plain fact is that the Senate vacancy in New York and the one in Illinois have only one thing in common--- both were caused by the election of the Obama/Biden ticket.

Furthermore, the fact that some people are opposed to allowing a Governor who is known to have asked for a quid pro quo for giving the Senate seat to a prospective appointee to subsequently make that appointment, can hardly be called a "vendetta", since it isn't even based on the identity of the person who would be denied the appointment. As for "nepotism", that would require that the person or family making the selection in New York was favoring a member of his own family, which clearly isn't the case.

You say "you can't make this stuff up," but you are obviously doing just that.

[Bobleblah1]

First of all, I'm not a Republican and don't cast votes for them, so there goes your entire first paragraphs argument.

Secondly you say "A governor who is know to have asked for quid pro quo"

Wait!

Do you have copies of the FBI tapes? If so produce them as proof of your accusation.
But again we are back to the central point, all you people have is accusations.
If you had any proof you would produce it and be taking Gov Blagojevich to trial as we speak. But of course you cant, because of reasons you probably haven't even figured out yet. Last I checked the Feds were asking for more time. Most likely to try and fabricate evidence against Gov Blagojevich.

As for Nepotism..­.....Do you really need me to explain this to you?
Has this aspect actually gone over your head?
I will explain it in as long or short a form as you like, but I doubt that you could possibly be that silly.

[shockmagog]

"You cant even make this stuff up."

It looks like you are doing just fine on your own. Simply reread your own post.

[JohnTalbutt]

Would it not have been more relevant to bring up letting the wrong man take a murder rap when the lead FBI investigator of Blagojevich was informing America that Illinois was in the running for most corrupt state?

The FBI let at least one man stay in prison for thirty years to protect politcally connected Whitey Bolger, who continued to commit murders.

[AsISaid]

Wasn't Bulger supposedly an FBI informant?

[Querent]

This isn't really about the FBI, is it? This article is about Burris's misconduct in continuing to seek the death penalty for an accused citizen in the face of evidence which exonerated him, an about his refusal to even meet with the assigned prosecutor to discuss the situation.

[tmcitizen64]

I find it amazing how many American's and posters here want to strip an elected official of his powers because of the accusations of a government lawyer. No indictment, no trial, just an accusation. I don't even care if he is ultimately found to be guilty, at this point in time, he is the elected governor of Illinois. The federal government has no right not to recognize the legality of his exercising of his powers, including: his appointment of Burris.

Anything else is an exericise of vigilanteeism and lawlessness.

[Palemoon]

BEST POST EVER!!

[derekc06]

this is not the best post ever... in fact it's completely irrelevant­...

i'm not quite sure what you mean by "federal government­"... nobody is "not recognizing" his appointment on the federal level...

if you're talking about the senate though... just because blago appoints someone doesn't mean they have to seat him... no vigilanteeism or lawlessness required..

[MaybeMilo]

That's one of the problems with the death penalty - the potential that the state might be killing someone who may not deserve it, especially if politics are involved.

Some people may deserve it indeed, but you better be d@mn sure you've got the right person. It seems like it should take more than a lack of "reasonable doubt" before you make someone to ride the lightning.

[Palemoon]

Some good points. And I'm wary of this whole "reasonable doubt" rule about gaining convictions. The law is pretty clear cut. You either broke the law, or you did not. There is no middle ground. But under "reasonable doubt", this ends up making a complete farce of the legal system because then you have things like "Well, he was driving a Corvette, so it's possible he was in fact speeding in a school zone". Ummm, no. Either the person was speeding, or they were not. If there is reasonable doubt, then the doubt should be required to fall on the side of innocence, not guilt!

That is the very thing that got Rolando Cruz in all of this mess to begin with. The State found just enough doubt, and then forced the jury to say that if there was reasonable doubt then they must find him guilty. Which they did twice, before Burris was ever elected. But not many on HuffPo seems to care about that. All they care about is throwing Burris under the bus for something he had no involvement in and was done years before he was ever elected.

[Querent]

The law requires that if there is reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt, then he or she cannot be convicted, not that if there is reasonable doubt of his or her innocence, he or she must be convicted. You have it exactly backward. As for throwing Burris under the bus, the issue is that he refused to stop the capital prosecution of a man in the face of convincing evidence that he was not guilty and that there had been prosecutorial misconduct in suppressing evidence that was exculpatory to him. Since he was asked by his employee to meet to discuss the matter, and refused, he can certainly be criticized for his involvement.

[derekc06]

i thought you may be semi intelligent based on a couple of your other comments until i scrolled down to this... your lack of intellect is stunning..­.

i do not know how you could have possibly got this any less right...

[hapiday]

Blago is making a mockery of the Senate seat. Before placing anyone in the seat or running for the seat the person has to be vetted. You don't place anyone who has any possible negative If the case Burris is being questioned about is such a hot issue he should not have been chosen. Blago had to know this selection would have been questioned even if it were normal circumstances. Why wasn't Burris his choice before the pay for play scheme? Why is he his choice now? Burris should know better than to accept this seat knowing the controversy surrounding Blago. If Burris is a man of honor he would push for the special election and throw his hat in the ring. Burris is tainting himself by accepting this selection.
This was all an ploy to distract and Burris is a part of it. I don't understand why he would allow himself to be used.

[bygollymissmolly]

He is playing a game of "chicken" with the Democrats. It's a game he is going to lose and so is Burris. Burris was stupid to accept the nomination. He had to know that it would result in his being vetted.

I am appalled at the idea of sitting someone as a Senator who was willing to let an innocent man be executed just so he wouldn't look "soft on crime" and increase his chances of winning the Governorship. The fact that he did that shows his lack of judgment because the issue actually lost him the election (along with other things).

[diogenes1967]

Heck, we elected a president who executed Rickey Ray Rector to increase his chances of winning the Presidency so that he wouldn't appear soft on crime.

[Freedomscap]

What's the difference in Blago not stepping down immediatley and Spitzer stepping down immediately.

[bygollymissmolly]

Blago is an egomaniac with no morals and ethics. Spitzer was just stupid, but he did the right thing.

I still think the Spitzer sting had something to do with his investigations into the fraud in the financial industry, just like Valerie Plame being outed had more to do with her undercover work in Iran.

[subdued]

Well how else to prove his Illinois credentials?

[RegLib]

Even considering Blago's nomination, much less accepting it; starting to insinuate that any opposition to him is race-based; the monumental gravesite he built for himself; and this, the willingness to let a probably innocent man be prosecuted for murder because he thought it would look good while he was running for governor.

This guy is so sleazy you can practically see the bugs crawling on him.

[Querent]

People can build any kind of grave site they want for themselves. It's a free country, you know. I don't see that as being relevant.

[derekc06]

just because it's a free country and we can build ridiculous graves doesn't mean they don't tell us something about the people who built them...

[Marsangusidaho]

It's pretty clear that if Mr. Burris were a man of integrity, he would refuse his appointment. Given that that's not the case, anything could happen, despite his statement that he would, "not cause a scene in Washington­." What an embarrassing disaster for the people of Illinois after providing the country with its next president!

[CheshireCat2]

KAILUA, Hawaii — U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Tuesday he agreed that Senate Democrats "cannot accept" any move by Illinois' scandal-tarred governor to name a replacement for Obama's Senate seat. Obama said he was disappointed that Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- who has been accused of trying to sell the vacant Senate seat -- had appointed former state attorney general Roland Burris to fill the vacancy.

There was the statement.

[Freedomscap]

Well, "cannot accept" can be interpreted to give him still an open, if they are forced to accept, legally.

[CheshireCat2]

Is is going to the Ill Supreme Court.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16977.html

[CheshireCat2]

Freedomscap:
Freedomscap See Profile I'm a Fan of Freedomscap I'm a fan of this user permalink

Obama didn't explicitly state that Burris shouldn't take the seat.
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----
I posted that link the other day. I will see if I can find it again.

[CheshireCat2]

Freedomscap:
O has said that Burris should not be seated. The tactics that have been employed are to save the the Demos from a general election which, they feel they have a great chance of losing. They are purposely bungling the process. That is where your argument should be. Why shouldn't the people get to choose?

[Freedomscap]

Obama didn't explicitly state that Burris shouldn't be seated. Obama said he supports the Dems. Now, if they Dems can find some alternative way/evidence to pursue the course of Reid, then so be it.

But, as of now, the Dems. may have to back peddle.

I don't think the Dems are concerned about losing a general election for the Senate seat in Illnois. Illnois went for Obama. I think their feeling is why risk it.

[bygollymissmolly]

You tell me why the State of Illinois should be forced to pay for a special election (very expensive) at a time when they are hurting financially, just to please the Republicans who desperately want this seat.

[derekc06]

that's what i was thinking..­.

[Querent]

If all the Democrats of Illinois are interested in is avoiding a general election to replace Obama in the Senate, all they have to do is let Burris take the seat. That would seem to refute your accusations. You also failed to provide any evidence of any kind, even a poll, that supports the idea that a Republican could win this seat.