Roland Burris: “Fred Is Dying on the Vine”
I’m just now catching up to the Roland Burris-Rob Blagojevich transcript that got released earlier this week, in which the wannabe Senator from Illinois scrambles to find a way to pay off the Blago machine in time for the Senate decision.
I’m most struck by the centrality of Fred Lebed, then Burris’ law partner, to the discussion. That’s because we’ve got several pieces of evidence that Lebed would be–and might have been–at the center of a quid pro quo between Burris and Blago.
RobBlago mentions Lebed when he first raises the issue of "anything you might be able to do."
BLAGOJEVICH: We’ve had a number of conversations about, you know, anything you might be able to do; you and Fred might be able to do here before the end of the year for Rod.
And when Burris suggests he’ll have to do a fundraiser, he alludes to conversations with Lebed about the appearance that would give.
BURRIS: So let, it is and so if I put on a fundraiser now …
BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.
BURRIS: … and, I, you know I, I think it would have something … this is what I’ve been talking to Fred about it, it has so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment …
Burris then tries to buy time by explaining that Lebed is on a business trip to NY (Tim Wright is the lawyer who represented Burris in his appearance before the State Legislature, and who was giving him detailed directions on how to respond to questions about contacts with the Blago people, which makes his appearance in this context interesting unto itself).
BURRIS: And, and my law partner we were gonna try to do something at the law firm. I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright.
BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.
BURRIS: Okay, ’cause Tim is not looking for an appointment, okay.
BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.
BURRIS: So if I can talk to my law partner who’s been, you know, in New York trying to drum up business.
[snip]
BURRIS: I think he’ll be back in on Monday.
BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.
BURRIS: But, ah, but Fred and I, look I said I gotta call you. I have, I have not.
BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.
BURRIS: ‘Cause I didn’t know how to deal with this situation.
BLAGOJEVICH: ell, ah, you know I’ll stand by. I mean if you wanna write a check and have Fred write a check or have someone else write checks, that’d be great. I mean …
Burris then describes Lebed looking for another lawyers’ fundraiser for Blago to piggy-back onto.
BURRIS Yeah, right ’cause, ah, and once Fred found out he had done one, we thought maybe we could hook on with him, but he had done his.
When RobBlago rather touchingly cedes to Burris’ conscience, he names Lebed directly.
BLAGOJEVICH: I, I can’t help you with your dilemma other than want to encourage you to, …
BURRIS: Sure, sure.
BLAGOJEVICH: … to do what you think is fair from your standpoint …
BURRIS: Okay.
BLAGOJEVICH: … and Fred’s standpoint and ya know, I’ll work with you. And if I can think of a place where we can tie you guys in.
And when Burris complains about the law firm going under, he describes it specifically in terms of Lebed.
BLAGOJEVICH: Okay Roland. How’s your business by the way?
BURRIS: It’s terrible.
BLAGOJEVICH: Is it? Shit, I’m sorry to hear that.
BURRIS: I mean, you know Fred and I we might lose Burris and Lebed because we’ve been trying to get contracts. We don’t have any clients renewing for 09.
BLAGOJEVICH: No kidding.
BURRIS: We have no clients renewing for 09. Fred is dying on the vine because, I, you know, a lot of our clients have run out.
Though this conversation transpired between RobBlago and Burris, Lebed was clearly the central player, and Burris suggested repeatedly that Lebed would be the one to implement any favors for Blago.
That’s important, first of all, because Lebed may already have done a big favor for Blago. In September (after Burris first raised his interest in the Senate seat with the Blago team), a charity on the board of which Lebed served hired Patti Blagojevich to be their full time fundraising director, even though she had no experience (they fired her earlier this year). When asked about this in front of the Illinois legislature, Burris claimed he would have no idea whether his partner had a role in her hiring. This conversation, however, belies that claim.
Moreover, in March, an associate of Lebed’s, John Ruff, came forward alleging that Lebed had spoken of the favors they’d have to do to pay off receiving the Senate seat. He insisted that Lebed would be the key to understanding any deal between Blago and Burris.
Ruff also recalled Lebed telling him he’d had discussions about Burris’ interest in the seat with Blagojevich representatives as far back as October. That claim by Ruff contradicts what Burris said in a Jan. 5 sworn statement that is now part of a state perjury investigation.
[snip]
Ruff is adamant that if prosecutors want to get to the bottom of whether Burris perjured himself, Lebed could be a key.
"There is more to be discovered," Ruff said. "I know the key to finding the information out is through Fred. That’s the main point I wish to get across."
Ruff’s contention perfectly accords with what we see in this conversation–any deal would have been struck not just between Burris and Blago, but Burris and Lebed and Blago.
Now, clearly, the job for Patti Blago was not enough to win Blago’s favor–at least not before Blago realized he was tapped. And that job doesn’t come up in this transcript. Still. Burris’ claim that he would have been out of the loop of any efforts Lebed made to get Patti Blago hired rings false, given this transcript.
Better late than never. *g*
And a minor typo as implment should be implement.
And btw, I still can’t see the Democratic majority in the US Senate being willing yet to throw Burris under the bus.
After all, a vote is still a vote, and Harry so desperately wants that filibuster-proof 60 that he could pee his pants.
So no action by the feckless Senate Ethics Committee other than the shaking of fingers and heads. To do more would require a set but no one has donated a set yet.
Reid could have 75-80 votes in his caucus but he would still cave like the DaschleCrat that he is. Also, don’t you think that Burris could either be indicted or impeached faster and then replaced either via appointment or special election even before Senator Franken is rightfully seated?
don’t you think that Burris could either be indicted or impeached faster and then replaced either via appointment or special election even before Senator Franken is rightfully seated?
No, and not only because Sen. Franken will be seated within the next three weeks. (MN Supreme Court will rule quickly after Monday’s oral arguments. Do you think that the Minnesota public will put up with Pawlenty refusing to sign the certification? I don’t.)
So what are the potential consequences if Burris is found guilty of lying? Anything beyond losing the Senate seat? He and Tim White looked so shady during the whole hearing…
that’s the wrong question, an a unpossible solution
who has jurisdiction over this stuff, Fitz ???
an I presume he’s gonna fold this into the already announced indictment, which IIRC does exist, probably (did he ever file anything ???)
can a State prosecutor get the hooks into this guy at the same time ???
burris has an expiration date. He gives snakes a bad name, and I doubt there are enough dead people in Illinois to save his sorry ass
but none of that can be used to pry burris’ crooked ass from the senate, if Harry Reid is still in charge of the joint
an I don’t think he can be detained until January of 2011
after that, all bets are off, or put me down for Fittzy, an more than two years, for a c-note
look how long it took Fitz to get scooter, this guy’s in the dictionary under “Dogged Persistence”
Oh, an 20 bucks on 30 months, for the exacta …
I have no idea what the required, um, obeisances would be for the feds to let the state in on a case, but the reverse kind of partnership is all the rage these days as the great Augean-by-the-Lake cleanup continues.
Here’s the most recent example of the state bringing the feds in on a case which the latter then charge:
The nephew in question, is the same developer who’s supposed to get the lion’s share of contracts for tearing up the south Washington Park neighborhood (mine) to put in the Olympic stadium.
I must say, all by itself the announcement was pretty breathtaking, showing as it does a committed persistence by the state (a former Fitz assistant) and feds in rounding up the problem. But also this week in federal indictments,
Isaac Carothers being what’s iz name’s chief gospel shouter in the City Council. His story has too many mordantly humorous sidelights to go into, here or anywhere, but quite relevant was a masterpiece of a buried lede that only got headlined the next day:
A fascinating pair of cases. I suppose the Carothers pinch signals that whatever he was wired for has borne whatever fruit it will.
Harry Reid will say “Let this play out in the courts before the senate acts”. A fairly standard position, you can’t blame him for that.
The GOP will howl and scream. Fairly standard position, you can’t blame them for that.
Burris will serve out the remainder of the senate term and go home.
Blago will send an anonymous text to Reid that reads “pwned!!!!!”
One thing strikes me as odd. Fitz had the conversations BEFORE Burris was appointed. He was willing to release information to try to stop Blago from selling the seat, yet he didn’t release that conversation in time for it to be considered after Burris was named. Most Odd.
Boxturtle (OT: Walker has to be REALLY annoyed at the Governments filing)
Is it the transcripts, or are these clowns unable to speak coherently?
Probably the transcripts – you never notice how much you pause or say ‘um’ when you’re talking.
I’ve seen some of the transcripts of John D Shane’s interviews of Kentucky pioneers (in the Draper Collection). They look much the same.
Shame on you, Marcy! For hassling Roland Burris, paragon of truth and honesty, and the very exemplar of legislative excellence! :o)
I tell you (as the supporters of seating Roland who were at great pains to inform us, during the efforts of those constitution-wreckers among us who wanted him kept out of the Senate) if he had NOT been seated then rule of law would have ceased to exist in the known universe and Georgia, and we would have reverted to the law of the jungle. Scofflaw-barbarians would have been skewering law-school deans like they were hot dogs at a cook-out.
Incidentally, I would point out that the interest in indicting Roland Burris seems to be at about at the same level in the general populace, of attempting to get Dick Cheyney eating off a metal tray in some club fed.
The odds for the likelihood of either coming to pass, remain to be seen, but at this point, I wouldn’t bet a degree from an on-line law school on either one of them happening.
And, of course, with the evidence in hand at the time, that was still the correct position. In the law, there really is something to be said for following the law and not acting on whims you cannot yet prove; and it is never a good idea to set shitty precedent that could haunt you for decades, perhaps centuries, to come as far as political preemption of a legal appointment. The remedy is for the Senate to do its job, but, as Box Turtle notes above, they will be too feckless. That is regrettable.
No. Not that the U.S. Senate WILL BE too feckless; they WERE too feckless. And the senate does not need evidence of criminal behavior to put a nomination on hold while events play out. The fact that Blago, a very short time after Burris was seated, was removed from office on a 59-0 vote of the Illinois Senate, would have made it practically impossible for anyone to flack for Burris’s seating, at least, and still retain any crediblity.
Would you have been posting so voluminously about the despearate need to seat Burris to protect “precedent”, etc, if his sponsor had just gotten the political shearing that Blago got? Just askin’… :o)
“They will be too feckless.”
And when, pray tell, did you discover that they are too feckless?
Since, when the whole thing was still up in the air, you were posting nearly incessantly that we had to seat Burris or the rule of law would collapse, can you tell us what epiphany you had about Burris that now makes you think the Senate will be “too feckless” to do it’s job?
I mean, we already knew, indisputably, what a political hooker and charlatan Burris was, but that didn’t stop you from flacking for his seating like he was young Abraham Lincoln, when the issue was in doubt. In fact, I’m pretty sure that you fell back on the “they’ll vote him out of office at the mid-terms” idea, as the correction for this. But now you evidently have decided that we need to get him out sooner. I’m just wondering if you’re privy to information not available to anyone else.
No, only aware of the information in the public record, and it was insufficient at the time to prove or do what you wanted. That would have been effectively extra-legal. In the Senate where it would have been legal, it would have been the most inapt and worst precedents imaginable. It was mob-mentality based. I could not support it then and nothing has demonstrated to me that I was incorrect on that. Your mileage may vary.
bmaz, there’s only one thing left to do – throw yourself off a cliff. You’re irredeemable, you can’t read tarot cards for shit, and your crystal ball sucks.
Shit! You mean I can’t get a no conditions and/or oversight bailout, get my ridiculous bonuses protected and paid and keep doing what I am doing???
Professional courtesy from sharks is all you’re entitled to.
Crap. Talk about yer equal protection issues.
“No, only aware of the information in the public record.”
This is abject nonsense. As Marcy pointed out in several excellent threads on here well before Burris was seated, he was playing fast and loose with the truth about his contacts with Blago, and it was as plain as day that he was doing it.
And as I posted on here several times, only days before his appointment, Burris was calling for Blago’s removal from office. When it turned out that Blago was willing to put HIM in the Senate (or try to) then Burris’s opinion of Blago’s ability and right to fullfil the duties of his office changed 180 degrees. Burris was and is, a political whore of the first order. And it was apparent to everyone.
But that wasn’t enough for you, as you posted repeatedly that we HAD to seat him.
And for you now to scold the Senate for the “feckless” qualities that you now profess to see coming, is nothing but outrageous, frontrunning, hypocrisy. It’s as bad as Burris, himself.
After all of the convoluted logic from you about how the Senate had no right to keep Burris on hold while the piano landed on Blago, you have no right to criticize the U.S. Senate nor really, now that you’ve discovered your distaste for his being in the Senate, Burris, himself.
You are a common scold that thinks your petty political whims are more important than the rule of law. You have exhibited this on both this issue and many others. You now attempt to hide behind Marcy’s skirts as somehow protecting your base and rank bullshittery. I’ll have none of that.
… then of course there’s this: Even if the tapes you appear on don’t result in immediate charges, once they’ve been recorded there’s always the possibility that they resurface in some other, perfectly legitimate fashion, i.e. no dastardly political leaks necessary …
Wonder how many in Chicago, especially, are connecting the Burris and Carothers stories in that way?
[Suggested thread music: “Meditation” from Thaïs by Massenet, or “Dance of the Blessed Spirits” from Orfeo ed Euridice by Glück; believe me, almost everyone’s heard these pieces, whether you recognize the names or not.]
(CQ Politics)
Charming, the high level of standards to which some people hold themselves….
Burris has raised $845 in the first 3 months of this year for his 2010 campaign war chest.
I agree with Mad Dog @2. Senate Ethics Committee will at most censure Burris. But I think the chances of Sangamon County prosecutor going after him for perjury are better than 50%.