Did Roland Burris lie under oath? You be the judge…..the facts, the law, your conclusion (Video)

Sen. Roland Burris has come under fire in the last couple of days after a second affidavit that he filed was leaked to the Chicago Times. In the new affidavit Burris admits that he spoke with several of Governor Blagojevich’s associates including the former Govenor’s brother Robert Blagojevich regarding the senate seat even though he was not forthcoming with this information in his testimony in the before the Illinois impeachment panel. Sen. Burris attempted to refute the allegations in what some would call a circus of a press conference this past Sunday. Seriously, that press conference was reminiscent of two drunk uncles arguing over who was the greatest baseball player of all time after a very large Thanksgiving dinner. Completely ridiculous, but I digress. The U.S. Code defines perjury as follows:

Whoever…

• … having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

• in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.” U.S. Code: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 79 § 1621

This is what Sen. Burris said in his Jan 5th sworn affidavit.

I, ROLAND W. BURRIS, being first sworn on oath, depose and state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection:

……….

Prior to the December 26, 2008 telephone call from Mr. Adams, Jr., there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United states Senate.

On January 8th, Sen. Burris said the following under oath during the Illinois impeachment hearing of Governor Blagojevich.

Jim Durkin: “Did you talk to any members of the Governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the Governor including family members or any lobbyists connected with him including…oh…..let me throw out some names…John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk…John Wymna, did you talk to anybody who was associated with the Governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the Governor’s arrest?”

Roland Burris: “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.”

Durkin: “Guess the point is I was trying to ask…did you speak to anybody who was on the Governor’s staff prior to the Governor’s arrest or any body…..any of those individuals….or anybody who…uh..was closely related to the governor?

Burris: “I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get…..uh….uh…continued business and I did bring it up…it must have been in September or Jul…maybe it was in July..of a….of a..08. That….you know…..if you’re close to the governor…..you know….let him know that I’m certainly interested in the seat.”

Okay, so the Burris Jan. 5th sworn affidavit states that Burris nor any of his representatives had any contact with the Governor or any of the Governor’s representatives about the appointment to the United States Senate prior to the Governor’s arrest. Yet he admits at the Illinois House impeachment hearing as well as in his February 9th affidavit that he talked to five of the six people named in the question posed by Durkin during the impeachment hearing. Burris attempted to defend this inconsistency during his most recent press conference by claiming that there were no inconsistencies in the statements. The junior senator claimed that in the January 5th affidavit he was referring to the “appointment” as opposed to the “Senate seat” and in his more recent February 9th affidavit he was referring to the “Senate seat” and not the “appointment.” I know. Unfortunately for Burris, during the hearing Durkin specifically used the word “appointment” in his question and not “senate seat” as Burris used in his latest affidavit. Usually in a perjury case, and why they are so difficult to prove, vagueness is your friend. However, the fact that Burris was specifically asked about the “appointment” and he contradicted his sworn statement under oath could mean problems for Burris. Of course the counter argument can be that the use of the word “my” before the word “appointment” in the Jan. 5th affidavit may allow for some wiggle room.

What do you think?