The New York Times has reported that the Sangamon County (which contains Springfield) State's Attorney will not charge Senator Roland Burris with perjury for his swown statements made to legislators prior to his being admitted to the Senate.
In a written statement issued on Friday, Mr. Schmidt said that some of Mr. Burris’s statements in January before a committee of state lawmakers (who were at the time considering whether to impeach Mr. Blagojevich) had been "vague," but said that "vague statements cannot support a perjury charge."
"A review of the evidence, consisting of numerous interviews and documents, indicates there is insufficient evidence to prove Senator Burris made a statement he knew to be false," Mr. Schmidt said.
Burris, more or less, now has back his good name.
On January 8, as part of Governor Rod Blagojevich's impeaching hearings, Burris had been asked by Illinois Rep. Jim Durkin about any conversations with staff or friends of the Governor about being appointed to the Senate seat. He named one person with whom he had had a conversation, Lon Monk, but indicated that they had not spoken about a quid pro quo. Durkin offered no follow-up question as to whether any other such conversations had taken place. Absent such a question, with the questioner evidently being satisfied by his answer, Burris was under no legal duty to offer additional information.
As commonly true with people who parse their answers under oath, Burris's behavior looks strange and unappealing outside of the legal context. However, Burris -- who was being closely advised by his lawyer in answering these questions -- was under no obligation to cooperate with investigators beyond that legally required. He knew that he had provided no quid pro quo to Blagojevich; the Governor's brother barely took him seriously, and he was likely chosen (after Rep. Danny Davis had been sounded out) only because reaching out to the Black community was part of the Governor's last-ditch strategy to avoid impeachment. Yet the Senate was holding up his appointment based on suspicions that there might be circumstantial evidence that he bought the seat, partially because it would look bad if it later turned out that there had been such a deal and partially because it gave them an opportunity to trumpet their being so pure (*cough* *cough*) that they would care so deeply even about the appearance of impropriety. (Note: this concern does not extend to the influence of health care industry lobbyists over reform legislation.)
Is it understandable that one would not want to cooperate more than the law required with such a sanctimonious pageant? It may not be admirable, but I surely think that it's understandable, and it's certainly legal.
Burris got his appointment; he will have his federal government pension and floor privileges that will eventually make him useful as someone's lobbyist should he care to take that route in his declining years. But he was politically wounded. Burris won't be the Democratic nominee for Senator next year -- which is fine with me, given that he has shown that he's not "ready for prime time" on interview shows and given that we already have at least one strong candidate to replace him.
Burris's political career is over once he leaves the Senate, but his voting record during his time in office, at least, will be a source of pride. People will continue to lampoon him for his mausoleum and such, but that sort of fevered cruelty is just part of politics; he knows that when Black youth see it, for decades or longer, they will see a monument to a Black man who succeeded, within the system and without ever being credibly accused of a crime, to the among the highest levels of government. This striving to be a good model -- even an alluring model of achieving success within the system, as a marble monument is the bling worn by the dead -- has been a self-conscious role adopted by Burris throughout his career. It's a pity that many neither see nor appreciate that.
But, for whatever reason, bashing Burris for the past half-year became a preferred way for many to demonstrate their deeply held "political ethics." It would have been so much nicer had that attention been turned to something substantive regarding political ethics in Illinois, such as promoting reform efforts while the spotlight on ethics was hot -- an effort that, with the end of the legislative session, has just failed.
That is actually an important story -- but it's not lurid, not front-page material. It is heartening that, in the end, those who would try to take away Burris's good name, whether through conviction or political calculation, have, more or less, failed. It's a shame that I have to add that phrase "more or less."