Wow! It looks like former Gov. Blago will continue to have a last laugh for years to come. I wonder what other new surprises are waiting in the wings. Don't you think Blago knew that the Burris appointment would turn sour once people figured out (or Burris was forced into a preemptive confession) that Burris was trying to help Blago raise funds in exchange for a crack at the Senate seat? So is Burris up next for impeachment? It seems that everyone who shakes hands with Blago comes away needing to take a sanitizing shower.
As an attorney, I am very interested to see how Illinois' former AG will "reconcile" his testimony then with his testimony now. Perhaps he will enlighten us (again) on the maining of "is." Every time an interrogator has to go down every conceivable semantic trail and fence the witness's every syllable with roadblocking questions, (i.e., "Did you offer help to Gov. Blago directly OR INDIRECTLY?" or "Did you speak with Gov. Blago OR ANYONE RELATED BY MARRIAGE, BLOOD, OR ADOPTION TO A THIRD DEGREE OF CONSAGUINITY OR LESS?") I am reminded of how cheapened the oath ("the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth") has become. The Book of Mormon decries the (lawyerly) practice of "taking advantage" of a person "because of their words" by "crossing" them. The modern practice, perhaps more deplorable (popular with lawyers) is to take advantage of your own words, leaving cutesy trap doors and land mines in your testimony that you expect people to step on or step through as they try to chase down the truth in what you say.
Stay tuned for more revelations, especially as the criminal proceedings unfold against Blago. He has a talent for taking people down, politically. Yet I wonder whether Blago will be convicted, his basic theory being that he didn't DO anything (didn't actually sell the seat). In any case, I can't see Burris surviving much longer in the Senate. A silver lining would appear if Illinois made it so the people elected a replacement, rather than leaving it to an appointment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your point about how cheapened the oath "thetruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" reminds me of a Rehnquist dissent in an affirmative action case I read last semester (United Steelworkers of America v. Webber - 1979). After pointing out how Brennan's majority opinion violates the plain language of the civil rights act he claims to uphold, he almost jokingly notes: "Were Congress to act today specifically to prohibit the type of racial discrimination suffered by Weber, it would be hard pressed to draft language better tailored to the task than that found in [the Civil Rights Act:]."
I think you could say the exact same thing here about the perversion of the oath: if you wanted to fix the problem of people trying to be cleverly dishonest while "technically" telling the truth (i.e. Clinton), then you would be similarly "hard pressed to draft language better tailored to the task than that found in [the oath]."
I think it's hard to have the aforementioned attitude and yet honestly claim you told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." In Burris' case, I think the "whole truth" part is particularly glaring. If they're asking you about donating money to Blago in general, then it kind of goes without saying that talking with his brother about it might very well be relevant.
Obviously Burris' definition of "the whole truth" consists ONLY of questions specifically asked to him: i.e. it isn't his responsibility to bring up anything relevant if the interrogators don't specifically ask him about them. I guess technically you could add to the oath something like "the whole truth, meaning anything potentially relevant even if not explicitly solicited," but really that's just a qualifier--it doesn't change anything about the idea of "the whole truth," or at least the way I understand it.
But I also think your overall point ultimately comes back to the general concept of integrity or honesty. In that sense, the oath itself is almost secondary: it's hard to get a dishoneset person to follow it (no matter how clear and specific the understanding of it is), and a truly honest person almost doesn't even need an oath.
In other words, if you have a good personal standard of integrity and you at least try to live up to it, then you can't go wrong no matter how you interpret the definition of the specific words in the oath.
If you have in mind the goal of being honest and forthright (or "transparent" as Obama likes to say--though I don't think he necessarily follows it), then aside from answering specific questions you will try to make sure that "the truth" is ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD or sufficiently obvious. The focus won't be on specific wording or semantical context, but on a realistic, common sense understanding.
On the other hand, you can try to pin down a dishonest person all day, but if he's resilient you're never going to get the truth out of him because HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO.
I think you get the idea. I think the most important thing to take from this is an emphasis on the importance of personal character...ESPECIALLY in politics. I know this is starting to sound old, but that was the mistake (I think) most people made this past election with Obama. They took his "specific" (I use the word ironically because he was ridiculously vague) promises at face value while simultaneously IGNORING his personal character. THAT'S why Reverend Wright, William Ayers and Tony Rezko were important. Unfortunately most overlooked his "associations" as lowly and deceptive "political attacks" from McCain. I'm not saying they weren't, but that didn't necessarily make them IRRELEVANT. I'm not saying people shouldn't have voted for him just because of that, I just think there was a mistake in ignoring his character(at least by the mainstream media--everyone who listens to talk radio isn't inclined to vote for him in the first place). If people don't have a problem with his "associations" then that's a normative (value) judgment, but at least don't pretend like they're completely irrelevant, unless you really believe that people's associations are completely unassociated with character. I realize that with his extremely short political career (and him running for president virtually the entire time), there wasn't much to look at--other than his "associations"--in terms of actual behavior that reveals his character, but that doesn't mean you should ignore what there WAS. He actually did have a voting record, and I believe it was EXTREMELY partisan.
I believe that what we're seeing right now from Obama is nothing more than his true character (which doesn't seem to match up very well with his campaign statements). Everything he does is designed to promote his personal and political ambition because THAT'S what's most important to him, and all his fancy speeches are merely part of the extremely Machiavellian political calculation. Tell me I'm wrong.
And why should we be the least bit surprised? Doesn't it all follow the stereotype of the politician to the extreme? Since when can a politician claim to be "above politics" and be taken completely at his word...despite BEING A POLITICIAN? Honestly I think we all know it had a lot to do with the fact that he was black (see my comment on the election day post), but it still amazes me that he was basically treated as an EXCEPTION to the rule that CHARACTER is ultimately what determines behavior. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Mat. 7:16-18) One thing I gather from that is that words really don't matter compared to character: if the tree is corrupt it WILL give you evil fruit every time DESPITE WHAT IT TELLS YOU. And if a tree is good then you don't really need to worry either way. Of course the corrupt tree is going to try to SEEM like a good tree so he can reap the benefits, but only a fool will actually BELIEVE him if the tree is really corrupt (whether out of stubbornness or ignorance)because that's like trying to "gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles."
Great post. I haven't followed the Burris investigations very closely, but I did watch Gov. Hair's (it's easier to say) media blitz while he should have been at his impeachment hearings back in Illinois. It was interesting to see how carefully he worded his answers to the interviewer's questions, and other times he would just dodge them all together!
For example: Hair - the dialogue you have is being taken out of context! Interviewer - what other context is there? Hair - I will repeat, I haven't done anything CRIMINALLY wrong. (notice his qualifier?)
It's sad to see honesty and morality take a back seat to popularity, prestige, and power.
As a side, I'd be more comfortable if the people of the state elected their senators directly rather than having the governor appoint someone of his or her choosing. Like you, I think this approach would eliminate many problems with governor appointments.
Post a Comment