Uncategorized

The White House Weighs In On Burris Imbroglio

By Michael Scherer | @michaelscherer | February 18, 2009 | +

On the Air Force One flight from Phoenix to Washington, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs made his first public comment about the recent revelations concerning Sen. Roland Burris. Here is a transcript of the exchange.

QUESTION: You were asked a couple times yesterday about the President’s reaction to the revelations about Roland Burris. Have you had a chance to talk to him? Does he have a reaction?

GIBBS: I have to say I have neglected to speak with him, but I will give you this: Obviously the people of Illinois have been through a lot in the past few weeks. And obviously Sen. Burris was seated based in some way on the representations that he made to the U.S. Senate and to the committee in Illinois investigating Gov. Blagojevich and as well in interviews that the people of Illinois heard. I think in many ways he was seated based on those representations, and I think that the people of Illinois deserve to know–based on some of the things that have happened over the past few days–deserve to know the full extent of any involvement, and I think that is likely to come out as part of some of the investigations that are now ongoing.

QUESTION: He has acknowledged that the extent of his contacts with Gov. Blagojevich were substantially more than what he originally owned up to. Should he resign? There have been calls for that from both sides of the aisle in Illinois.

GIBBS: I’m not going to get ahead of investigations and say anything like that yet.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say though that you are suggesting that Mr. Burris misrepresented his involvement before?

GIBBS: I wouldn’t suggest. I think you should quote what I said.

Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House
    Gay Marriage May 24, 2012

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    From our Partners

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    2012 Election May 24, 2012

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • fourlegsgood

    I hope Burris hasn’t made himself TOO comfortable in Washington.

  • http://www.hulagate.org hulagate

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E4E781&show_article=1

    … … …

    With a RACIST running the DOJ, why should Burris even worry?

    Oh, right.

    Rahm.

  • http://www.politicususa.com/en/White-House-Roland-Burris The White House Turns Up the Heat on Roland Burris | Politicususa

    [...] to Swampland, Gibbs was asked about Obama’s reaction to Burris’s ever changing story, I have to say I have [...]

  • sneezeguard

    It’s not all that shocking that a prominent illinois politician would have dealings with the illinois governor. However, from day one of the Burris appointment I’ve been saying he should have declined it. He clearly cares more about his personal ambitions than his constituents, and accepting the Blago nomination was a dead end, he was never going to win re-election off of it. What he should have done, was reject the nomination, makes a bunch of speeches blasting Blago, say that there was nothing innapropriate but he wouldn’t want to tarnish his reputation by associating himself at all with the man, and then maybe he’d have had a chance in a special election or in a few years for an honest election. But by even loosely tieing himself to Blago by accepting the nomination, he doomed his entire political career. This is just the icing on the cake. Whether or not he’s booted out of office (I don’t care either way, I’ll wait to see how the investigations fall), he’s not going to be in that seat for long.

  • http://discovertexarkana.com/2009/02/white-house-illinois-deserves-truth-about-burris/ White House: Illinois Deserves Truth About Burris | Discover Texarkana

    [...] if (daym=12) dn=”PM” if (hours>12){ hours=hours-12 } if (hours==0) hours=12 if (minutes Gibbs says the Illinois Senator should clarify any contact he has had with Blago or his associates while speaking to reporters [...]

  • oncealwaysamarine

    Executive power is vested in the President by Congress with the advice and consent of the Senate so that he may preserve protect and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

    The principal responsibility of the President is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” By using these words, the Constitution does not require the President to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the President may perform such duties.

    The Constitution, empowers the President to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the President.

    The President’s responsibility is to execute whatever instructions he is given by the Congress.

    Not the other way around.

    Whatever the White House or Barack Hussein Obama feels about who serves in Congress and what that test should require, is none of his business.

    Burris, and the rest of us, should rebuke his intrusion into Congressional matters, and respectfully ask him to butt out.

    He’s got enough problems keeping up with the crooks he chose to serve in his Cabinet.

blog comments powered by Disqus