Since Thompson was loaned, not given, his return to Reid's office is not a surprise, and not necessarily an omen. I have to wonder, what's driving this campaign against Burris? Having tacky taste in a mausoleum is not an impeachable offense. If the worst to be said is that he answered "yes" when asked if he spoke to people about wanting the Senate seat, but didn't immediately provide a complete list of everyone he spoke to, that sounds like awfully thin gruel to drive someone out of office. If Illinois Dems think they have a better chance to hold the seat with Giannoulias or someone else, they should campaign for that person, and make sure they are nominated and elected in 2010. It's not necessary to harass and destroy Burris in the meantime.

I semewhat agreewith the above commentor - I don't see whereby he is forced out.

Sure - the whole thing, of how he got the seat, and both his and Blago's actions, have been unpleasant, to say the least.

But not illegal. Legally, you can't force him out, just as you couldn't force out Jefferson, just as the Repubs couldn't force out Larry Craig.

Burris did not break the law, plain and simple. The giddy mob of democrats ready to throw him over is more a matter of political preening than principle.

The democrats are eager to engage in selective purity to try and outflank the republicans.

From the beginning they have been after Burris and looking to seize on anything they can. This reeks of politics.

Are you people kidding? Or are you Dems from IL? Burris in Congress serves to promote the interests of..Burris in Congress. Even Bobby Rush is cooling his ardor for Burris. Lying under oath is a fair indicator of poor moral character, the LAST thing any Chicago politician needs. I'm from NYC, I know a tainted pol when I smell one, and Burris reeks.

Jingo:

I have no personal use for Burris. But many commenters - your post included - shoot a bit too wildly from the hip for my taste. Proving that Burris knowingly misled the IL legislature is quite a tough sell. Perjury seems incredibly far fetched in this instance in particular, and is generally tough to prove.

To wit, the Bobby Rush nonsense illustrates precisely my point. You are making a judgment based on politics rather than the legal merits. Of course Rush is going to sour on Burris - a politician's first order of business is self preservation, not loyalty.

In short, people are letting their opinions of Burris and his personal ethics make the case for perjury - which is not strong.

I'm not sure if you guys upthread are aware of this, but Roland Burris is a politician, not a criminal defendant (yet). The question of his continued service in the United States Senate is primarily a political one.

It shouldn't be the case that you only resign after you're convicted of a crime. You should resign when you can no longer effectively do the job, and given that no one will work in Roland Burris' office or take his calls, it's hard to imagine he's an effective representative of the interests of the people of Illinois.

"Proving that Burris knowingly misled the IL legislature is quite a tough sell."

Actually it's not all that hard. All you have to do is compare what he said he did with what he actually did.

Unfortunately he won't have the opportunity because when someone lies and is appointed by a crook, they don't have much credibility to begin with. His days are numbered. Good riddance.

Slightly edited Leo,

"Proving that [insert "Obama's" name here] knowingly misled the [insert "nation" here] is quite a tough sell."

"Actually it's not all that hard. All you have to do is compare what he said he did with what he actually did.

Unfortunately he won't have the opportunity because...His days are numbered. Good riddance." - leo

Jeepers Leo, you gonna stick it to Obama like that. As somebody said above this is pure backroom politics.

I think we need a new term, how about:

"Goo Goo Goons"