We're just going around in circles here because the title of this Yahoo! article is: "Burris denies any wrongdoing", but there is a mountain of evidence that points to the contrary. We know that this isn't true. Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris in a "pay-to-play" scheme to replace President-elect Barack Obama which makes Blagojevich guilty and Burris guilty by association with Blagojevich because lately, Burris has been openly supporting Blagojevich after intially trying to separate himself from the disgraced governor.

The first 2 sentences of this article sum up the main points of this article: "US Senate appointee Roland Burris testified Thursday that he didn't strike any agreement with Gov. Rod Blagojevich and said he's never been involved in an improper deal in his two decades in government". There are some pretty strong negative words in this sentence: "didn't" and "never". Something else to think about would be: if Burris has "never" been involved in anything improper in over 20 years as a civil servant, why is his Senate appointment drawing so much attention/negative publicity? SOMETHING must be wrong.

The second sentence reads as follows: "His testimony under oath (is Burris telling the "truth, the whole truth" and "nothing but the truth" here?; this is debatable) was one of the key requirements (that) Senate Democrats set out for Burris as a condition to accept his appointment, who initially balked at any appointment by the scandal-plagued Blagojevich". Considering that this appointment was made by the disgraced Blagojevich, who, for some reason, still refuses to resign, after having committed one of the most hideous political crimes in recent memory, why didn't they continue to hold out against Burris? This was originally the seat held by Obama!

Specifically, Burris told an Illinois House Committee who is investigating whether to impeach Blagojevich that "I can, before this committee, state there was nothing...legal, personal or political exchanged for my appointment to this seat". This is a blatant lie. There is overwhelming evidence that Blagojevich appointed Burris in exchange for financial kickbacks. This is why Blaqgojevich has been indicted on CORRUPTION charges. Another important point to note is that Burris made these remarks in front of the committee who will decide whether or not Blagojevich will be impeached. Does this mean then that Blagojevich shouldn't be impeached?

Furthermore, "Burris declined to answer questions about whether he would have gone to federal authorities had he been offered the seat". This strategy is called COVERING UP A SCANDAL BECAUSE BURRIS KNEW THAT SOMETHING FISHY WAS GOING ON, BUT HE DIDN'T TELL AUTHORITIES UNTIL THEY UNCOVERED THIS SCANDAL THEMSELVES.

Further evidence of Burris guilt is as follows. He told some "close friends" that he was interested in the seat recently vacated by Obama and he also spoke with Lon Monk, one of Blagojevich's top aides.

In speaking with Monk, Burris allegedly said, "Lon, I'm interested in the seat and you've got access to the governor, so just let him know (that) I'm interested". The final piece of evidence against Burris is the fact that he claims that he didn't speak to Blagojevich "before the arrest" so could this mean that Burris talked to Blagojevich AFTER the arrest? THIS WOULD BE THE MOST DAMNING/INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE THAT HAS COME TO LIGHT THUS FAR IN THE CASE AGAINST BLAGOJEVICH AND BURRIS.