Yesterday evening, the Sun-Times published the transcript (PDF) of a wiretapped conversation between Roland Burris and former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother on November 13, 2008 -- nine days after Barack Obama was elected president and effectively vacated his U.S. Senate seat.  The discussion shows Burris expressing interest in the Senate appointment and a desire to raise money for the governor.  He also worries out loud that it might appear that he is trying to buy the Senate seat.  In the end he suggests he will send a personal contribution to Blagojevich by December 15.  The governor, of course, was arrested on December 8.

Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown's response today hits the nail on the head:

[T]he aspect of the wiretapped conversation that most calls into question Burris' ethics is not what he said so much as the fact that he failed to disclose it had taken place during his testimony to the Illinois House committee considering Blagojevich's impeachment. [...]

His omission only confirms what has been evident for some time now: With the crowning achievement of his political career within reach, Burris was willing to do whatever was necessary to reel in the big prize and deal with the consequences later.

Here's Burris response to the omission issue, via Politico (UPDATE: Watch the video here):

Asked Wednesday why he didn’t reveal his Nov. 13 conversation with Robert Blagojevich, Burris said: “Because I was never asked.” [...]

[O]n Wednesday, Burris angrily rejected questions that his account contradicted his sworn affidavit.

“Please check the affidavit,” Burris told a reporter. “That’s all I’m asking you all. Read Affidavit One. Have you read it? Have you read it?”

Yes, we've read it!  Here's what that January 5 affidavit stated:

Prior to the December 26, 2008 telephone call from Mr. [Sam] Adams Jr., there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Gov. Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United States Senate.

The transcript of the November 13 phone call with Rob Blagojevich includes this line from Burris, early on in the conversation: "I'm very much interested in trying to replace Obama."  I think that qualifies as "regarding [his] appointment to the United States Senate."

And as for Burris' claim that he "was never asked," just look at Rep. Jil Tracy's question during the January 8 House impeachment hearing.

But back to Brown's point: If the transcript confirms anyhing, it's that Burris isn't out-to-lunch.  He comes off as well aware of the potential political implications of fundraising for the governor while also pursuing the appointment.  Take this passage, for instance:

BURRIS: I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this [Gov. Blagojevich's fundraising needs] and still be in consideration for the appointment.

ROB BLAGOJEVICH: I hear ya.  No, I hear ya.

BURRIS: And, and if I do that I guarantee you that, that will get out and people said, oh, Burris is doing a fundraiser and then Rod and I both gonna catch hell.

BLAGOJEVICH: Mm hm.

BURRIS: And if I do get appointed that means I bought it.

BLAGOJEVICH: Mmmm.

BURRIS: If I don't get appointed then my people who I'm trying to raise money from are gonna look at me, yeah, what, what's that all about Roland.  I mean, so, Rob, I'm in a, I'm in a, a dilemma right now wanting to help the governor.

The transcript shows that, as of mid-November, Burris had put a considerable amount of thought into the various scenarios surrounding a potential Senate appointment.  Therefore, it's unimaginable that, by the time he appeared before the Illinois House impeachment committee in early January, he had forgotten about this and the two other conversations he had with Rob Blagojevich the previous fall.  At the time, Burris surely knew that the details of these communications would cause both the committee members and the Senate Democratic leaders in D.C. to raise further concerns about the nature of the appointment. (Can you imagine how different that January 8 House impeachment hearing would have been with this transcript on the table?) 

So all this remained under wraps until Burris was sworn-in, at which point he suddenly realized he had to correct the record (while once again leaving out key details).  Will the Senate Ethics Committee take action against him?  Probably not.  But really: how can he plan to run for reelection with this trail of obfuscation hanging over his head?