1. Former Federal LEO, I am assuming from your description that you have WildBlue? WildBlue is a great service for people that need it. Nevertheless it is satellite internet, and satellite internet has some setbacks at least here in the US. It is much better in other countries, like Japan. At any rate, hang in there. I know WildBlue is expected to update their network mid 2011 that will allow for much higher bandwidth speeds. If you want to check out the specifics, I actually have an entire article about it on my blog at mybluedish.com.

  2. Addendum to my last post: clearly the best way to handle the $100,000 is proof that the judge couldn’t be swayed by his friends; don’t know why that wasn’t glaringly obvious to me at the time I posted.

  3. Former Federal LEO :

    “Immunity Granted for Lawyers to Testify Against Impeached Judge”

    I caught that when Creely was brought up to be questioned,and even my being a layman,understood that.WOW!!

  4. A 17-year-old in England has been banned from ever entering the United States because of an e-mail he sent to the White House which criticizes President Obama in curse-laden rant.


    Obama is fast becoming as bad as Bush could’ve been if he’d had a brain. At least Bush was always able to plead ignorance. This president has no excuse for his sorry term.

    Civil rights, who cares, said the civil rights attorney in chief.

    I’ve always found Obama to be an even bigger prick than Bush, just because he hid his agenda more.

  5. James M,

    What I thought was so effective with Mole, understanding that I’m not a lawyer, was reducing him to just another player with questionable ethics by clearly showing, through his own words, his willingness to give Gardner an extra $100,000 if he could get rid of the judge. I suspect we will hear more about that from Gardner.

    I also wonder why the contract to hire Gardner was first sent to the man who recommended him … the same man who allegedly got a 33% kickback from Gardner’s first $100,000. I don’t know about anybody else but it must be nice to get a $100,000 for just coming into a courtroom to stare at the judge.

    I have no idea how the Senators will react to all this since I believe their political agenda is highly questionable but hopefully Mole has become just another gamer in their eyes. Well, in the eyes of the Senators who bothered to show up.

  6. I’m not sure the cross of Mr. Mole was as effective as Blouise and lottakatz seemed to think. Spending so much time on Mr. Mole’s ethical problems could come across as finger pointing to try to distract the Senators, while actually reinforcing in them the idea that the judge could be bought. I thought the lines of questioning about Gardner saying he couldn’t influence the judge and the fact that he was socializing with the judge just as much (or more than?) Amato, were more profitable. I’d try to paint Gardner coming into the case as the stupid client panicking and thinking judges could be bought (with testimony that such a belief is common, regardless of the judge), and Gardner taking a cushy job, despite knowing he couldn’t do anything to influence the outcome.

    The $100,000 buy-out is then Mole’s way of making sure Gardner went away as soon as the client would allow it (if the judge recused himself), rather than trying to point out the ethical problems with it.

    In any event, hopefully we’ll see Gardner himself later.

  7. Blouise

    lotta,Too many threads on the same subject … I answered you on another thread … I’m getting a headache

    LOL, I know what you mean, I replied to you on the other thread also. It is all sliding together into one large (interesting)thread in my mind anyway so I good with it. A mind, I have heard, is a terrible thing to lose.

  8. Buddha,

    Somebody has to do a novel with characters based on Amato and Creely … solving New Orleans murders and getting guys acquitted …

    Met a few polls who didn’t know when to leave … my cheeks get sore from an evening of forced smiling …

  9. FFLEO,

    We’ll keep you up here … maybe you’ll be able to pick and choose video times to watch as I’m pretty sure c-span will repeat the coverage at night.

    At least you have peace and quiet … and lizards

  10. Blouise,

    The video streaming went well, although just part of today’s viewing used up 10% of my complete 30-day rolling allowance! That means I will unlikely be able to watch the complete process over all the days because I will be penalized severely if I max-out my bandwidth allotment for that 30-day block. What would happen then is my speed would be cut down to just above dial-up speed and on satellite the video would start/stop/pause incessantly while buffering—that just never works well enough to view video.

    You folks that have real high-speed Internet service are very lucky. I pay $80.00 / mo. for my Internet and I can never view more than 1/2 of the news videos I would like to access. I do not complain because, until a few years ago, satellite Internet was not available in my remote area.

  11. Blouise,

    “Orrin Hatch … does that man have any idea how he comes across!? … the second time he took the floor and repeated almost word for word exactly the same thing he had said minutes earlier … I can’t imagine what he’s like to sit next to at a dinner party …”

    Unfortunately, I can.

    Look for the new breakout horror novel by Buddha Is Laughing, “The Thing That Wouldn’t Leave”! Coming soon in paperback! Available on the Nook and the Kindle!


    I’ll agree this isn’t an easy case. As to performance versus outcome, I’ll withhold comment until further along. The Prof laid some interesting foundation today. I want to hear what Gardner has to say. Unfortunately I have a full day tomorrow and may have to play catch up on the testimony, but I thought the Prof did an excellent job today.

  12. I know this is going to sound very disrespectful but, in all honesty, several times during the proceedings the duo of Schiff and Creely reminded me of Burns and Allen skits ….

    And Orrin Hatch … does that man have any idea how he comes across!? … the second time he took the floor and repeated almost word for word exactly the same thing he had said minutes earlier … I can’t imagine what he’s like to sit next to at a dinner party …

  13. What a joy and privilege to watch a talented, well prepared bright trial lawyer. Jonathan has a difficult case to defend in front of this group! His questions were sharp and crisp and to the point as he set up the witness. A very gifted trial lawyer! Calm deliberate approach that was very effective. All the best,Frank

  14. lotta,

    Too many threads on the same subject … I answered you on another thread … I’m getting a headache

  15. The testimony by Mole was the only part of the trial I got to see almost all of and I thought he was a witness I wouldn’t have touched with a 10′ pole, unless of course I wanted a completely disreputable, obviously corrupt party to an attempt to set up a cause for appeal or the actual corruption of a judges verdict to make my client look like a victim. He was downright ‘snippy’ a couple of times it seemed to me about the time the Professor was questioning him about the $100,000. bonus money. LOL. Maybe lying about the intent of his actions gave him gas 🙂

  16. I went in with a heavy bias supposing that Porteous was a guilty as hell, corrupt good ol boy southern judge on the take and Turley’s opening smashed that cartoon premise right out my mind. Man, is he good.

  17. I am going to make a prediction early on based on what I have seen/heard thus far, my experience as an LEO/government employee, the background documents I have read about this case, and that I think Judge Porteous crossed the line too many times while breaching his Oath of Office and committing other severe ethical violations. I realize there is much more evidence to hear and new material could change my prediction, although I doubt that will occur.

    I think Judge Porteous will be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors when judged by the full Senate *even if* the pre-federal employment violations are mostly excluded. He is certainly *not* a judge I would want associated with any case in which I was directly involved—neither as a plaintiff nor defendant.

    Notwithstanding my admiration for Professor Turley and his excellence as a legal scholar, he and his ‘star’ legal team have an uphill battle. If I am right, there is nothing any legal expert could have done to help Porteus; however, if I am wrong, then kudos to the legal brilliance of Professor Turley and his colleagues. I completely understand why they took this challenge.

  18. Elaine,

    In all fairness, I didn’t get to catch all of Amato’s testimony so I won’t comment on the bits I did get to see. Context and all that.


    In light of the previous statement to Elaine, I’ll agree that although he had hinky body language that I too thought Mole came across better than Creely in general. Nervous always plays better than pissed off. What is clear is that everyone was stressed on the stand.

Comments are closed.