The Senate trial for United States District Court Judge Thomas Porteous begins today at 8 a.m. Today we will hear opening statements and the testimony of Robert Creely, Jake Amato, Joe Mole, and others.

Much of this testimony will center on Article I of the impeachment. I have attached our motions to dismiss Article One and our general summary if you are following the case.

Motion to Dismiss Article I

Porteous Pre-Trial Statement
Porteous Pre-Trial Statement – Exhibits


  1. Hi Lottakatz,

    I understand your comments and position.

    I am in a position where I would emphatically like to see an exceptionally decent man/constitutional law scholar/fine trial attorney and his colleagues ‘win this case’, but I do not want to see the indecent and unethical man he is representing ‘get away’ with his malfeasance in high office. Perhaps a result might be a compromise that can satisfy most of us citizens, although I do not know what that would be.

  2. Blouise, I’m seeing plots and hidden agendas everywhere. I think the country is undergoing a transformation of the power structure and nature of power in (what was?) a democracy and it’s been going on for some time. There’s always a curtain and someone behind it. It just seems to me that this would be a good opportunity for the Judiciary to be sent a signal by the Legislative branch.

  3. FFLEO,

    I guess I was lucky to miss much of the actual trial because I missed most of the repetition. The repetition would not have surprised me though. I have seen that done ad nauseum and, in training courses, been told to keep eliciting favorable testimony already covered using different questions if possible or to keep making the same favorable points in opening and closing and whenever an opportunity to address the deciding official comes up. It may just be the opportunity to ‘program’ the decision making officials through repetition.

    I missed 80% of the hearing. If the repetition you describe was about procedural matters on not regarding facts and testimony that favors their client, then I missed the best parts to miss.

    OTOH, Some of the Senate Commerce Committee members that deal with net neutrality seemingly (from the reporting on their committee witness questioning I have read and vids posted online that I’ve seen) have no idea how the interwebs work. Maybe both parties in this trial were not willing to assume a level of knowledge in the ‘jury’ that might not be present. That observation though is more about my attitude regarding the Senate than based on fact since you observed much more of the trial than I did. I hope to be able to watch more of the trial tomorrow.

  4. Elaine M., Well of course you’re correct, absolutely; though I’m just a fool for a man that can articulate in public it was the Professors skill in the questioning that dazzled me 🙂

  5. I must again go against the grain here. Initially, Professor Turley looked *very* tired and he made several obvious mistakes in his presentation. However, he found extra energy and improved immensely.

    As I mentioned earlier, all along both teams were excessively repetitious and I thought—please move on, the witness have answered those questions over-and-over-and-over to the point of their obvious frustration.

    There is an abundance of fact in the statement that Frank M. III stated above

    “…and get a little rest.”

  6. lotta,

    I don’t know what to think yet. The judge has a certain “good ol’ boy” smell to him but I’m not certain his indiscretions come anywhere near the mark of treason or high crimes. I think the Prof took the case because of the threat to the Constitution and the judiciary that this political action has created.

    I’m going to have to wait and see what other witnesses have to say but for now I think your sense of it all is pretty close to the mark.

  7. lottakatz,

    Methinks the professor looks spiffy to you because of his intellect and ethics and ability to articulate in a public forum–not just because of his natty apparel!


  8. Jonathan, you had a good day #1! Your opening was effective and crosses were excellent. With only 7(?)/12 Senators present, the chair showed her lack of patience and classic trial judge needs to move the case along. Your presence and clarity was wonderful to watch on C-span. As we have discussed in the past, if you just hold even on day #1 of the government’s best case, you had a good day. Uncles Jake and Bob helped you and you ate Mole’s lunch and stole his lunch money. Stay focused grasshopper, and get a little rest. Frank

  9. The Professor sure does look spiffy arguing the case … ummmm, yea, I noticed that too 🙂

  10. This case seems to me to have little to do with justice and a lot to do with politics.

    After having read the Professors opening and the links and catching bits and pieces of it on C-Span I can only conclude that this is a political hit job on the judge motivated in part (and originally initiated) by powerful commercial interests involved in the ownership end of the medical industry. That it’s made it to the level of government that it has is so odd to me that it is suspect (to me) on its face.

    Lawyers do what they do and it doesn’t matter at which table they sit, their job is to prevail for the good of their client. If a neutral grey can be legally shaded or pushed to look more black or white for the good of the case then that’s part of the job. But to present as grounds for impeachment actions that are prohibited as dispositive, as has happened with the pre-Federal career of the judge, is just corrupt.

    If the Professors There opening statement regarding the standards of impeachment are entirely factual (I trust that it is) then at least two Articles (of four) for this trial should not even be considered. Fully half, and the damning half (Articles I and II), should not even be matters at issue in this trial. This reeks of a hidden agenda.

    The Professors concern that this case could remove the job protections that allows Federal judges the security to render decisions without having to fear political retribution or coercion (my paraphrase based on the implications of the Professors argument) are spot on. It seems to me that doing just that may be the driving force in this matter.

    We have seen the Justice Department perverted and used successfully as a political tool to punish politicians (Minor, Siegalman, etc.) and the political success of that power grab is such that reducing Federal judges to at-will employees is a logical next step. That it occurs in a different branch of government is of no matter. The dismantling of the justice system is an ongoing effort by many factions in our society. The fact the this judge cold be successfully impeached on such a weak case that the House encouraged the Senate to use a lesser standard than historically required (a routine employment decision) speaks eloquently to the political motives at work here IMO.

    The potential effect of this case resulting in an impeachment is scary.

  11. I think that the public would have been better served had the House avoided some of the less serious allegations, and remembered that this process will ultimately be judged by its fairness to Judge Porteous. Using his immunized testimony — particularly when he wasn’t represented by counsel when he gave it — bothers me. And from what I can tell, the immunized testimony isn’t crucial to the case against the Judge.

    The one thing that bothers me is the apparent kickback of the curatorship fees, although of course that predates the Judge’s appointment to the federal bench. . . it’s just very nasty-sounding. Everything else — well, I recognize that this may not be the popular opinion right now, but I believe what Jake Amato said: he went before Porteous and lost, and he’s confident that the Judge was fair. Indeed, if the Judge had sold his rulings, he should have been charged criminally.

    It’s also very disturbing that not only does Judge Porteous not have the right to have his entire trial before the full Senate, but even the members of this committee aren’t required to attend all of the evidentiary sessions.

    I don’t know Judge Porteous personally, but from what I’ve heard he did not do anything that warrants this treatment. I’m not prepared to assume that he treated opposing parties unfairly because of his friendship with these lawyers. Obviously he had money troubles, gambling troubles, maybe drinking troubles — but he was a fair guy and I bet he can look in the mirror with an appropriately clear conscience. I’d much rather they let him retire.

  12. Blouise,

    I haven’t read Rakove’s work, so my advice would be limited to “don’t fold over pages” and “never lay a book down open and face down unless you want to break the spine”.

  13. “A Senator must have an appropriate grasp of what their job is as defined by the Constitution to realize they are being mocked.”(Buddha)

    Which means fewer of them will be there after lunch.


    Buddha, I am really enjoying watching the Prof at work, so to speak. And you’re right … the color scheme is a nice part of the overall package. He’s using a “sophisticated folksy” style … one may not care for his client but one can’t help but like his client’s lawyer.


    By the way, I just started Rakove’s “Original Meanings” … any words of advice before I get too far into it?

  14. As evidence that they are, I submit that Congress has done nothing to legislate away the deleterious and manifestly corrupting effects of the Citizens United ruling.

  15. “I wonder if more of them show up when they realize they’re being mocked ”


    A Senator must have an appropriate grasp of what their job is as defined by the Constitution to realize they are being mocked. Our Senate is a huge part of the culture of corruption that hobbles Washington and prevents government for functioning for We the People instead of We the Corporate Campaign Contributors.

  16. FFLEO,

    Hey those Senators are very important people and have really important stuff to do … and didn’t the Senate decide a while ago to do it in committee because doing it in front of the Senate with only a few Senators in the chamber would make them look bad. Idiots still look bad. I wonder if more of them show up when they realize they’re being mocked ….

  17. Were there only 6 Senator’s present? If so, that is quite pathetic considering the importance of this hearing when 7 are required to be present to reach any “judgment”

  18. I certainly hope no lawyers or law makers are taking each other out … separate checks guys and dolls …

Comments are closed.