Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Politics, Society

PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL — DAY THREE

The third day of the Senate trial for United States District Court Judge Thomas Porteous starts today. The witnesses include a former judge and former prosecutor. We are likely to start our case on Wednesday . . .

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

Porteous – Motion to Dismiss Article III

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

109 thoughts on “PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL — DAY THREE”

  1. Frank,

    Thanks for your viewpoint.

    “… she (McCaskill) appears to pick and choose what rules of evidence/procedure she will follow and changes them as she sees fit.”

    I thought the same thing.

  2. ” Very strange recall facility in that man’s head. As a result I would refuse to give much weight to any of his testimony.”
    ____

    Blouise, to whom are you referring?

  3. … the letter from the Justice Dept. that he couldn’t recognize and needed to read but still didn’t know if he had knowledge of until it was pointed out to him that he was cc’d on it would also cause me to give little weight to much of what he said.

  4. I just walked in on the judge suppposedly signed a bankruptcy document,that was really not his name?WOW!!

  5. Having only twice served on a jury in criminal prosecutions and fully recognizing that this Impeachment Trial is very different, during deliberations I would have serious questions to pose to my fellow jurors as to the veracity of this witness simply because he recalled so little about a meeting and then all of a sudden recalled a great deal about what happened in that meeting that caused a lawyer to write a letter to the Justice Department. Very strange recall facility in that man’s head. As a result I would refuse to give much weight to any of his testimony.

  7. Any time you can get the special agent off script, you are making points! This is exactly what a good cross-examiner does and Jon and team are doing a good job. The shame of it is that is is not in front of 12 ordinary citizens, but in front of 7-12 senators who find this testimony offensive and beneath them as elected officials who would nver accept a gift/trip/ “educational paid seminar”/campaign contribution aimed at currying their favor, etc. It’s also interesting that the prosection is filled with their fellow congressmen. But hey, maybe it’s just me.

    HEARING BEGINS AT 2:00 P.M. EDT

  8. No, badtroll. That’s not my position. My position is that the effect sunspots have on climate is irrelevant to the CO2 effect regarding heat retention and global warming. Yours is a distraction argument that does not impact the atmospheric chemistry argument. This is the very last time I’ll address your hijacking nonsense and I did so this time only to clarify your misrepresentation. If you want to rehash this again, move it to another thread, otherwise I’ll set you to /ignore regarding any topic not directly related to the hearings which are the topic of this thread.

  10. I was wondering why the FBI guys seemed so much more at ease with the prosecution than with the defense. With the knowledge that Frank Mascagni III just imparted the fact that the FBI witnesses seem uncomfortable during cross is a compliment to the defense team. Yes?

  12. Hurrah … my confidence is building as much of what I sensed but did not have the legal vocabulary to express was stated most admirably by Frank Mascagni III … my fear of missing the point is somewhat abated.

  13. Jonathan and team are doing a good solid job on cross. You non-legal bloggers may not know, but FBI witnesses are the most trained witnesses in the federal criminal trial process. They are generally more educated and have testified many times in court. Their testimony is reviewed over and over with the prosecutors before they take the stand. Their testimony is designed to look unrehearsed, when in all actuality it is very much rehearsed. Jon and his co-counsel are very much prepared to make effective cross-exams. My sense is that the “jury” of approximately 7 senators, including the chair/”judge” are not predisposed to REALLY listen to the defense. The “judge” clearly shows her bias, in my humble opinion, in rulings favoring the U.S. This is really not uncommon in a federal jury trial of a criminal case. My continued concern is the house “rules” are a “different animinal” (per the chair) and she appears to pick and choose what rules of evidence/procedure she will follow and changes them as she sees fit. I’m an ole/old criminal law defense trial attorney and I admit my bias. The writing is on the wall (to me): this 12 member vote[ of 12 senators, many of whom have not participated] will not be along political lines [6-6], it will be very much slanted by the chair and vice-chair and referred to the full senate to remove Judge Porteous. I am embarrassed watching this proceeding/political trial [ not criminal/not civil] because I have had a gut feeling for the last 3 days, it is not going to be fair to both sides, and my viewing of this confirms my defense attorney trial instincts that it is being presented as a “fair hearing” but with an undisclosed agenda otherwise. The chair has great power in her rulings and I, for one, have not found her equihanded.

    Good luck Jon and team members in this historic fight for your client and for the U.S. Constitution in resticting the power of the senate unless the constitutional standards are met. Frank

  16. Sunspots still have nothing to do with carbon as a ratio of atmospheric gases and that elements innate ability to retain heat, badtrollfrombakersfield. Just when you were acting marginally useful elsewhere too.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    No hijacking! If you want to be a pest, do so on a different thread than the ones related to the hearing. “We now send you back to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.” Your help in this endeavor is appreciated.

  19. If the Chair keeps this up my Senator is going to stop by my house, drop off a fruit basket, and ask me to please stop writing to him.

    He’s a good guy … I’ve been supporting him from his beginning days at the State level.

Comments are closed.