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
“There is now a glitch with the stream and … … … we come back and the witness has been dismissed. Who knows what happened”
lottak,
Thank you for telling us that, because such a buffering is common on satellite and I thought it was just my Internet Service.
If this happened to us all, then it might be viewed as a form of censorship–that is, if anything controversial happens, IT is instructed by the Senate to “jam” the video.
However, it could just be a coincidence.
FF Leo,
It’s not just men who give ME migraines. Consider the following females–to name a few–who induce excruciating pains in my gray matter: Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell.
P.S. I doubt few women would feel the onset of migraine headaches when in the company of George Clooney, Hugh Jackman…!
😉
Only kidding! Actually, I’m partial to men who have great senses of humor, intellect, ethics, and an ability to laugh at themselves. If they can cook, all the better!
Man, I just turned to the hearing to see if anything was going on and apparently the House called then decided not to call a witness, a fellow judge that was caught in the net of the investigation. JT then called him and the house savaged his character. I tuned in as the House Counsel was attempting to elicit as testimony the substance of rumors he had heard. JT objected and was sustained. The House Counsel rested.
JT then attempted to elicit testimony regarding non-privileged discussions regarding who originally called him and what he was told was the purpose of his testimony. His answer would impeach the testimony of a prior House witness. The House objected and McCaskill told JT to move on. JT argued that the house opened the door and he was following up and McCaskill would have none of it saying motives (either counsel) were not material. There is now a glitch with the stream and … … … we come back and the witness has been dismissed. Who knows what happened.
WTF? Srsly.
The fix is in. I am appalled by this.
McCaskill shouting down the Prof … incredible … if the Senate actually votes on anything this committee puts forward, then the entire … oh well … those $100,000 checks …
“Claire McCaskill is giving me a migraine headache!”
And here all these many years I thought that women only used the malady of a headache as causation when men were involved…
Claire McCaskill is giving me a migraine headache!
I watched almost all of yesterdays testimony after it was posted in the “Most Recent” tab but I’ve only gotten to see abut 10 minutes of today. i noticed yesterday that Senator McCaskill seemed to play kind of loose with the rules (and that her actions favored the House) but I assumed the Senate rules would not follow the strict and formal format of an actual trial. It sucks and apparently has become more obvious procedurally and regarding possible bias, today.
I am pleased to note that Professor Turley looks rested–he must have forced himself to sleep 1.25 hours v. 1 hr. each night.
That is seconded sir….
Frank Mascagni III,
I sure hope you decide to hang around posting after the hearings are completed.
You, sir, are a value-add for certain.
Site: http://www.sitc.senate.gov/
Sir,
Please see the following site. Sir, since it is from the US Senate they might either be misinformed or they are intentionally misleading the public, which I think has been the case for years…..but just sayin’……
Sir, I am indeed grateful for the information about Mr. Chase: In 1803, Chase became the only Justice of the Supreme Court in history to be impeached, but the Senate refused to convict him and the bill of impeachment was dismissed.
I suppose he is one of the reasons that the Sct was not called in for several years….Marbury v Madison….I wonder if politics played a role in that one……
I don’t suppose he is the same Chase on the $10,000 bill? Sir, because the Chase Note is not legal tender in the US anymore I will give you 10 cents on the dollar for each valid one I am presented with…….
To Convict or Not to Convict? It’s Up to the Senate
Posted September 10th, 2010 at 12:30pm in Rule of Law
When the U.S. Senate reconvenes on Sept. 13, a very rare event will begin in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building: an impeachment trial.
A specially-formed committee chaired by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and vice-chaired by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will hear testimony and receive evidence in the impeachment trial of Louisiana Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. According to the Committee, such a proceeding has occurred only 15 times in our history, while three other impeachments terminated due to the resignation of the judges in question. In fact, the last impeachment trial held in the Senate was in 1999 for someone a little more famous – Bill Clinton.
Porteous is a Clinton appointee to the Eastern District of Louisiana who is accused of engaging in the type of corruption for which Louisiana is infamous. The House approved four articles of impeachment (H.Res. 1031) against Judge Porteous on March 11, 2010, in what was probably one of the few completely bipartisan votes of this Congress – there was not a single dissenting vote.
Before his appointment, Porteous was a state court judge in Jefferson Parish. Porteous had a relationship with a local law firm and a bail-bond company. He is accused of taking free meals, gifts and cash payments from a law firm and a bail-bond company when he was a state court judge, as well as improperly setting aside and expunging felony convictions for two employees of the bonding company. Porteous reportedly admitted to the Fifth Circuit in a judicial disciplinary proceeding that he continued to receive payments from the law firm even after he became a federal judge.
This matter came to a head when Porteous refused to recuse himself from a federal lawsuit in which one of the parties was represented by the lawyers who allegedly had been paying Porteous off for years. Porteous wound up ruling in favor of that party after having refused to recuse himself from the case. Porteous was also impeached for making false statements in a personal bankruptcy filing to hide his gambling debts and his identity as the debtor. Finally, the fourth article of impeachment is for lying to the Senate and the FBI during his federal confirmation process by not revealing all of his wrongdoing. Why hasn’t Porteous resigned to avoid being convicted? Perhaps because if he resigns, he won’t be eligible for a federal pension.
Having a committee hold the trial instead of the entire Senate was authorized by a change in Senate rules in 1936, a change upheld by the Supreme Court in 1993 in Nixon v. United States (a case involving former federal Judge Walter Nixon, not President Nixon). Under Rule XI, the 12 members of the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee (six Democrats and six Republicans) will preside over the trial, while House members Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) will act as the prosecutors.
Each side will get 20 hours to make their case under applicable Senate rules, and each witness can be questioned by the committee members after they have been examined and cross-examined by the prosecutors and Porteous’s defense counsel, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. The trial committee will report to the Senate on its findings and it will then take “the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present” in the Senate to convict Porteous and remove him from the federal bench.
Porteous’s defense is based in part on the claim that most of his wrongdoing occurred before he became a federal judge and the decision of the Justice Department not to prosecute him criminally (although Justice said that some of his conduct was barred by the statute of limitations). His legal team filed a flurry of motions with the Senate committee, including one requesting that Congress pay the costs of his defense. The motion was denied. (Porteous must be disappointed that there is no federal public defender program for impeachment proceedings.)
Porteous also moved to exclude from the Senate trial, on Fifth Amendment grounds, his testimony before the Fifth Circuit’s disciplinary committee and the House impeachment hearings. That motion was also denied because the Committee concluded that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies only in criminal cases, and impeachment is a civil proceeding.
There is a lot of talk these days about supposed delays in the confirmation process of judges. But Porteous is a good example of what can happen when the Senate moves too quickly. Porteous was nominated in August 1994, his hearing was held on Oct. 6, and he was confirmed the very next day by the Senate.
People often talk about the Constitution on theoretical terms, but this trial is an opportunity to see one of its most rarely-used provisions in action. It will pit members of Congress acting in a very unusual role as prosecutors against a well-known liberal academic acting as a defense counsel. It is a political spectacle not to be missed if you have the time next week and are in Washington, or you can watch it on the Committee’s website at http://sitc.senate.gov/.
This case is expected to run from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. through Thursday before recessing over the weekend and finishing up on Sept. 21.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES
Has a federal judge ever been impeached?
Yes. The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings against a total of 19 federal judges since the Judicial Branch was established in 1789, including one US Supreme Court justice (Samuel Chase). Seven were ultimately removed from office following conviction in their Senate trial. Eight of the remaining nine were acquitted or resigned office to avoid the consequences of a trial. One judge is currently awaiting trial in the Senate.
19 IMPEACHED….7 REMOVED FROM OFFICE AFTER CONVICTION…8 WERE ACQUITTED OR RESIGNED…1 IN TRIAL
thoughts:
The young woman questioning the last prosecution witness made only one mistake and that was not saying several weeks instead of several days between the filing of the first petition and the amended petition but in responding to the Prof’s abjection with a very visible look of irritation … perhaps taking her lead from the Chair?
The prosecution’s last witness strangely enough made me feel some sympathy for the Judge. It was towards the end when cross revealed that the man technically would find the cashing of a check for groceries as a violation of that particular order.
Might as well have a Fantasy Porteous League….
HERE ARE MY PICKS:
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) — Chairman FOR
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) — Vice Chairman FOR, JUST TO GET IT TO THE FLOOR.
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) FOR
Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) AGAINST
Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) AGAINST
Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) FOR
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)FOR
James E. Risch (R-Idaho) FOR
Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)AGAINST
Tom Udall (D-N.M.)AGAINST
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) FOR
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) UNSURE BUT AGAINST
http://www.sitc.senate.gov. senate site….
Senate panel begins Judge Thomas Porteous trial
*********
Given that Porteous was never charged with a crime and that many of the charges of impropriety involve his work as a state judge, Porteous’ lawyers say the Senate is being asked to remove a judge for acts that “constitute, at most, the appearances of impropriety or minor violations of bankruptcy disclosure rules.”
“The House has pursued impeachment despite the fact that Judge Porteous will retire in a matter of months and has already been severely sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit (mainly a suspension from hearing cases) for the appearance of impropriety created by his actions, ” his lawyers said in their pretrial brief. “If removed on the basis of an appearance of impropriety, the Senate would set a dangerously low and ill-defined standard for future impeachments.”
MY COMMENTS: NO SHIT, THE MOST IF NOT ALL PEOPLE IN OFFICE WOULD BE REMOVED…..
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/09/senate_panel_begins_porteous_t.html
AY:
“….I am trying to figure out why this is really going on?”
You are not alone on that one.
AY,BIL:
If you notice when I first got on the blog,my first comment envolved the the forgery of the signature and that has been itself playing out.
That takes a lot of nerve to do,especially when the man is a judge and knows the law.