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


  1. I’m glad others noticed the buffering problem, I was concerned that I missed some fireworks but it’s just the state of he technology. I was more WTF-ing McCaskill’s ruling than the tech.

    How she can make these rulings and keep smiling I just don’t know, I’d be too ashamed. I would give my ‘audience’ credit for knowing what they was seeing and hearing though. I suspect the Senate, individually and collectively have little if any respect for the intelligence of the citizens though. In fact, I don’t either but c’mon, you’re supposed to keep up the pretense if your an elected official aren’t you? 🙂

  2. As you faithful bloggers know, I am new to this medium and have enjoyed the conversations with ya’ll. I’ll stay loyal to this project until it’s over. Thanks for your generous comments. Sometimes I will copy and paste an article I read online if I think it adds something to our discussions.

    Jon and I have known each other for a few years and I hold him in high regard as you can tell. He’ll need a few more heavy stones to sling and hit, to get this vote off 11-1 [ disclosed in violation of the senate “rules” by the “judge”/chair as to Jon’s request for the committee to approve and issue a subpoena for a witness from DOJ (?)as to why Judge Porteous was not indicted(?)].

    I’m looking for some magic dust from Jon during his case in chief, God willin’ and if the creek don’t rise.

  3. Frank Mascagni III

    “This “judge”/chair is really annoying me; ”

    LOL, She’s my Senator, think how I feel all the time 🙂

    I’ve been enjoying your postings BTW.

  4. I believe Rich is the one referring to the Prof as “Turley”. It starts getting very interesting around 1 hour and 10 minutes and then again at 1 hour and 35 minutes to the end.

  5. I wrote ” avalialable” above. I might be afflicted with similar difficulties as Senator Hatch because of our old ages and party affiliations, so please take that in consideration when criticizing the both of us. Be gentle, is was waaay past his and my ‘bedtyme’

    (and I also though that no man spoke slower than I did)

  6. I emailed Jon last night and he replied at about 4:30 a.m. this morning. I know he doesn’t require much sleep, but….

    I am so proud of his efforts and dedication to the defense. His co-counsel are bearing some of the load and doing an excellent job on a tilted playing field!

    This “judge”/chair is really annoying me; and the attitude of some of the senators is offensive since they are supposed to be a netural and unbiased body. Some are so arrogrant they don’t even attempt to disguise their disgust of Judge Porteous or of his lawyers efforts. I find all of this extremely troubling.

    I believe Jon will be better received in front of the entire senate after this committe refers the impeachment to the full senate. I like his odds there [3/4 needed to convict] vs. this committe only needs 7/12 to refer. So far I see only one vote for the defense. I hope I am just an old jaded defense attorney who expects the worst from my observations of this “jury”.

  7. We will have to review the archive video avalialable later tonight on C-Span 3 in a hour or so to see if the full video plays and nothing is missing or cut out (as with the infamous Nixon tapes..)

  8. The Government of the United States of America

    E Pluribus Unum?

    More like

    We are experiencing technical difficulties.

  9. I was buffered as the Chair was trying to explain how the Prof could really ask his witness anything except this … that … and those … it kept rebuffing but I caught the 11-?(1) gloat.

  10. McCaskill isn’t even trying to appear fair … she let it out that the vote not to grant a subpoena that the Prof’s team requested was 11 to ? (1) … her lawyers shut her up but she couldn’t keep herself from gloating to the Prof … in fact, he had to ask for the results of her secret meeting as to whether or not his subpoena had been approved … she didn’t even bother to inform him.

    During questioning one of the Senators referred to the Prof as “Turley” … no Prof., or Mr … just Turley … they are following the lead of their Chair.

    It’s fun to watch the Prof deal with these buffoons.

Comments are closed.