The fourth day of the Senate trial for United States District Court Judge Thomas Porteous starts today. Yesterday, we called Timmy Porteous, son of Judge Porteous and one of the judges who pleaded guilty in the Wrinkled Robe investigation. The latter was a House witness who was dropped at the end of their case in chief.
Some this testimony will center on Article IV of the impeachment. I have attached our motions to dismiss Article Fourth and our general summary if you are following the case.
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.’sMotion to Dismiss Article IV
Porteous Pre-Trial Statement
Porteous Pre-Trial Statement – Exhibits
Blouise…”The last time I checked this was still America, we still have a Constitution, a citizen still has a right to a fair trial … even in the Senate.”
…when was the last time you spent time with the ‘great unwashed’?
I ask only because I am probably 1 of them and we are fast becoming the ‘great hosed down’
🙁
The attorney representing the Senate attempted to badger the bankruptcy expert in what I thought was a condescending tone with the statement: “Do you understand that this is an impeachment trial?” I can only assume this was code for how dare you answer facts based on the law. Don’t you know your place.
mickey,
Your context is very helpful … the players are not residents of Mayberry … their sophistication in the matters being discussed should be recognized
I like facts … thank you
(Last night I dreamed you were going to write that info … I am now considering running for the Senate for I believe I am developing psychic powers and can hear the Halls of the Capitol echoing my name … I also feel the pull of a $100,000 promise …)
“I know Karzai, and Porteus is no Karzai.
He will get no billions and billions of cash from US.” (gummit warmonger)
Well, well … imagine that … McCaskill actually admitted that she let something slide on the Prosecutor’s side that she should have stopped but hey … better late than never … she made sure to stop the defense … I can’t tell you what an eyeopener this is for me. This McCaskill Committee is presenting the Senate in a whole new light. I am going to have to come to grips with the depth of my naiveté.
I wonder if all those super psychic Senators knew that the Prosecution’s bankruptcy expert had gotten the law wrong yesterday? Of course they did … foolish me … I am, after all, part of the great unwashed … I have to actually hear testimony to find out the facts.
This witness was most impressive.
FFL:
Thanks also for answering my question:
“and they are less concerned about “proving” much at this stage of the very adversarial contest”
Mickey:
I also thank you for the info.
mickey,
Thanks for that geographical tidbit. My impression is that these players were not unsophisticated local yokels from Mayberry RFD but rather lawyers/judges who knew exactly what they were doing and thrived on the power available to them to abuse for their personal gain and ‘prestige’ in the area.
Don’t put too much weight in demographics shown for the “small city” of Gretna or the characterization of Gretna as an isolated, “small city.” Gretna is the parish (county) seat for Jefferson and is located on the Westbank of the river. But for a small meander of the river, Gretna would be located on the Eastbank and simply absorbed into the Eastbank expanse. The Eastbank holds the vast majority of the population (Metairie, Jefferson, Harahan, Kenner, River Ridge). Most, if not all, of the judges, attorneys, legal workers, etc. live on the Eastbank and commute to the Westbank. In fact, there have been many arguments made over the years pointing out the inefficiencies associated with having the seat of parish government situated at a “satellite” location relative to the major population base of the parish. Gretna, itself, may be small geographically, but it is not isolated from any major population nor does it lack the sophistication generally attributed to “small towns.”
Blouise,
I agree with your sentiments.
as lottakatz wrote on first day of trial, September 13, 2010 at 10:15 pm
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.
It is that expression about “a curtain and someone behind it” that stuck with me. No, the “trial” is not fair. But at least there are some people who are fighting for fairness and justice from this side of the “curtain” (if you will).
All I can add is that this Senate gets to make the rules and they can bend them, shape them, anyway they want them…
eniobob, I think–given the loose n’ changin’ rules that each side wants to get what they can entered into the official record for review by the full Senate and they are less concerned about “proving” much at this stage of the very adversarial contest.
A blast from the past:
This “stop& start” is really ridiculos.
Blouise,
This is America 2010. Let’s not complicate things with Constitutional references. The Senator’s good judgment should surely suffice. 😉
Repeal the Patriot Act and restore the Constitution! As long as these Senators and Representatives know they can subvert the Constitution at will, they will feel no need to adhere to it themselves.
The back and forth with the bankruptcy is throwing me a bit in so much as there are guidelines to this process,its already be established that the judge during that period had unreported income,which has been shown.
What are they trying to prove?
Since they already know that this happened.
If a man’s life and retirement weren’t hanging in the balance, I would dismiss this McCaskill Committee as a complete joke.
If I hear her lecture the defense one more time on how the Senators don’t really need to hear testimony because, unlike the great unwashed, they understand exactly why a witness is called and thus have no real need to hear what said witness has to say, I’ll throw up. The last time I checked this was still America, we still have a Constitution, a citizen still has a right to a fair trial … even in the Senate.
If the defense went along with the McCaskill Committee’s dictates they would simply stand up, name their witnesses and then rest. Why call a witness and question him or her when the Senators, arrogant know it alls, already know what will be said? That’s the gist of Claire McCaskill’s lectures.
I suspect a coup d’état has occurred and the Senate has set aside the Constitution … there’s no other explanation for this trashing of our expectations of justice.
I wish the defense team success but in the Banana Republic that used to be the United States Senate they will be lucky to escape with their heads still attached to their necks.
The current witness, Prof Rafael Pardo, is very impressive. I agree with people writing here that there appears to be a real bias with the chair and her rulings.
My disappointment with this fair”trial” continues to mount. The chair/”judge” has been cutting the defense off in making a record for the entire senate, the 12 member committee/”jury” are showing their individual bias by their slanted questions and sui sponte remarks. This is not my idea of a fair acceptance of “evidence” by this body. The chair has so much power in her adverse ruling tailoring them to accept or reject known principles of courtoom law: hearsay, exceptions to the hearsay rules, violations of stipulations, acceptance of “FBI hearsay 302’s”, stopping Jon from making a record, etc. It appears to me that she clearly favors the House managers motions and objections and routinely overrules the defense motions and their lodged objections. I’m not feelin’ any good vibrations. Jon is doing a great job in very adverse conditions: facts, adverse rulings and a baised “judge” and “jury”, with one exception, Sen. Hatch. GO GET EM’ JON AND DEFENSE TEAM!
I going to type some info:
Population:16,282-2006
Families:7,665-2006
Land:3.5sq.miles
Per capita income:$15,735-2000
Median income:$30,500-2005
Home price:$101,500-2005
I was looking up Gretna to see its statistics and its quite a small place,for some reason it won’t paste for me.
I hope Claire’s not in “scolding” mode today.