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,
McCaskill also keeps repeating to the Prosecution, ” … and your objection is … relevancy?” To which the Prosecutor then always responds, “Yes, Madam Chair … ah … relevancy.” “Sustained” she then responds. I thought the Prosecutor was supposed to make and define the objection, not the “judge” … but I’m not a lawyer.
**********
I may be mistaken–but I think there was one time when Schiff made an objection and McCaskill immediately cried out “sustained” without Schiff having to define his objection.
Then again, I’ve had a persistent headache while watching the proceedings–just ask FF Leo–so I may not be hearing things right.
**********
FF Leo,
Looks like yer back in music mode agin!
…still a member of the ‘soggy hosed’…but getting my eyes opened :[
“This McCaskill Committee is well on its way to being a National embarrassment”
As I said:
“At this point,I get the feeling that the senators are just going through the motions,I sure hope that I am wrong.”
I felt some consideration for disgraced ex-judge Bodenheimer when the Senate panel treated him somewhat like a leper because he is a convicted felon. However, the government’s own star witnesses are convicted felons, as Prof. Turley noted.
Curious to me is that at least one Senate panel member did not know of Bodenheimer’s conviction. Has he been reading the briefs/motions to dismiss/statements presented thus far to the Senate or was he not aware of Bodenheimer’s previous House impeachment testimony?
I will say that I do not think a felon who was removed from public office should be addressed with the title ‘Judge’, under any circumstances—Mr. Bodenheimer is more appropriate.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, September 16, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Blou, ouise,
If those psychic powers are warming up, how about a few winning lottery numbers?
===========================================================
As an aspiring Senator and having had the benefit of watching McCaskill’s Committee dance to FFLEO’s latest “cover” of Bend Me, Shake Me, I am changing the rules of channeling lottery numbers for my supporters … eniobob is going to win because he is going to contribute half of his winnings to my campaign, you, on the other hand, must contribute 3/4 of your winnings in order to win … I make no apologies for I will be part of the “Great Washed” while you will remain a member of the “Great Unwashed” and thus not worthy of my McCaskill-like consideration.
Seriously Buddha … I would strongly suggest that the Senate leaders never assign another chairmanship to McCaskill for I honestly believe that neither she or her staff are up to the task. This McCaskill Committee is well on its way to being a National embarrassment.
“I’m getting a headache.”
Please consult Ms. EM…
Frank Mascagni III,
I found that entire exchange suspicious and now I understand why. I still would like to know what the witness was told and why he refused to tailor his testimony to the Prosecutions demands. I would think the Committee and the Senate would want to know that too.
McCaskill also keeps repeating to the Prosecution, ” … and your objection is … relevancy?” To which the Prosecutor then always responds, “Yes, Madam Chair … ah … relevancy.” “Sustained” she then responds. I thought the Prosecutor was supposed to make and define the objection, not the “judge” … but I’m not a lawyer.
Aren’t we, the people, entitled to transparency for aren’t the Senators doing the people’s business? If the members of the Prosecution are up to no good, aren’t we entitled to know that “our” business is being conducted in an unethical manner?
I’m getting a headache.
BIL:
I already asked.And received her blessing:-).
At this point,I get the feeling that the senators are just going through the motions,I sure hope that I am wrong.
Blouise,
If those psychic powers are warming up, how about a few winning lottery numbers? 😉
The following is intended as satirical humor while acknowledging that I want Porteous’ impeachment by the full Senate; however, I am conflicted because of my profound respect for Prof. Turley.
Although I am not quite as upset with Madam Chair as others here might be, I penned/paraphrased some parodic lyrics to a 60s song. Below is another rendition of the song for those who want to follow the bouncin’ ball in your mind.
‘I’ll Bend Rules, Shape Rules, Anyway I Want Rules’
I makeup all the rules here you must heed
And Turl’ baby you know it
(Know it, Know it, Know it)
I can make counselor a beggar, clown, or legal poet
(Poet, Poet ,Poet)
Legal roadblocks I make are bold
I got you standin’ in line
Outside our dais–in the cold
Best pay me some mind
I’ll bend ‘em, shape em
Anyway I want ‘em
As long as you bow before me
It’s all right
I’ll bend rules, shape rules
Anyway I want rules
I got Senate powers to snuff out legal rights
Ever-body hollars, I’m wrong!
Overruling your motions so badly
(Badly, Badly, Badly)
But there’s an ego force drivin’ me on
While others view me so sadly
(Sadly, Sadly, Sadly)
So Let ‘em laugh—I don’t care
‘Cause I got nothin’ to hide
With Senate cronies sittin’ here by my side
Yeah, I’ll bend rules, shape rules, anyway I want rules…
I second Mr. Mascagni’s last statement in toto.
Blouise :
You got it.:-)
I see Bill Kristol is on.
Referring back to the last few minutes of day #3, I am not sure that Senator Whitehouse really understood that retired Judge Ronnie Bodenheimer was subpoenaed by house counsel. Jonathan attempted to explain that he was released by the government after his debriefing when he wouldn’t dance the dance as requested by the prosecutor. Jonathan attempted to make a good record to advise the senators that he testified at Jonathan’s request after the prosecution dismissed him.
Jonathan was able to get into the record that he was called by the government because the governments star witness, Louis Marcotte, was not credible. This exchange was important because the “chair” denied Jonathan the ability to put into the record what the ex-judge refused to do as requested by the house prosecutor. The “Judge” cut Jonathan off and all of a sudden wanted to rely on the Rules of Evidence relative to relevancy. Under Kentucky KRE 401 Relevant evidence is defined as “…evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” The federal rule is very similar.
This particular ruling was very offensive to me because it went to the very heart of the goverments case acknowledging that their “star witness Louis Marcotte” was not credible and that he needed bolstering with Judge Bodenheimer. More important, the ex-judge refused to testify the way he was requested by house counsel. To add insult to injury, the chair covered for prosecutor Schiff by not allowing Jonathan to put this distasteful action in to the record.
As if this was not bad enough, the house by vote of 11-1 refused to approve a subpoena requested by Jonathan to the Department of Justice attorney who wrote a letter allegedly acknowledging that no crime was committed by Judge Porteous.
I feel Jon’s pain. I have been in front of judges who obstruct the presentation of the defense case all the while smiling and pretending they are being fair to both sides. The chair shows actions similar to lower Court judges who have the need to protect themselves on the record in the event of an appeal of one of their rulings to cover their own buttocks. This is shameful.
Keep up the fight Jonathan and team members because those of us who are watching on CSPAN 3 understand the difficulties you are encountering and I respect your passion, intellect and zeal in representing your client and commanding respect for the constitutional provisions in place which are needed to restrict the power of the legislative branch of government invading the judicial branch of government. If challenges aren’t made like the noble challenge you are making, it appears to me that the senate will have even more power than they already possess and when they take offense at any judicial ruling made contrary to their legislation/political position, simply impeach him/her and remove them from federal office. It’s not that this situation is scary in of itself, it could get a whole lot scarier if the senate is embolden with new powers.
I applaud the strenght and convictions of the defense team.
eniobob
1, September 16, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Blouise :
Will my lottery numbers come out tonight?:-)
=========================================================
Yep, but only if you dedicate half your winnings to my campaign and wait a minute …. hold on … it’s coming through … yes, you will donate! All is well for with eniobob’s winnings I am ready to shake the dust of all you unwashed little people from my boots and move up to sit beside McCaskill where the air is charged with psychic flashes and further campaign contributions in $100,000 increments will magically appear.
I have watched bits of the proceedings between work and home life, but I have to agree with many posters here. McCaskill is being entirely unfair to the defense, in her comments and rulings. She jumped on Jon when he corrected a factual mistatement by the prosecutor, even though she was then forced to admit that she had allowed the prosecutor to make such statements without her interference. It was a disturbing performance by McCaskill. Hats of to Jon and his team.
LOL and spilled my iced tea and had to change clothes which required a shower and am now a very clean member of the great unwashed.
————————
hahahahahaha!!
I ‘m glad I gotcha laughing ….:)
Blouise :
Will my lottery numbers come out tonight?:-)
eniobob,
Gardner was the gentleman being discussed … he’s the guy that took $100,000 to sit in court and stare at his good buddy, the judge and who was also promised an extra $100,000 if he could get the judge off the case ….
That was a most interesting exchange … the Senate sure has a hard time getting anything done and now we see why. Stupidity reigns and rules the Great Washed.
Woosty’s still a Cat
1, September 16, 2010 at 11:16 am
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’
=========================================================
LOL and spilled my iced tea and had to change clothes which required a shower and am now a very clean member of the great unwashed.
I had to run out,And I am now seeing the discussion of the person,whos name I haven,t heard and the mixup of the them being here ,but caught up in a travel situation.
While I was out I was thinking about former governor Edwin Edwards,and what words of wisdom would come out of his mouth on the judges situation and the hearings that we are looking at.
They are now going to break.