Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Politics

PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL — DAY FOUR

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

111 thoughts on “PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL — DAY FOUR”

  3. I really enjoyed Attorney Gardner as well. I think he gave us a real flavor of the practice of law in this area of Louisiana at the time (1980s-2000s). I think he is a real no-nonsense lawyer, loyal to his friends, but, it is possible that his assertive “Bull-dog” manner didn’t sit very well with the silk-stocking lawyers on the committee “jury”.

    I enjoyed his answers and resistance to having words put in his mouth or taken out of context. This guy is my kinda man.

    But we must always remember that these senators/”jurors”, I submit, have been treated to lunch, taken paid for vacations to seminars, sought and received tens of thousands [or hundreds of thousands] of dollars for campaigns, accepted gifts, cakes, cookies, hams, turkeys, etc., (and in the old days cases of whiskey). I would guess they have no real problem with accepting the fruits of their office, but, will and have seriously frowned upon these exact facts at the hands of Judge Porteous.

    I’m concerned that elected politicians who are embraced because of the power they have, will view these acts as to them as ok, but not ok when they sit in judgment of Judge Porteous.

    America, I love this country.

  4. Buddha,

    Yes, he showed deference to the impeachment panel. I wouldn’t say he was terribly deferential to Schiff. Gardner didn’t yield to Schiff’s opinion/judgment on a number of points and got “feisty” in responding to his questions…and there were a few times when Gardner raised his voice and claimed that Schiff was taking his words out of context. I think that’s why–in my opinion–Gardner really seemed to get under Schiff’s skin.

  6. Elaine,

    I think there’s a difference between deference and not letting a prosecutor put words in your mouth. He was very deferential in apologizing for leaving and when told to let the prosecution to finish their question (which is actually fair although I can understand Gardner’s frustration with someone trying to mischaracterization his past statements). But he certainly isn’t letting them bulldog him, that’s for sure.

  7. Frank,

    Having spent a large part of my youth in rural Louisiana, I know exactly where you are coming from and concur! I’d be willing to bet Schiff doesn’t have a true friend in the world – only acquaintances with parasitic motives much as I suspect are his own.

  8. Buddha,

    And Gardner isn’t showing due deference to the prosecution. After watching him testify, I think we don’t have to guess why the prosecution sent him packing the other day.

  10. Buddha Is Laughing
    1, September 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    I also wonder if Schiff ever worked in an orchard.

    Because he sure can cherry pick.

    That and he’s wormy.

    Which of course explains why he’s a professional politician
    —————————————————————–

    Based on his smart-ass manner that I’ve seen on CSPAN 3, if I was against him in court, I would rudely, but directly, speak to him and ask him if he would like to step outside, take off his shirt and shoes (as we use to say in rural Mississippi where I grew up on a farm)and see if we could straighten out any misunderstanding we had. But hey, that’s just me. I’m upset 100’s of miles away watching this young mean-spirited power drunk “lawyer”!

    This adventure is going to force me to donate lawful campaign money to every political opponent that Schiff has in the future and those running against this blogs favorite, McCaskill.

  12. It’s almost 4:30. I think Mr. Gardner is getting to Adam Schiff. Schiff looks as if his bug-eyes are beginning to spin in their sockets.

  13. The part I wish to focus on are the attorneys who got involved in the corruptions. According to news reports many notable Louisiana lawyers are lined up to take the fall with the Judge for bribery, and corruption. Robert Creely and Jacob Amato, two of Judge Porteous attorney pals told a Congressional panel that hey had been making cash payments to the Judge in exchange for assignments from the bench for over a decade. Disciplinary charges are pending against them. Three other attorneys: Don Gardner, Leonard Levenson and Warren “Chip” Forestall are also known to have provided Judge Porteous with gifts and cash. The anecdote that is most disturbing to me concerns the Judge’s May 1999 trip to Vegas for his son’s bachelor’s party, Attorney Creely helped pay for the trip, Attorney Gardner was in the midst of litigation in Porteous’s court and Creely’s partner, Jacob Amato represented one of the other parties. It’s confusing, but if you’re at all interested in the ideal of impartial justice–the convoluted tale of corruption should hit you right in the pit of the stomach.

    http://badlawyernyc.blogspot.com/2009/12/corrupt-judges-and-lawyers-we-love-you.html

  14. I also wonder if Schiff ever worked in an orchard.

    Because he sure can cherry pick.

    That and he’s wormy.

    Which of course explains why he’s a professional politician.

  15. mickey
    1, September 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Many of you are discussing the bias of the Senators, the legitimacy of the impeachment, etc. But, as a layman, I have to ask a much simpler question. That is, “Why are we here in the first place?” Had Judge Porteous not taken part in activities that fell into the “gray”, there would be no argument for the prosecution to make.
    —————————————————————–

    I’m not sure why this is really taking place. I’m going to take a wild guess that since Judge Porteous was not criminally charged, the government was embarrassed he didn’t resign when all this came out in the press in New Orleans, LA.

    The Department of Justice is a powerful group! So I assume DOJ referred it to the House for impeachment. When he was suspended in September 2008 for 2 years as a federal judge, I’ll guess he was approached to settle this impeachment matter and he refused. He still had his job, his title and life time appointment and I think he is suspended with pay. He still has his federal judge pension unless convicted by the full senate.

    According to press reports and I think Jon, he has announced his retirement from the federal bench in 2011 whether he is convicted by the senate or not.

    There is a real political motivation that has NOT be shared with the public as to why the senate is really conducting this impeachment “trial”.

  16. Frank,

    Now “judge” McCaskill is showing her true colors challenging Pardo as well, not as a “judge”, but as a true challenger of the witness’s testimony. WOW! The prosecutor really isn’t needed in this process, is it?

    **********

    I noticed a self-satisfied semi-smirk (sorry…I like alliteration) on McCaskill’s face after her questioning of Professor Pardo. I read it to mean that she seemed quite pleased with her challenge to his “expert” testimony. Wasn’t she the panel member who described his testimony as being “technical?”

  17. After seeing Gardner to this point, I’d like to know if the Mole is being looked at by the state bar.

    If not, he should be.

Comments are closed.