Uncategorized

PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL — DAY FIVE

The fifth day of the Senate trial for United States District Court Judge Thomas Porteous starts today at 8 a.m.

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

106 thoughts on “PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL — DAY FIVE”

  1. I second Frank’s comments in re separation and insulation of the Federal judiciary from politics.

    As to jr, “this is a crooked judge who would never have been confirmed has a proper background check been done.”

    Too bad the Senate is attempting to cover their failure to do due diligence in the confirmation process by overreaching their Constitutional mandate to actions that happened outside the Federal judiciary. Which would indeed make it political.

  2. this is not politics. this is a crooked judge who would never have been confirmed has a proper background check been done.

  3. “I am not concerned for the future separation of the 3 branches of governemnt becoming blurred.”…

    MY TYPO: should have read:
    I AM NOW CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE SEPARATION OF THE 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT BECOMING BLURRED.

    Sorry, Frank

  4. Here is my personal problem with this impeachment process: For whatever reasons Judge Porteous was not indicted by the federal grand jury and apparently no complaint has been filed, or is pending, with the governing bar association dealing with his professional conduct in his jurisdiction. I just don’t know why these actions were not taken in the past. It appears that the United States Attorneys Office referred this matter to the House for consideration to begin the impeachment process.

    My concern is that federal judges who are confirmed by the Senate and subject to impeachment, but at the discretion of the House to impeach and senate to convict. Federal judges who have lifetime appointments are supposed to be free from politics, and not required to run for election like most state court judges are. I am troubled in this current political climate that now judges who have or will render a decision contrary to the political views of the powers in the House and Senate, are now subject to this imperfect political process. I am not concerned for the future separation of the 3 branches of governemnt becoming blurred. Once again, these are the views of a ole/old criminal defense attorney who discloses he has a bias.

  5. About the only thing you can say about Claire is she’s consistent in her blatant favoritism. Thus proving Emerson’s point that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen . . .”

  7. jr,

    But they chose this route instead … this is a power grab by the Senate and quite frankly, I think Porteous is simply a vehicle and was probably “saved” for this purpose.

  8. “g.t. ortous” is a piece of garbage. impeachment should never have been needed. at minimum ortous should have been disbarred. he should also have been tried and convicted in federal court.

  9. Blouise,

    It is all in the semantics…she is upholding her end of the deal…she is screwing anyone anywhere that disagrees with her outcome…don’t let words of truth, justice interfere with the duties of a prosecutor….

  10. It is not unreasonable to expect the chair/judge, no matter what her predisposition, to rule fairly. She mocks the very system she swore to uphold.

  11. eniobob,

    That was my question as well…..

    Frank,

    Do not forget Claire is a former Prosecutor….She does not care what the defense has to say…..Did a tree fall or what is that noise….the best chance that I had ever come to beating a Prosecutor Literally and Figuratively was when she went off on me while questioning a Witness… her hubby was a narc cop and she was a dope prosecutor…her appointment did not get renewed as a matter of fact she left early…..I was a bastard then and went all the way to the top…Unfortunately….the Judge was a Pro Prosecution … She never found a governmental action she objected to….

  13. Jon doing a good job on direct, polite and straight forward vs. the rude challenging manner of house counsel. What a contrast in styles for young lawyers to observe.

    By the way, in a real trial, a witnesses IS ALWAYS ALLOWED TO FINISH HIS ANSWER, before being talked over with the follow up question. Jon correctly OBJECTED AND THE CHAIR/”JUDGE” overruled Jon’s objection. WOW! 9:41 a.m. EST

  14. eniobob,

    If that is true and I am not saying that its not….Should that not have come out before? I think if the FBI did its job and I am sure did it well…this stuff woulda raised brows then….why is it only after…the others….have been taken down….that they now seek to take there own boy down….something about this just does not seem right….I am not saying he did not do it….but why isn’t the DOJ or State Attorney’s office going after him?

  18. As an Aggie would say…..Gig em….But then again I ain’t no Aggie….So Hook em and Hook em hard….

  20. Best of luck today, Prof.

    You and the rest of the defense team are doing a fantastic job.

    We who are about to blog salute you!

Comments are closed.