corporators or telephone companies picking and choosing amongst the types of content you can receive. if you want to go to facebook, that will cost you more, netflix will cost you more. we're concerned about content-based discrimination, and the tier pricing is not a net neutrality concern, in my opinion. >> host: is it an issue your group is concerned about, however, the metered usage? >> guest: it is, and that speaks more to transparency. if it's based on charges that the customer can understand, if you're paying a market-based amount for the speed you're getting and you're getting the speed you have been promised, then that's fine. we have some concerns about lack of fcc authority to look at those arrangements. not so that they're regulating the internet but so that consumers are aware of what they're buying from isps. >> michael copps had this to say about chairman general cow sky's proposal -- genachowski's proposal. over the next three weeks --

>> host: i think the keyword there is real. >> guest: right. and we would agree. we've heard how smart commissioner mcdowell is and commissioner or copps likewise. we believe as it's been laid out for us it's not quite strong enough yet, again, because of the disparity in the protections between broadband and cable line and wireless. and also because of potential loopholes and definitions in other places that are probably a bit too detailed to get in right now, but we fear too many loopholes, too many exemptions to make this a real protection for the openness that americans deserve online. >> host: matthew wood, what's the difference between the wireless and the wired -- >> guest: right, good question. the wireless protections proposed are not quite as strong as the ones for wire line broadband access. there is no nondiscrimination requirement so that verizon wireless could potentially pick and choose and say, well, we

like bing better than google -- to stick with the examples we were talking about earlier -- we'll make a deal with them to get to it much faster or cheaper even if they go that far. it also prevents them from blocking competitive applications to their own services. so the provisions in the proposed rule would prevent verizon wireless from blocking skype, let's say, but they could block an application for which they do not compete. protecting competition is important, but so is innovation and express that doesn't fit into a neat category. >> host: do you think congress has a role in this? >> guest: certainly. congress can come back in and change the law, they can hold oversight hearings as markham suggested earlier. we would say that rattling the saber and saying the fcc can't do this is not the same thing as coming and changing the law. if congress wants to come back and revise the rules here, that's certainly within their prerogative. we feel the fcc does have a role to play in interpreting the current law, motto regulate the

internet, but to regulate open access and make sure people have open access to the internet. >> host: prior to the december 21st meeting, do you expect changes in the what the chairman has laid down? >> guest: there certainly will be some changes. my organization said we were disappointed by where we were started in some respects, and i guess my concern will be the changes will not be enough to make it as strong as we'd like it to be, but that's left to the commissioners to negotiate. and as you noted, it's not being there all the time, and people will be at the fcc for at least the next couple weeks until the sunshine period kicks in and we can't bother them anymore. >> host: matthew wood is the associate directer of the media access project. thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thanks a lot. >> host: as this issue plays out, "the communicators" will follow it. thanks for joining us. >> ahead on c-span2, remarks by former gop presidential candidate, mike huckabee, at an iowa fundraiser.

[applause] >> now, former arkansas governor and 2008 republican presidential candidate, mike huckabee. he recently spoke at a fundraiser in des moines, iowa. it was hosted by the family leader, a newly-formed organization. this is about 35 minutes. [applause] >> i want to tell you watching that video brought some terrific memories back for me. [laughter] and many of you may remember that i did a book called "do the right thing," and the first chapter of the book was titled, "i love iowa." and it was a very honest testimony of my deep appreciation for the people of this state who, in spite of

overwhelming odds and a seemingly insurmountable mountain of money, were willing to get behind me in the iowa caucuses in be 2008 and change the dynamics of the presidential primary. and it was a great testament to the people of this state who were willing to listen to the message, and i will forever be grateful. and a lot of times people want to read something into every visit i ever make to iowa and assume that there's some ulterior motive going on. and i'm not here to announce any plans or to deny any plans -- [cheers and applause] but i am only here to tell you this, that the one thing i will say with certainty is that i love this state, and i will forever be grateful for the terrific friendships that i have forged here over the course of the past four and five years. i want to commend you for your selection of bob sander platts

to head the family leader. a great friend, a trusted colleague, and obviously a very faithful and forceful leader for the things that matter. and i'm here also today to congratulate the people of iowa for their decision in what was a remarkable election that resonated all across america, and that is the election to say the judicial branch is -- as are all branches of government -- subject to the ultimate bosses in a society like ours, the people who, ultimately, rule. and. [applause] and the people rule not one branch of a government. congratulations and god bless you. [applause] it was a historic election and not just for iowa, but for all of the country. i want to be very candid with you tonight. there was a lot of anxiety that many of us in other parts of the

country had as we watched the goings on here because we knew one of two things would happen. if pundits proved true and there was a strong pushback against the conservatives of the state of iowa and the judges had been retained as sort of a way of saying they can do anything they want and there will never be a penalty for their ignoring the will and the wishes of the people and their elected representatives, if that had happened, it would have been a devastating blow to conservatives and to christians and other people of value conscious in the public square. it would have had disastrous consequences, again, far beyond the borders of iowa. the fact that that election went the other way was so significant and may have been singularly the most important election that happened in america because it set the stage in every other state that those who are

governing will ultimately be accountable to the governed. and that is a message that every american needs to remember and be reminded of, and i'm here to say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation to every pastor who had the guts to stand in his pulpit and take a stand, to every layperson, to every mom, every dad, every person who walked neighborhoods and made phone calls and made it happen. you're to be commended, and you did a great, great work for america. [applause] thank you and god bless you. when i got to iowa today, i was reminded of second timothy, chapter 4, verse 21. i spent so much of two winters here, and that verse, by the way, is where paul writes to timothy and says, if you're going to come, come before

winter. [laughter] and i realize i just barely made it. [laughter] one thing i tell people across the country when they say tell me about what it was like to run in the iowa caucuses, i say, i've never been so o cold in my life. my southern blood never got acclimated. i was many days where i never felt my hands or toes, but the warmth of the people always would make up for it, and for that i am forever grateful. i, i want to say that one of the great visits my wife and i had about a year and a half ago was go to ireland. and she wanted to see some of the old castles. and to me if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. she thinks there's something unique about each one, so we saw a lot more castles than i really intended to see. [laughter] but there was one thing that fascinated me about the castles, and that is that the castles of old were built with a moot

around them -- moat around them and drawbridges that would be extended down so the inhabitants could come in the, but then the drawbridges could be raised over the moat, and those who wished to attack it would be unable to do so because the drawbridges were a form of protection. we have grown up hearing the phrase a man's home is his castle. and we tend to think of that in terms of his domicile, but it actually became much more meaningful to me when i stood there and looked at those castles and realized those castles were not built as a mere symbol of opulence or wealth, but they were built as a symbol of strength and protection. because the castle was more a place of security than it simply was a posture of wealth. and the construction of the castle was very intentional. and that the drawbridges over the moat were designed so that those who were within the walls

of the castle would be protected against those who would seek to invade, to attack and destroy. and i came away from there thinking that what a powerful metaphor for that which we face in our world today. and in a very crisissed culture. there are many who would attack the sang the ity of the home -- sanctity of the home of marriage, of family. and if it were not for the drawbridges of democracy that are lifted, those who are willing to say there are certain places that are sacred and that we will not allow intrusion, if it were not for that, there would be no security, and there would be no place of safety. drawbridges kept out that which was harmful. and no one should ever apologize for the drawbridges.

and one of the great theological moments of moviedom in the movie "the godfather," about the closest to theology add goz in godfather, i'm sure. [laughter] but you may remember the very famous land spoken by michael corely krone when having committed a string of terrible crimes. his response was, he said, it's not personal, it's just business. now, some of you are acting like you don't have any idea what that line is about, like you've never seen the movie, and that's fine. [laughter] but others of you know exactly what i'm talking about. it's not personal, it's just business. i would want to say to those who believe that the election that was held here in iowa about the judges was about rancor and anger. no, it wasn't. it wasn't personal, it was just business. it was the business of protecting marriage and the

family. it was the business of believing that there really is a god to whom we are ultimately responsible and accountable. and that we are not merely answering to political government set up by men, but we ultimately will answer to all things, to a holy god who will ask whether or not we held not to a human standard, but to an eternal standard that supersedes all of the human standards that can be voted in or voted out. [applause] and when we stand by those standards, it is not personal, it's business. but it is the business of protecting our families and protecting our homes, and it is the business of protecting our nation. that we are unapologetically about. faith-based voters are sometimes sneered at, laughed at. i got used to it during the presidential debates. i would go to the debates, and usually some of the candidates would get 16, 18, 20 minutes to talk. i'd get three or four. and when i'd finally get a

question, it would be, oh, let's throw you a religious question. somehow they overlooked the fact that i governed a state longer than anyone standing on the stage for either the democrats or republicans. that was never even mentioned. it was -- you were a pastor. yes. something about which i am not ashamed, nor should i be. because it means that i understood the lives of people at a level that very few people ever running for public office will. and for that i had no reason to apologize. but it was, it was a way of trying to denigrate the idea that somehow people of faith are just a little bit intellectually inferior than those who don't believe anything. well, i for one am tired of having it said of those of us who believe in god that somehow we are shallow, are more superficial, lack the intellectual depth and horsepower and do not have the gravitas that others would have

who live their lives in a completely secular mindset. let it be said that i believe that it takes a great deal more depth to believe that issues are not merely what they appear to be on the surface, but go all the way to the heart, the bone and the soul of every human being. and if anybody wants to debate an issue, i'm much more comfortable debating it from the standpoint of eternal values that cannot be changed than from the standpoint of temporal values that can always be changed, not always for the better. [applause] and i would suggest that we never, ever apologize for approaching life from the standpoint that there is a god, and he has created some rules, and when we play by those rules, we have a better chance of winning the game. when we disregard those rules and we ignore those rules, there is a pretty good indication that

we not only will lose the game, we won't even know what the game is. i believe that it is extraordinarily superficial for people who say that we don't need to be talking about the issues of morality and the issues of life and marriage because the only thing that really matters is the economy. well, to be as straightforward with you as i possibly can be, it is the position of extreme arrogance and the position of extreme soup officialty to think the only thing that matters is tax codes so that a handful of people that we elect will make the decision as to who get to be better off and who gets to be worse off. and if that is the total content of political activity that matters. i would suggest to you that there is a direct correlation between the character of a people, the integrity of its citizens and the economy in which they will function and operate. you may not be aware of this, i'm convinced that a lot of

people who are out there on the left and some people who are so far on the right but don't believe that anybody of the value voters really matter, the faith voters, the people like you who are part of the family leader organization who just say let's not talk about these, quote, social issues because they really don't have any relevance. let me explain why they do. are you aware that if two-thirds of the poor and single moms in this country were actually married to the father of their children, they wouldn't be poor? if we really are serious about dealing with the issue of poverty, and we should be -- poverty is an issue that ought to be a concern of every christian believer -- then the manner in which we go about best dealing with poverty is not by pouring government money in to programs, it's building a strong family that has a mother and a father who raise their own kids with a level of responsibility and build a society from the ground up. [applause]

the dad deficit in america, and i use that term because we're always hearing about deficits and now our government is spinning through it debt which it is, ridiculously so. you know you cannot do it in your households, you cannot do it in your personal business, and yet our government continues to borrow money it cannot afford to ever be able to pay back. you can join congress, and you can go 17 years without paying your taxes. as charlie rangel did. [laughter] and the best that you can really fear is you might have to get up and make a tearful apology for having a misunderstanding. [laughter] relate me ask any of -- let me ask any of you to go 17 years in not paying your taxes and breaking the rules of the irs and to see if you can get by with a box of kleenex before them.

[laughter] and that all that will happen is you just say, i am so sorry, i misunderstood. i just wrote the tax laws, heck, i didn't know how to understand 'em. [laughter] i mean, that's just ridiculous. we're going to know what's in this health care bill after we pass it. [laughter] you know you can't live like that. well, because we are living in a time in which our government is into deficit spending, i'm going to speak a little bit about what i call the dad deficit. because if you want to know how we can save $300 billion a year in america, here's how we would do it. pretty simple. won't be real popular with people who, again, don't want to think that what the family leader is about is important, but here's the reality. $900 billion a year -- $300 billion a year is the dad deficit. that's the amount of money government spends to prop up families whose fathers have abandoned their own kids and have left it to government programs to pay for. if fathers raised their own kids and supported the children that

they boy logically fathered -- biologically fathered, it's a difference of $300 billion a year. that does not even start getting in to the additional costs in this which a child that grows up, a child in poverty in a single home is five times more likely to be in juvenile delinquency and drop out of school and use drugs and and alcohol than a child who grows up in if a family that's stable with both a mother and a father. i'm not here to denigrate people who are working very, very hard as single parents doing the very best they can. i've seen ladies for whom i have the greatest deal of both respect and the utmost of admiration because they will come home late at night having worked two jobs doing the best they can. they've had some guy walk out on them and leaving them with both the responsibility and the entire burden of trying to raise children. and this is in no way a denigration of the extraordinary effort that many people are making as single parents. my point is that unless we

uphold the importance of marriage and the family, i don't care how much we change the tax code and the tax policy, we will never be able to get our economy righted because what has wronged it is not just an economic issue, it is an issue that goes to the very heart of what the family leader and organizations like it are about. and that is that the most basic form of government is not the government that we elect to go to washington or, for that matter, des moines. it is the most fundamental, the most simple form of government is the government that exists right there in the home. it is the single most important unit of government, and it is from that unit of government, the family, from which we learn our basic values and structures. it's where we learn manners. it's where we learn that some things are right and some things are wrong. it's where we learn how to pave. it's where we learn our first lessons of economy, that if we work, we get rewards.

if we are lazy, we get punished. do you get the impression that there are some people who never learned that in the first four years of life and probably never will learn it because government has told them, don't worry, you can recklessly live your life, and we will bail you out whether you're an individual or you're the richest corporation in the country? is there not something morally repugnant with the idea that we're going to tell people it doesn't matter what they do and how irresponsible they are because somebody else will clean up their mess? what happened to the basic idea that most of us learned when we were little kids at mom and dad's knee that told us that we are responsible for cleaning up after ourselves? now, if we don't get that when we're 4, we probably won't get it when we're 40. but we're going to have a nation full of spoiled brats and a nation full of people expecting somebody else to pay for the mistakes they make. by the way, that's where we are today as a nation. so whether you're the biggest

company or whether you're an individual, we've been now conditioned to believe that it is the government's responsibility -- not our own -- to clean up our mess. and to bail us out. and somewhere along the way it's critical that we come back to the simple idea that the drawbridges of democracy start with personal responsibility and the simple notion that the best government is a mother and a father raising children in the context of understanding that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. and when we do the things that are right, we will benefit. and when we do the things which are wrong, we will suffer the consequences of them. [applause] that is important and cannot be forgotten. i've often been channeled at

the -- challenged at the point to say this is a time in our nation's history when the only thing that matters is for us to talk about jobs and the economy. and that we should not talk about controversial and what some would consider extraneous, even unnecessary issues like the sanctity of every human life. i beg to differ. and i do so with great respect for people who say these issues don't matter because i think sometimes they just haven't thought them through. and, again, i'm not saying today that the number one issue that a person in the congress has to face is maybe a pro-life bill. but to say that the issue is not important anymore l i just take strong exception to that because this is not an issue merely about the topic of abortion. it is, basically, an issue of the most fundamental principle of our american form of

government which is this: that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are eni dod by their creator with certain unalienable rights. the heart and the soul of who we are as a people is found in this notion that there is no such thing in this country as a person who is worth more than another person. which, by the way, the congress means that there is no such thing -- the converse means there is no such person who means less. equality does not mean we have the same talents and abilities. some people are smarter when it comes to managing money, some people sing beautiful any, some people -- beautifully, some people don't. how many of you were standing by someone who didn't sing nicely today, okay? [laughter] some guy just raised his hand,

he's standing by his wife. not good. we have different abilities, but our basic intrinsic worth is not made different by what we externally do. it's not made different by our last name, it's no if you come from a wonderful -- not if you come from a wonderful parentage that somehow you're worth more than someone like me whose roots are not so noble. my folks basically were thrown out of debtors' prisons in the england, they were dropped off on the shores of georgia and told, good luck. my father used to say, son, don't look very far up your family tree, there's stuff up there you don't need to see. [laughter] i realized the old man was right. it's a miracle i ever got elected to anything. [laughter] you know what's great about america? i was not held responsible in my life for what my ancestors did. thank god. some of you should feel the same way.

the value of my life is not because of my last name or the lack of its importance. neither is it by the level of my bank account. neither is it by some external talent or capacity or ability that i have or that i don't have. my value is not in my iq or to those who are my critics, to the lack thereof. neither is yours. the child who is developmentally disableed is every bit as valuable, every bit as important, every bit as precious as the person who is of mensa-level iq. i'm glad we believe that as a country. i think we went through the schools and said, okay, we have 20 kids in this classroom, we really only have room for 18, we're going to cut the classroom down to size, so two of these children are going to have to be exterminated. let's pick the two who have the lowest test scores. when i say that, you recoil. i can't believe you would be

with so crass as to say we should pick children and say this one makes it and this one does it. we're just doing it a little earlier when we do it in the womb, and we're making a decision that some children are expendable and some are not. if we did that when those kids were 12, most of us would find that completely outrageous. but when we do it when they're three months in the womb, what makes it any different? what makes it any different when we somehow have decided that some lives are expendable? this when some lives aren't worth living and others are, when we value some above others, and then we arbitrarily attribute that the value of that life is tied to whether or not it represents a financial interruption and hardship and burden on the biological mother or whether it might represent a social disruption in the life of the caretaker. again, follow the logic. if, indeed, it is possible to determine that there is such a thing as a life that loses value

and it has so little of value that it is expendable because it represents financial hardship to the caretaker or social disruption to the caretaker. and that we have a right to terminate that life. if that, in fact, is true, then at whatever point that life is lived when it becomes a financial burden or a social disruption to its caretaker, that person would still retain the right of expending, ending or to be blunt, to exterminate that life. can you live with the logical conclusion of that? i say, no, we can't. none of us can. no sane, reasonable, rational person can believe that we would become as a society so completely bereft of any moral conscious that we would arbitrarily go through a crowd and say you are too expensive to your family. you have become a very heavy

financial burden because of your medical expenses. we're going to have the let you go. you, you're not smart enough. your brothers and sisters are smarter than you. they're going to be able to have good jobs and make good money. you, on the other hand, it's not looking good. we're going to have to take you out. and i know that sounds absolutely beyond belief that somebody would suggest that. my dear friend, that's why these issues are not mere extraneous moral issues, they are the heart and soul of who we are. because as a nation we have believed that every life has value, and that value is a value that does not come from the iq or from the income. it does not come from the last name or the land owned. the life and its value comes because it is a creation of god almighty who in his own reason had a purpose for that life, and it is a sin against him and against that life for us to

interrupt that natural flow that he has decided when he created that life. and it is our job to protect every single one of those human lives. [applause] that is not just some religious matter. it is the matter at the very heart of who we are as a democracy and a people. and if we ever get to the place where we decide that some among us are expendable, just remember that one day the rules may be written where we are the ones who are written to be expendable. and that's why you will never, ever be able to see me apologize or back down from the idea that these issues are of utmost importance. because they do represent a major part of whether or not our economy will survive. and, quite frankly, if only thing we care about is whether or not we ourselves have a greater level of comfort and we are willing to do that at the expense of the very life of another around us, then even if

we politically could pass it, i believe we would answer to god almighty, and he would bring us down. our idiot politicians wouldn't have to, and we would deserve it when it happens because god would never be able to bless a nation who so devalued its own people so that it would begin to exterminate them at will. because somehow we had deemed them not as valuable as others. i salute what you do, and i ask you not to depart from the battle, but to gear up for it. and because there are some who would say that these issues don't really matter much anymore, and we should refrain from them, and we should focus on the economy, i again say push back and remind them that there will be no strong economy if there is not a strong commitment to what's right. there will be no strong sense of

economic survival if we don't even obey the simple principles of physical survival and protecting that for each other. this week iowa was in the news for something other than politics, and it was pretty extraordinary. army staff sergeant salvatore giunta was given the congressional a medal of honor -- congressional medal of honor. one never says that a person won the medal of honor because you don't win it, you receive it. for extraordinary and heroic duty. sergeant giunta received his because he ran into two different torrents of bullets that were being fired by taliban in afghanistan as he was going to retrieve his fellow soldier, joshua paren man, a sergeant in the army -- brennan, a sergeant

in the army. and he ran headlong into those wall of bullets to get the wounded body of his colleague, put him on his back and carried him back to safety. unfortunately, sergeant brennan did not survive. for this action staff sergeant giuta received the congressional medal of honor, and when he was awarded it, he proved to all of us why he deserved it. because he said that he would gladly forgo any recognition if he could get the life of his fallen soldiers back. that their lives, that their existence was so much more important than any medal that could be draped around his neck.

it was not lost on me that in that message is the message that today we are here to affirm. that we honor him, we reward him, we hold him up as an example of our greatest because he recognized that even a wounded and bleeding soldier has value. ..

>> when we were willing to risk our lives, for even those who may be wounded beyond the point of being saved. we don't have metals, for those who snapped that the lives of the kids around us. we have battles come at a special place of honor for those who recognized the high value of every life as a gift of god your if others want to fight the battle to save your thing that matters, it's what the tax rate is, let it be their battle. but as for me and my house, i say to you, and i ask you, to join with the throng of those who in the pews and the churches across this land, i hope will

never be silenced in saying no, the life that god gives is a life that god values. and it is a life that we will value, uphold, and we will protect. and that if we protect the lives of the weakest among us, then god's blessing will be upon us. but if, if we harm these little ones, these precious ones, these innocent ones, these defenseless ones, better that a millstone be hanged around our neck. my friend, the future of america is not in its tax policy. it's in its recognition of a holy god, and the people he creates, and whether or not we will stand with him and for them

your please never leave that message. and may god bless you. thank you. god bless. [applause] >> we are live at an event with the security and exchange commission chair mary schapiro. this is part of a conference hosted by the american institute of certified public accountants. this is live coverage on c-span2, and it's just getting underway. >> we wanted to find a way to provide greater assurance to investors, that their accounts actually held the money that their investment advisers said they held. we enacted rules called upon independent public accountants, to serve as a second set of eyes in support of our investment adviser examination team. the rules mandate annual surprise examinations of advisor held accounts, by independent public accountants. in addition, when an adviser or an affiliate service as custodian of client assets the advisor must obtain a written report prepared by an account that is wretched with the pcaob

to assure appropriate internal controls are in place to protect client assets. as a result of that rule, we believe it will be more difficult for an advisor who has misused investor assets to get away with that. currently, we are contemplating ways to further leverage by updating the custody rule for broker dealers as well. that rule requires auditors to provide assurance that the numbers are accurate, as well as controls and compliance. but the rules 1785, was first implemented nearly 30 years ago. and so, among other things, we are considering strengthening compliance controls over the commissions foundation of financial responsibility and customer protection requiremen requirements. we are considering preparing a 21st century foundation on which the pcaob can implement its new oversight authority over broker-dealer audits. we are considering eliminating regulatory overlap for broker

dealers that are also custodians of a registered investment advisor. and we are considering enhancing oversight of broker-dealer custody by providing new information and tools to regulatory examiners. once more, our actions will underscore your importance to the financial system. of course custody rules have been far from our only concern recently, and our efforts range well beyond areas that directly touch the accounting profession. i think it's fair to say that our investor protection efforts have been in overdrive for the past two years. since i arrived we have revitalizrevitalized our enforcement in examination units so those that may be tempted to harm investors have a real fear of being caught. we adopted comprehensive rules to strengthen the resiliency of money market funds and rules that give investors better information regarding the qualifications of their advisers in the keys they are charged. we begin a detailed review of

the structure of today's high speed computer driven market, review that to respond quickly to the events of may 6 with circuit breakers and other measures intended to reduce the chances of another similar event. and more recently we have stepped up efforts to increase transparency in areas that may bleed six democrats like the asset-backed securities market and private funds. and since the passage of the dodd-frank act, we have begun to great the contours of renew record regime iran over-the-counter derivatives. these are just a few highlights of a robust rule-making agenda that is the cornerstone of our efforts to restore faith in our financial markets. but rule-making and our old reforms are not enough to achieve that goal. i believe that effective coordination between regulators and accounting professionals must be an important part of that effort as well. in fact, in our quest to restore

confidence, there is one area in particular that we cannot dismantle without your help. one barrier against which you have to lead the fight. and that is the investor skepticism that sprang from a decade that they perceive as marked by restatements, misleading windowdressing and quarterly reports, and off-balance-sheet exposures that prevented them from making fully informed investment decisions. the fact is that any central touchstone of functioning capital markets is an investor's ability to get an unvarnished assessment of a company's financial condition. that is why the foundation of successful markets is accurate and transparent financial reporting. and honest verification of their reporting by independent objective party. and the commission's role in promoting uniform principles for these vital tasks is an important chapter in our history. while accurate and transparent reporting begins with a detailed reporting from every corner of

an enterprise, which generates numbers that actually add up at the bottom line, it doesn't end there. that's because accurate reporting is also about timely, full, and fair disclosure of those numbers. it's about getting to numbers that mean the same thing, from company to company, and from country to country. and it's about pushing back to assure yourselves that investors can rely on those numbers. i appreciate that you have a difficult job, translating and increasingly complex and global financial world into something that can be understood, not only by market professionals and regulators, but by individuals with less investment experience or sophisticated financial training. and i recognize that your responsibilities are only growing, as we all appreciate today's capital markets are far more complex than those navigated by the accountants who form the aicpa's predecessor organization, more than 120 years ago.

yet your profession fundamental role remains more important than ever. as spelled out in your code of conduct, your obligation is to discharge her duties with integrity, objectivity, do professional care, and a genuine interest in service to the public. that is why we see your profession as an important line of defense, an ally in the effort to protect our markets and the quest to restore investor confidence. of course for most investors the most visible front in the sec's fight is our enforcement efforts. one of my top priorities on returning to the commission was restructuring our enforcement unit and streamlining our enforcement procedures. today, our enforcement teams continue to pursue cases stemming from actions that contribute to the financial crisis of the past several years. these have included successful actions against countrywide, american home mortgage, new century, and citigroup. in these cases public companies

failed to disclose millions of dollars in losses and billions of dollars in exposure to subprime mortgages. these material facts, when unidentified, or were in some cases actively concealed by the prepares and executives charged with making them public. their failure is not only caused immense economic damage to shareholders, but to the financial market and the economy as a whole. we continue to demonstrate our willingness to prosecute those who betray the trust of the public markets. but bringing actions after the fact is no substitute for full and honest disclosure at the outset. enforcement actions are cold comfort for investors who lost their savings after relying on misrepresentations, or half-truths. into many investigations, we have been struck by the magnitude of the misrepresentations we uncovered. even when these investigations lead to high profile charges

against ceos or cfos, comptroller, as in the type of cases i just mentioned, they can also raise troubling questions about the many others involved in preparing and auditing the filings and reports. we wonder if questions could have been asked early on by prepares and auditors, or if warning flags were ignored. we wonder if the eventual losses to shareholders and investors were multiplied many times because material information was not made available in a timely fashion i people who should have been able to produce accurate disclosures. rather than acc prosecution after the fact, shareholders should be able to rely on accurate accounting and effective auditing of front and through transparent financial reporting. i urge all of you to ask yourselves the critical questions when you scan with the numbers. questions like could i be doing more to ensure that the information is accurate? are the results i am reporting an exercise in wishful thinking,

are a true report of actual results? do i understand the company i am auditing well enough to recognize red flags, and have i taken all necessary steps to respond to them? even if the numbers that are reported are accurate, do they convey a fair picture, or is there a need for additional disclosure? and if you these questions do not yield the answers you need, i urge you to have the courage to challenge those answers, a willingness to take your judgments about the quality of disclosures to the highest levels of management and to the audit committee. that said, we appreciate that it is not always pleasant to report results that are not ideal. and we know this firsthand. earlier this month the sec completed our performance and accountability report. it's really the equivalent of a company's annual report, and we posted it online. our gao audit found that the financial statements included in the report represented fairly

and in conformity with u.s. gaap. that we discovered to material weaknesses in internal controls of a financial reporting. while it's good to know what the weaknesses are, they are in no way acceptable. and we are already moving to address them. we will be migrating our core financial system to a shared service provider designated by the office of management and budget, one with proven ability to be the high standards the american people deserve. just as we relied on our prepares and auditors, investors rely on you to find and identify weaknesses so that they can be addressed. your honest assessment of what the accounting standards invision, what a good management team expects, and what investors and capital markets deserve. of course the challenge of restoring public confidence is complicated by the fact that today's investors relied not only on accurate information about u.s. entities, but about entities across the globe as

well. today, a tucson-based investor trading on the new york stock exchange may be trying to analyze a german chemical company with subsidiaries in thailand and chile, and a paris-based auditor. so the sec is working on several fronts to bring regulation in line with a more complex realities of today's financial world. to bring needed cross-border consistenconsistency to accounting and auditing. for instance, we are supporting the pcaob in its efforts to remove obstacles that have kept it from carrying out its congressionally mandated responsibility to inspect non-us firms registered with them. i applaud recent e.u. decision that allows the pcaob to negotiate agreements with individual countries that will permit the pcaob to perform its inspection role. and i look forward to the final agreements with individual countries that will allow those inspections to go forward. in this and other important

areas, we are now looking forward to a pcaob that function with renewed energy and effectiveness in the months ahead. for many months, as you know, two positions on the board were filled on an interim basis by members whose appointments had expired, and one seat remained vacant. this was largely the result of a constitutional challenge to the very existence of the board. but with the supreme court's summer ruling, the sec is now searching for a new chair and two new board members. ensuring that these positions are filled with individuals of integrity and spotless reputations, and demonstrated commitment to the interest of investors, and the public, is a top priority. and we are now in the final steps of the selection process. i want to be the first to say that during these trying times i think the board did an extraordinary job, but we are excited at the prospect of dedicated and highly qualified members taking their seats, and a board able to focus on their

critical role without a legal challenge hanging over its head. in addition to the pc a obese negotiations there is of course another international issue of significant interest to the sec and to the accounting profession. in addition to international auditing responsibilities we are of course focusing on accounting standards and convergence. because investors should be able to make accurate comparisons and judgments regardless of entities line of business, ownership status, or corporate domicile. and so the sec continues to monitor the progress being made by the fasb andy iasb on the convergence of international accounting standards. as expected, the path towards convergence has proved steep and winding at times, but both boards have responded to the challenges. for example, fasb and the isp launch intensified efforts to deliver issues jointly in monthly meetings which will

allow board members to discuss and resolve issues face-to-face. they have increased efforts to work to unify project teams which would members of both boards. and both have gave it to periodic public reports on the status of their effort. i believe these actions will continue to increase the effectiveness of the collaborative efforts by the boards, and i'm sure that fasb acting chair leslie seidman and iasb chair sir david tweedie, we'll have much more to say on this subject when they join me tomorrow. convergence is a top priority for the sec, but it's both boards recognize the resulting standard in addition to being in uniform must be high quality improvements over current standards. constituent review and comment are important parts of the process that will produce high quality standards that investors need. for example, they were driving force behind the board's decision to modify and reprioritize the standards being developed under joint agenda.

the resulting staggered schedule for issuing the boards exposure draft will allow for greater input by stakeholders. and this will create an enhanced ability to consider whether the standards result in a consistent, high quality, globally accepted accounting standards and solutions we all seek. hopefully, many of you that a chance to read the progress report by the sec staff that we posted in october. as you will hear later, the staff is highlighted several preliminary observations based upon their work to date, including observations on important implications related to different methods of corporations, the iasb funding model, and observations regarding the important role that could be played by fasb if the commission were to mandate ifrs for domestic companies. i am pleased with progress to date, and i remain optimistic about achieving a convergence that benefits invested in the

u.s. and around the world. a significant portion of the work plan remains in progress, and the commission works for two preceding period reports on the step into making more progress in the year ahead. today, investors are trying to shake theirs giddiness. they are asking if everyone from regulators to accounting, doing the job they expect us to do. and that's a fair question. and because investor caution makes it harder for dynamic enterprises to raise the money they need to expand and grow, it's important that investors get the answers they need. i believe the sec is on track doing the job that is expected of us as a rule maker, an examiner, and a law enforcer. but the importance of the accounting professionals cannot be overstated either. it's not just new rules and regulations that protect investors. it's accurate, honest and complete accounting i men and women who, as chief justice

burger wrote in u.s. v. arthur young, demonstrate complete fidelity to the public trust. our markets depend on competent investors, and their confidence rests in part on large part in your hands. i know that's a great deal of responsibility but that's important role you play. the sec and other agencies can increase the confidence invested into our financial markets, but our effort succeeds only those investors believe the numbers you write on the bottom line. thank you very much. [applause] >> okay, the first question relates to ifrs workplan come and what a my personal expectations regarding when will the commission make a decision on adopting ifrs for u.s. companies, what is the commission likely to decide, and

when it's implementation likely to occur? okay. are not in the middle question. you know, it's still our plan to make a decision on the incorporation of ifrs into the u.s. reporting system next year. and despite a common perception that it will be by june of next year, we have not held ourselves to the june date. so sometime next year. we expect to be able to make a decision. one of the reasons we have the staff so vigorously engaged on the workplan and making their progress public is so that everyone can see the areas where we have concerns over the areas where we think significant progress is being made. implementation, one of the things we heard in response to the comments when we republish the work plan in february was a great desire, pretty much across the board you can while ifrs was not by any stretch uniform embrace the u.s. public companies, or by investors,

there was a lot of unanimity around if we go in this direction allowing sufficient time for companies to adjust. so i think it's likely to be a minimum of four years, although again that a point for the commission after we make the more fundamental decision about the extent to which, if at all, we will be incorporating ifrs. next question is, some singular the sec's timeline requires the commission to address the possible adoption of ifrs by june 2011. however, that timeline was established before the passage of the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. given a significant amount of rulemaking that dodd-frank requires of the sec's in the next 12 to 18 months, is june 2011 realistic? how does the demand of dodd-frank affect the commission's timeline? as i said, we are not strictly committed to june 2011 decision

date, or rather sometime in 2011. i will say that while, you know, i'm sure you read in the press we have been extorted amount of work to do with respect to dodd-frank, over 100 rules to write, many within the first 12 months, certainly within the first 18 months, 20 studies to conduct, a number of new offices degrade within the agency, i will say that on a small amount of that burden is falling on the office of the chief accountant, jim kroeker can probably speak to this later. much of that burden of dodd-frank rulemaking really falls on other divisions, most notably trading and markets for all other derivatives, regulation, division of investment management for the private funds, regulation and a division of finance for the new public company disclosure requirements that has been decreed by the law. so i think we will be able to not have ifrs or other accounting initiatives delayed

in any way by the dodd-frank effort. many of those have commented on the possible adoption of ifrs by domestic registrants, have been larger companies, investors and audit firms. healthy sec identifies the issues and concerns of the rest of corporate america? i.e. the vast majority of domestic registrants, investors and audit firms who do not have the resources to write comment letters or to invest in preliminary and -- evaluations of the effect of adopting ifrs. it's a great question and one we've been very focused on, and in our workplan, you will note that we talk extensively about our desire and really need and determination to understand what the impact of incorporating ifrs would be on smaller u.s. public companies who might not see the benefits, frankly, of being comparable and having

operability with issuers in other countries just because of the nature of the shareholder base. so we are highly focused on the costs and burdens of smaller companies. we did actually get quite a number of comment letters that raise that issue. we try to make the comment process very simple. it doesn't have to -- you don't have to hire a law firm to write a comment letter. you don't have to do sophisticated analysis. you can e-mail to us to a comment mailbox. we try to make as simple as possible for smaller companies and those who can't expend the resources or the time to go out and hire somebody to write full-blown comment letters. so we have actually heard from lots of smaller companies come and our office of chief accountant has also made an effort to reach out to smaller public companies to understand the issues that they think ifrs uniquely presents for them. but on that note i would encourage you to make sure that

your clients views are heard at the sec directly. the next question, let me take a sip of water, on the disclosure project. about a year ago, we heard about a core disclosures project to review the commission's disclosure requirements and evaluate whether they should be revised to elicit the right, not more, disclosures. we haven't heard much about this since then, what is the status of it. do you think we'll see any action, anytime soon? when we announced the core disclosure project in our defense, i will say that it was a longer-term project. it was before dodd-frank was actually passed but we were anticipating lots of work ahead, and particularly for a corporation finance division. but we did think it was a very important to put out on the record set at we could begin to get comment and commentary from

others. our desire to really review all of our disclosure requirements from a-z, to understand what we have competitive disclosure, when we have disclosures that no longer are relevant, where we have gaps where disclosure might be more appropriate. and i would point perhaps to our window dressing proposal that we did in august or september of this year, one of those areas where we saw gap in disclosure. as a way to try to take a coherent and cohesive look at all of the disclosure obligations, to minimize redundancy in particular. so we have an internal task force that is working on it, and it had been working assiduously over the past year. i can't tell you a timeline for when we might see the larger picture unveiled, but it's still very much one of those projects, along with a market structure along with proxy, that we are

not going to let be pushed off the agenda just by the exigencies of the current rulemaking workload. what changes have been made or are anticipated to be made to the sec's internal structure to meet the deadlines imposed by the odd frank act? for example, you've indicated you expect the commission to hire a number of people to meet the mandate, can you discredit in general the skill set that you expect to focus on, lawyers or accountants -- accounts? and in what areas do you expect about the most people. you know, we have, we are often criticized for being an overbloated agency, and i take exception to that, not because i'm a lawyer but because we are inside a law enforcement agency. so our lawyers are very important to us and we also write a lot of rules and we do in the law. that said, there's a great need at the sec for our accountants the really critical to almost

every division and every function we perform. but also for some less traditional skill sets in the context of the work of the sec. so we've been bringing people from trading desks, from investment banking firms, from credit rating agencies, from hedge funds, from financial risk analysis organizations, from risk management operations within all kinds of financial entities. and we've had tremendous response to the positions that we have posted, including in areas like quantitative analysis, which has been very exciting for us. and in just the last year, in terms of the numbers of people we have brockton with new skill sets, they are not huge numbers, but they are significant. they are high focused for us in the recruiting area, and they are making an enormous difference. i can say that when we had to reconstruct the train from a six, which is a convoluted and

difficult process in equity markets i because there's not a single consolidated audit trail, it lets us look at all the order and transaction data in one place. we have to assemble and analyze multiple different audit trails, formatted in different ways with different data contained in each of them. had we not have some of our new risk management employees and people who were used to handling massive amounts of data, it might've taken is even longer than the project did take. so we are finding that in enforcement as well, people with expertise and structured products, are enormously helpful to us in understanding some of the products that wall street introduced over the last several years, with her impact was on the market. we are looking at algorithmic traders having, help us understand how they operate in different markets, stress and is, enormously helpful. so throughout the organization we have really tried to focus on bringing in skill sets that help

us keep up with wall street a little bit better. in addition we created a division of risk, strategy and financial innovation which has been a focus for a number of these new skill sets, but they are giving us the ability to think about how to connect the dots more effectively and have to take a more interdisciplinary approach to some of the problems that we see. so, it's a work in progress for sure, but it's a very exciting to see the sec bring in some new talent. lots of dodd-frank questions. we will move away, proxy access. the commission's proxy access rules are being retooled and reviewed will this cause the rules do not go into effect as proxy season, if the ruling strikes down some or all of the new proxy asset rules, what do

you expect will happen next? well, when the sec was sued by the chamber and others over the proxy access rules, we actually made the decision to suspend the effectiveness of the rules during the litigation. we did not want companies to go to the proxy access process, and he left in a very difficult situation if the court in fact invalidate the rule. so they will not and are not in effect for this coming proxy season. if the ruling strikes down some or all of the new rules, what happens next totally depends on what the court says to us. and there could be a range of outcomes there, and i really would want to predict what those might be, but we will have to see what the court says, and respond accordingly. i would say that we feel very confident about the rules. we think that they were well done and done for all the right reasons, and will improve

governance in this country there and so we're going to obviously defend them in the court of appeals. there's a flashing red light here. >> unfortunately we're out of time, but please join me in thanking chairman schapiro for joining us this morning and getting the day started. [applause] >> joining us next is jim kroeker, who is the chief accountant of the sec. jim has been with us before, and please join me in welcoming jim. expect a legal fight over california same-sex marriage ban

is reaching the next rung on the judicial ladder. >> without the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty being ratified, we do not have a verification mechanism to ensure that we know what the russians are doing. and they don't know what we are doing. when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that's a much more dangerous world to live in. >> find out more about the

expired s.t.a.r.t. nuclear arms trade with russia, wedemeyer coppers, when the tree stands now as well as its history. online at the c-span via library. search, watch and share, all free. it's washington, your way. >> the full senate begins proceedings tomorrow against new orleans federal judge thomas porteous. he is accused of decades of corruption and engaging in a kickback scheme of the louisiana law firm. the try was back in september. it was the first senate trial since the impeachment proceedings of president clinton in 1999. this portion is about two hours and 20 minutes. >> good morning. the evidentiary proceedings of the senate impeachment trial committee on the articles against judge g. thomas

porteousg. thomasporteous, jr. n district of louisiana will now come to order. was the adoption of senate resolution 458 on march 17, 2010, this committee was appointed to perform the duties and exercise the powers provided for in rule 11 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate while sitting at an impeachment trial. row 11 requires the committee to proceed at his and take testimony on the four articles of impeachment which were presented to the senate and house of representatives. following extensive pretrial proceedings we are here today to begin receiving evidence. at the conclusion of the evidentiary proceedings the committee shall, as mandated by row 11 and by senate resolution 458, report to the full senate and writing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceeding, and testimony given before this committee. and in addition a statement of fact that are uncontested, and a summary of the evidence that the parties have introduced on contested issues of fact. these proceedings may be viewed

live in each senate office on television or on the committee's website at www.sipc dot senate.gov. the proceedings are also being reported so that each senator who was not on the committee may have an opportunity at any time to do the testimony of the witnesses as well as read a transcript of their testimony. under senate impeachment anderson inpatient row 11, the full senate retains the power to determine the competency, relevancy, and materiality of the evidence of the committee that will report to it. the senate also retains the power to censor any witness to testify in open senate, or indeed, to order that the entire trial be conducted in an open senate. regarding the house request to waive rule 22 and allowed two persons to present its opening statement, that request is hereby granted and the rule is waived. world 19 required to senators wishing to ask questions and in writing and through the

presiding officer was previously waived. members will be permitted to ask questions directly of the witnesses, once that witness has been cross examined. and i would now defer to both sides of the trial to begin their opening statement. >> madam chair, -- [inaudible] >> turn your microphone on. >> finca, madam chair. much better. i enjoyed by my colleague, bob goodlatte from virginia. i will be joined during the trial by our colleagues hank johnson, jim sensenbrenner and joe lofgren tour also assisted by some very able counsel, alan

bern, market investor, and kirsten cohen are. at the outset, the house recognizes one extra day preceding this is, how seldom an impeachment is undertaken. i think this is a reflection of several things, none the least of which the caliber of the men and women who are nominated for the federal bench. and not given cause for the removal from office. i think it's also a tribute to the confirmation process that does a good job in setting up those who are not suitable for the bench. and i also think it's a reflection of how intricately the house believes that this extraordinary remedy is required. i won't spend much time this morning in discussing the standard for impeachment content of high crimes and misdemeanors. there will be time for that later. more than that, i think the mentors of this committee understand that standard better than i or anybody else could

articulate. but i will share at least in my view one of the formulations i think house and senate have arrived on in similar judicial impeachment and that is that a judge has committed a serious violation of the public trust, that in the phraseology of governor ward, one of the framers that the judge has so this convenience of by violating public trust that it necessitates his removal from the bench. and i also say that a unanimous you in the house of representatives, the conduct of was so unethical, so deplorable and amenable to the public trust that cannot be allowed to remain on the bench. and what was that conduct? i'd like to give you a brief overview of the facts of the case before it turned it over to my colleague, mr. goodlatte, to go over the evidence in more detail. but before i do it's worth pointing out the vast majority of attacks, the underlying conduct in this case is not disputed. essential conduct in this case

is simply not contested. and that conduct involved for areas. involves the judges relationship with two attorneys, j. d'amato and bob creely. it involves his relationship with a bail bond company run by louis marcotte. iii get involved to conceal and the grudge nature of his page with these attorneys with his bail bond company during his senate confirmation. and it involves his numerous false statements and representations and violations of the bankruptcy court order during its bankruptcy case. let me start first with the lawyers amato and creely. the evidence will show that he had no new source for a long time, that he infected a partner of theirs into law practice before he was appointed to the state bench. that someone what he was was on the state binge, whether because of his expenses in the course of his family, vacations, weddings, or whatnot, what it was because of his gamut or his drinking or

his taste for expensive lunches, he started asking for cash from one of the attorneys, creely. in the beginning it was small amounts, $50, $100, whatever bob creely had on him. but over time he came to ask for more cash, $500, $1000, and it some point bob creely got tired of being hit on by the judge for cash. and he told the judge it had to stop. a judge had to change his lifestyle or do whatever was necessary, but the cash had to stop. as if they had this conversation, the judge started sending curatorships to the law firm of amato and creely. curatorships are essentially small administrative cases, often when there is an absent party that is necessary for someone to take an ad out in the paper to do other administrative task for the court. these cases were worth very much. $175 or $200. amato and creely will testify they didn't even want these cases but they didn't ask them,

they didn't want to. but once the judge started sending the curators to the firm of amato and creely, he started again to get them up for cash. he would call and what some of the curator money. and the evidence will show that they started to give him basically 50% of the curator money. the evidence will also show that they continue to get in curator money, and they would both take a draw from the firm. they would each basically get $1000 as a draw from the firm. they would then turn that into cash and give the cash to judge porteous. this went on for it. of time, until judge porteous was nominated for the federal bench. once he was appointed the federal bench was no longer in a position to send curators to the firm of amato and creely. when a curatorships stop, the cash also stopped. that cash stopped and request for cash stop with the end of

the curators, when he was appointed to the federal bench. the request for cash stopped to a certain point, and that point came when judge porteous was assigned a multi, multimillion dollar piece of litigation called little bird versus lifemark involving the fight over hospital contract, a pharmacy within the hospital, very complex case that was not necessary to go into great detail about. but this case had been going on for years. six weeks before the trial, liljeberg brings in among others, to new lawyers, and one of them is gay. the other is limited to the opposing counsel, a gentleman named joe mole, became concerned with a late addition six weeks before trial in this multi-your very complex multimillion dollar, perhaps as much the evidence will show, worth $200 million. very concerned with a late

addition of these lawyers so he did some due diligence, contacting people that he knew that understood the bar in new orleans. and what he was told really upon him, that basically the thing that these two attorneys had in common, a motto and levinson was, they were close friends basically cronies of the judge. they were told in no uncertain terms, not by people who want to identify themselves, not by people who would speak publicly, but the fix was in. that they do make a good record for themselves on appeal because they were going to lose this case. now, this put mr. mole in a very ethical position because the case was a bench trial. it was going to be no jury. judge porteous was going to decide the facts. he was going to decide the law. he was going to write the order. and mr. mole didn't have hard evidence, most of what he was told in a way that he could not use in court.

but he did note that they had lunch together, although he did not know how frequently. and he was able to find through court records that he believed that mr. ahmad or mr. levinson had given a contribution to judge porteous campaign. and these were the only fact he really good site you. their friendship, this campaign contribution, having lunch together, and is motion to recuse. but he felt he had no choice. the attitude asked the judge remove himself from the case, so he files a motion. the judge makes it quite clear during the recusal hearing, and we will share with you the transcript of that recusal hearing because it is one of the most illuminating pieces of evidence. the judge makes it clear he understands the ethical standards. he understands what he has to take himself off a case. he goes through that with counsel. and then he chides mr. mole for suggesting that he'd gotten a campaign contribution from mr.

amato and mr. levinson. he said i never had a campaign. the contribution you're talking about what he a contribution to all the judges for all their campaigns, a program that was called justice for all, attributed to all the judge's reelection. that was the only money he got from these lawyers. this, of course, we know was a quite deliberate deceit and misrepresentation because, in fact, you got thousands and thousands of dollars from the curatorships from mr. amato and mr. cornyn. none of which he discloses. ali does chide the attorney for not doing his homework. of course, if mr. monico done his homework he would've been up to find out about all this cash the judge had received. the recusal motion on appeal, as he later goes on the court of appeals doesn't know the information and denies it. the appeal would've been successful in the the judge would force to recuse himself. he rules against the motion, the appeal is denied, the case goes to trial.

after the case goes utah, judge porteous takes the case under submission. this is worth an enormous amount to the law firm of amato and creely. they have a commission arrangement that is a contingency case. they don't make a penny unless they win this case. and if they do win, mr. amato will testify they stand to earn somewhere between half a million to $1 million to kiss taken no other case in two years as mr. amato has worked on this case. it's worth an awful lot to his firm. the cases under submission for three years. while it's our submission they continue having their lunches together. the evidence will show that creely are amato, levinson had lunch with the judge probably hundreds of times over the years. expensive restaurants, lots of liquor. they continue having the lunches and the wining and dining. but more than that, they pay for parties for the judge.

they pay for other expenses for the judge. and on one very pivotal weekend, mr. amato goes fishing with the judge come and they are on fishing boat, and the judge says, breaks down and says, i need money for my son's wedding. you've got to become i need money for my son's wedding. can you give me 2000, $3000? can you get me that cash? can you give it to me, find someone to give it to me. i need the money. and mr. amato will testify he made the worst decision of his life. mindful of the fact that he had this very important litigation in his courtroom, he gives him the money. canon and what he gave it to him personally, or had, whether the judge sent his secretary over to pick it up. he gives in 2000, $2500 in cash in an envelope. during the recusal hearing the judge made a point saying i know the standard and to be held

here. it's my responsibility as a judge to disclose if there's something that the attorneys should ask me to remove myself from the case. does judge porteous disclose at any point during the case while it's under submission he has solicited cash from one of the lawyers? does he tell by the council about it? of course not. ultimately, the judge rules come and rules in favor of mr. amato supply. it's a huge victory for mr. amato client. writes a lengthy opinion. mr. mole as he knew he would have to appeal the opinion, and in large part the court of appeals reverses. not on a reverses, but in one of the more scathing opinions you will ever read, accuses judge porteous of making up wendy's and arguments. baseless, a baseless decision is essentially what the court of appeals views what george voorhees has written.

-- what judge porteous has written. the evidence also showed at the same time as illicit relationship is going on with amato and critic him is not the only relationship of his time going on in the state courthouse. judge porteous also had a relationship with a bail bond company run by louis marcotte. and with respect to the marcottes, lewis and his sister, laura, the evidence will show a very simple impact, the marcottes taking the judge out to probably over the years dozens if not hundreds of meals at expensive places, buying him liquor, more than that, doing repairs on the judge's car, doing repairs at the judge's home. and for his part, the evidence will show judge porteous set bonds in a manner that would maximize the profits to louis marcotte and his company. and one would hope that they judges priorty and setting bond would be to assure that the defendants appeared in court.

but the evidence will show you that the marcottes for bonds that would be set at amounts that would benefit him, mr. marcotte, and that judge porteous was more than willing to comply. and the judge did more for louis marcotte. on two separate occasions he was asked by mr. marcotte to expunge the convictions of employees of the bail bonds business. who could no longer work, could no longer be licensed to work in a bail bonds business because of their convictions. so louis marcotte goes to the judge and say what you expunge the conviction first of guy named jeff. and the judge does it again later of another bail bondsman, and the judge explained that conviction. these are two of the bail bonds employees who were doing the work for the judge, due to car repairs and doing home repairs. and when the judge takes the federal bench and can no longer set bonds to avenge louis marcotte the judge porteous helps to recruit a new judge to

take his place for the marcotte, a state judge, a new state judge named bodenheimer who would later go to jail after pleading guilty to a charge almost identical to the conduct here with respect to the confirmation process, the evidence will show that judge porteous knowingly failed to disclose the corrupt nature of these relationships to the fbi and to the senate. how do we know that the failure to disclose? how apart from the obvious fact that he certainly was aware of the cash he got from amato and creely. he was aware of the curatorships that was the basis of that cash. he was aware of the lunches and the parties they paid for. he was aware of the drinking and gambling. how apart from the obvious do we know that judge porteous quite deliberately kept this from the senate? well, he tells us so.

he tells us andy shouse is so. let me give just one example of how does that. louis marcotte, when he asked him to expunge one of these convictions, the second, aubrey wallace, he will testify that when he asked judge porteous to expunge this conviction, judge porteous says i will do it, but not right now. i won't do this until after my senate confirmation. i'm not blowing a lifetime appointment to the bench to do this for you. and that's exactly what happened. he waits until after his senate confirmation, and just before he is sworn in to expunge the conviction of aubrey wallace. now, why does he do it precisely been quite obvious he doesn't want to do before the confirmation because he knows this would materially affect his confirmation if he is expunging convictions for a bail bond company. but why just before he is sworn in? welcome he also knows the moment

he is sworn in on the federal bench is no longer in a position to expunge the conviction. it has to be exactly been. and fact, the evidence will show that's exactly when he expunge is the conviction. during the confirmation judge porteous is asked by the senate and is he aware of any unfavorable information that may affect his nomination. any answers in his written statement under penalty of perjury to the best of my knowledge, i do not know of any unfavorable information that may affect my nomination. ..

>> but ended his confirmation. with respect to the bankruptcy, the evidence will show a similar effort to conceal the truth. he begins the bankruptcy process by filing the petition in a phony name. not porteous, but he picks a name, ortus. he files the petition in the name ortus. he opens a post office box so that this first petition won't be associated with him publicly. why does he do this? why file in a phony name? well, perhaps it's to avoid certain creditors, or perhaps it's to avoid having the casinos read about his bankruptcy i and decline to extend credit markers to him in the future. or perhaps, as the defense will suggest, it's simply to avoid public embarrassment. but if a man will go to the extreme length of filing a bankruptcy petition in a false name and certify under penalty of perjury that that name is, in

fact, his full name, he'll go to further length to taking a post office box to conceal it is his true identity, will he not conceal other information to the senate? the evidence will show that he would and that he, in fact, did. there are numerous other false statements in the bankruptcy proceeding, but judge porteous repeatedly violates the bankruptcy judge's order not to incur new debt when he goes to casinos again and again, filling out credit applications, taking out markers and borrowing from the casino to gamble. now, as i mentioned at outset, none of these facts are seriously contested. in fact, judge porteous admits to most of them in the fifth circuit. he is asked about the curator monies and he admitted calling them and getting cash back. he will not call it a kickback, but judge porteous does not deny getting the cash after sending the curatorships. when he is asked how much money

did he get from creely and amato during the proceedings, his answer, i have no earthly idea. i have no idea. not, i didn't get the money, not i don't know what you're talking about, but in terms of how much, i have no idea. he got cash so often after such a prolonged period of time he has no idea exactly how much he got from them. does he admit getting the 2-3,000 in cash after soliciting it during the pen p nancy of this case, the liljeberg case? yes, he admits that too. he takes issue, strangely enough, with the envelope. e he doesn't deny getting an envelope with cash during the pendency of this multimillion dollar litigation. he doesn't remember whether he got it personally or whether he sent his secretary to pick it up for him. he admits not disclosing the curator money, not paying taxes

on the cash income that he got from amato and creely. he admits filing his judicial disclosure forms, federal disclosure forms and claiming he had about $30,000 in credit card debt when, in fact, he had over $180,000 worth of credit card debt. he admits filing his bankruptcy under a false name saying only it was his lawyer's idea. he admits filling out credit applications with casinos and incurring more debt in the form of of markers with those casinos when the bankruptcy order prohibited him from doing so. none of this he denies. not the lunches, not the parties, not the favors, not the cash, not the false statements, not the expungements, not the split bonds, not the false name, none of this do we expect he has or will deny. so if facts are largely uncontested, what is the issue here? as i will discuss briefly after mr. goodlatte goes through the evident in more detail, the issue in this case is largely

this: judge porteous doesn't believe any of this conduct is wrong. he doesn't believe any of it is unethical or immoral. in his view it is, at best, the appearance of impropriety. as the defense states in be its statement of the case, the conduct alleged here is, quote, a variety of acts that constitute, at most, the appearance of impropriety. it is the unanimous view of the house of representatives that judge porteous' conduct was not only wrong, but so violative of the public trust that he cannot be allowed to remain on the bench without making a mockery of the court system. i would now like to turn it over to my colleague, bob goodlatte, to go through the evidence in more detail. >> thank you, mr. schiff. chairman mccaskill, vice chairman hatch, members of the committee, now let me turn to

the facts that we shall prove in the case in more detail. judge porteous was born many december 1946, and he will be 64 this december. in 1971 he graduated from lsu law school, and he was a partner with jacob amato with whom you will hear later today between 973 and 1974. robert creely, who you will also hear from later today, also practiced atta law firm. from october 1973 to august 1984, judge porteous also served as an assistant district attorney in jefferson parish, louisiana. in august 1984 judge porteous was elected and served as a state district court judge on the 24th judicial district court for jefferson parish, louisiana, where he served as a state judge from august 1984 to october 28, 1994. while a state judge, amato and creely regularly and frequently

took him to lunch and provided and paid for other entertainment for judge porteous. judge porteous virtually never paid for any lunches he attended with creely or amato. let me first start off by talking about judge porteous' cure rate to haveship scheme with attorneys creely and amato. as mr. schiff stated, at some point after he became a state judge, judge porteous began to request money from robert creely. the evidence will show that judge porteous claimed he needed money for personal reasons such as tuition, car ree pairs or home repairs. creely would give him the monies as requested. over time as the judge's requests for money persisted and the amounts increased, cree ri came to resent and resist them to the point that creely would avoid judge porteous' phone calls. creely went so far as to tell judge porteous that he felt he was being taken advantage of. this committee has ruled that the transcripts from the fifth circuit and the house hearings are admission bl, so i will

quote here. quote, i don't recall if i specifically told him that it was because of his lifestyle, but i told him that i, we could not continue giving him money. i couldn't continue giving him money. in light of creely's resistance, judge porteous came up with the following scheme. judge porteous used his judicial power to assign cree liqueur cry curatorships whereby creely would represent a missing party in a case such as a foreclosure for which creely would receive a set fee of approximately $200 from the court. and after creely was paid, judge porteous requested from creely money constituting some portion of the curatorship fees. again, creely testified in the fifth circuit. question: did judge porteous make a request of you after sending you curatorships for a portion of the fees that you were being paid by the court? answer: yes, sir.

question: and how did he do that? answer: i don't recall how it came about, but it came about, and he got, and i can't -- i can't tell you that he got all of the curator fees that we generated, but he got a good portion of the fees that we generated there the curators. creely told his partner, amato, that judge porteous was asking for money from the curatorships. here's how mat toe described this in his deposition in response to judge porteous' attorney. question: was it your understanding that there was a connection between the money that was the cash that was given to judge porteous and the curatorships? answer: at some point in time, yes question: and how did you reach that understanding? answer: bob creely came in my office one day, told me porteous was sending curatorships and he wanted us to, you know, give him some money back. and i told him, this is going to wind up bad. and as you can see, mr. amato

could not have been more prescient. the evidence here is not simply the testimony of creely and amato. judge porteous himself has admitted essential aspects of this sequence of events leading to and including his actions regarding the curatorships. for example, in his testimony under oath to the fifth circuit, judge porteous confirmed that mr. creely refused to pay him money before the cure area to haveships started. answer: he may have said i needed to get my finances under control, yeah. simply, judge porteous confirmed during the time he sent curatorships to the firm, he would receive money back from them. question: after receiving curator hardships, mr.s creely or amato and/or their law firm would give you money, correct? answer: occasionally. question: during the time you were giving creely and amato and the law firm curatorships and you were getting cash back, was

that cash you received a kickback for the cure curatorshn your mind? answer: no, sir. though judge porteous disputes the kickback, he does not dispute the fundamental premise of the arrangement that was then in place, that there was a time that he was giving, quote, creely and amato and their law firm curatorships and was getting cash back. thus, creely and amato exceeded to judge porteous' requests and gave him cash that was funded by the curatorships. creely and amato took equal draws to come up with the cash to give judge porteous in response to his demands. here are examples of orders that judge porteous signed assigning a curatorship to creely, orders that judge porteous signed in his judy partiality -- judicial capacity in order to enrich himself. during the 1988 and 1994 time periods, the house had identified 200 curatorships

amounting to pees of close to -- fees of close o $40,000 to the firm. creely and amato have each estimated they gave porteous approximately $20,000 or $10,000 each there the curatorship proceeds. and as to money amounts he received, judge porteous had testified -- question: judge porteous, over the years how much cash have you received from jake amato and bob creely or their law firm? this answer: i have no earthly idea. again, you're asking me to speculate. i have no idea, is all i can tell you. though the money came directly from creely, the evidence will show that judge porteous well understood that the money was 50/50 from amato as well. the evidence will be clear that judge porteous spent time with both men and understood they had a classic partnership relationship. however, after judge porteous became a federal judge in 1993,

his ability to assign creely the curatorships came to an end and, thus, his cash requests came to an end for the time being. we believe that you will conclude that the fact that judge porteous stopped making cash requests at the same time he stopped assigning curatorships is powerful evidence that judge porteous understood that those two events would be inextricably interwoven. now let me turn to judge porteous' handling of the liljeberg case in federal court, a case where amato was the attorney for one of the parties. in the early 1996 judge porteous, now a federal judge, was assigned a complicated civil case involving the dispute between a hospital, lifemark, and a company that was running a pharmacy at the hospital known collectively as the liljeberg. trial was set for early november 1996, and just six weeks prior to the date for trial in late september 1996, the liljeberg

hired mr. amato and the law firm and another of porteous' very close friends, leonard levinson, to represent them at trial. as mr. schiff noted, lifemark's counsel filed a motion to recuse judge porteous. they argued the timing of known close friends of judge porteous entering this this complex case raises suspicions about the integrity of the process. lifemark's attorney, joseph mole, had no idea that amato had, in fact, in partnership with creely given judge porteous close to $20,000 in cash. in october 1996 judge porteous conducted a hearing on lifemark's recusal motion. it is worth going through what happens at that recusal hearing in a little bit of detail. at the recusal hearing, judge porteous described his relationship with amato and levinson as follows: quote, if anyone wants to decide if i'm a friend with either of them, i

will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative, yes. mr. amato and i practiced law together probably 20-plus years ago. he further stated, quote, yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have i ever been to either one of them's house? the answer is a definitive no. have i gone to lunch with them? yes. have i been going to lunch with all the members of the bar? the answer is, yes. in short, at the hearing judge porteous portrayed his relationship with amato as simply the same sort of unexceptional relationship that he would have had with any member of the bar limited to having, quote, gone to lunch with him. even that is misreeding because the evidence -- misleading because the evidence will show that judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato without reciprocating. more significantly, in describing his relationship a with amato, judge porteous makes no mention whatsoever of what really the issue.

that is, that he has received thousands of dollars in cash there amato's law firm, money that he knows comes from amato as well as creely. mr. mole, at a great disadvantage, says, quote, the public perception is that they do dine with you, travel with you. they have contributed to your campaigns, end quote. and judge porteous pounces on this. quote, well, luckily, i didn't have any campaigns, so i'm interested to find out how did you know that? i never had any campaigns, counsel. i had never had an opponent. the first time i ran, 1984, i think, is the only time they gave me money, end quote. judge porteous goes on to challenge mole about the suggestion that amato and levinson had given him campaign contributions saying that mole, quote, should have done his home work better, end quote. he makes the self-serving comment in which he promises to notify counsel if he has any question that he should recuse himself, and concludes: i don't

think a well informed individual can question my impartiality in this case. well, in effect what you have here is judge porteous and amato -- who know the facts, just not disclosing it -- completely misleading and be disguising the nature of the actual relationship. amato knows this is not right. here's what amato described the deception in the courtroom in response to questioning by mr. schiff at his senate deposition. question: and he, in fact, told the other attorneys they should have done their homework better because this was a contribution to a general judge's fund. answer: that's correct. that's the short story. question: and while he was making this show for the other counsel, that they should have done their homework better, he didn't tell them anything about the approximately $20,000 in curator fees that you and your partner kicked back to him, did he? answer: no, he he didn't tell them anything about the

curatorships. question: do you think that was misleading, mr. amato, for him to pound his chest and say i i never got any campaign contributions but fail to tell them he got about $20,000 in cash under the table? answer: yes. question: so you don't feel he was being honest during that hearing, do you? answer: i don't think he was being ohioan. honest. in the summer of 1997, judge porteous presided over the liljeberg trial and took the case under advisement. he did not issue his opinion until april 2000. the evidence will show that in may of 1999 while judge porteous had the liljeberg case under advisement, judge porteous invited creely to las vegas for his son's bachelor party. on that trip creely paid for judge porteous' hotel room, contributed several hundred dollars for the dinner.

indeed, judge porteous admitted in his fifth circuit testimony that creely made those payments for him. in june of 1999, also while still having the case under advisement, judge porteous went on a fishing trip with amato and told him that his son's wedding expenses were more than anticipated and requested that amato give him cash. in response to that request, amato and creely gave porteous approximately $2,000. just pause for a moment. here we have a federal judge while having a non-jury case under advisement asking one of the attorneys for cash. like much of the other evidence that we shall introduce, the fact that judge porteous so o lis sited and received money -- solicited and received money from amato in 1999 in connection with his son's wedding and while the liljeberg case was pending is not contested. here's how judge porteous testified. question: do you recall in 1999 in the her, may/june, receiving

$2,000 from them? answer, judge porteous: i'd read mr. amato's grand jury testimony. it says i made some representation i was having difficulties and that he loaned or gave me some money. question: whether or not you recall asking amato for money during this fishing trip, do you recall getting an envelope with $2,000 shortly thereafter? answer: yeah, manager seems to suggest there may have been an envelope. i don't remember the size of the envelope, how i got the envelope or anything about it. >> yes: wait a second, is it the nature of the envelope? answer: no, money was received in an envelope. question: and had cash in the it. answer: yes, sir. question: and it was from creely and/or -- >> answer: amato. question: and it was used to pay for your son's wedding. answer: yeah.

question: and would you dispute the amount was $2,000? answer: i don't have any basis to dispute it. in addition, in the fall of 1999 while judge porteous still had the liljeberg case under advisement, creely and amato paid over $1,000 for a party in honor of judge porteous' fifth year on the bench. in april the judge ruled for the liljebergs on all major issues. lifemark appealed judge porteous' opinion, and the fifth circuit reversed judge porteous in scathing terms describing it variously as, quote, inexplicable, a chimera constructed entirely out of whole cloth bordering on the nonsensical and absurd. thus, article i charges a pattern of course of conduct this connection with judge porteous' handling of the liljeberg case, including his failure to recuse himself, his making false and misleading statements at the recusal hear,

his solicitation of ref set op -- and his receipt of other things of value from creely including creely's payments for certain of judge porteous' expenses at the 1999 trip to las vegas. now let me turn to article ii. judge porteous' relationship with bail bondsman louis marcotte and his sister, lori marcotte, that mr. schiff discussed. for that it is necessary to return to judge porteous' roots as a state court judge. first, let me take a second to describe how the bail bonds business worked in new orleans and why judge porteous' actions in setting bonds was so financially significant to the marcottes. this is somewhat detailed, and i have tried to distill it to its essentials. a bail bond is, basically, an insurance policy. the prisoner pays the premium -- typically 10% of the amount of the bail bond -- to the bail bondsman, and the bail bondsman promises the court that the prisoner will show up when he is

required. so if a bond is set at $50,000, a prisoner would pay the bail bondsman $5,000. louis marcotte, the bail bondsman who will testify that he would make no money if bond was set so high that the prisoner could not afford the premium. or too low so that the premium would be an insignificant sum. what marcotte really wanted was for a bond to be set at the maximum amount for which the prisoner could afford to pay marcotte the premium. it is against this background that judge porteous' relationship with the marcottes can, thus, be understood. prior to taking the federal bench starting in the early 1990s, judge porteous developed a relationship with the marcottes where he solicited and accepted things of value from them and at the same time took numerous official acts as a state judge for their financial benefit. first, as to what the marcottes gave judge porteous. the marcottes frequently took judge porteous to high-end restaurant for lunch paying both

for meals and drinks. the marcottes also paid for numerous car repairs and routine car maintenance for judge porteous. they paid for home repairs for judge porteous when a fence of judge porteous' had to be fixed. the marcottes also paid for a tripp to las vegas for judge porteous. in return, judge porteous willingly became marcotte's go-to judge for setting bonds. he went directly to judge porteous with recommended bond amount, bond amounts that would maximize their income. judge porteous signed countless bonds at their request, judicial acts which he knew top of financial benefit to them. now, at a prior hearing mr. turley has argued to the committee that the house cannot identify any corrupt bonds that were set by judge porteous. that is not the point or what the articles of impeachment allege. rather, the evidence will demonstrate that judge porteous eagerly solicited and willingly

accepted things from the marcottes which he knew to be inducements and rewards for his taking many judicial acts for the financial benefit of the marcottes. the evidence will show they were not social friends as you or i may conceive that term. they knew each other solely through work, and they formed a corrupt, mutually-beneficial relationship. in addition to setting bonds as requested, judge porteous took other judicial acts of significance for the marcottes. in 1993 judge porteous expunged the conviction of a marcotte employee, jeff due hand. this was worked out between louis marcotte and judge porteous, and judge porteous expunged the conviction as marcotte requested. in 1994 at marcotte's request, judge porteous also set aside the conviction of another marcotte employee, aubrey wallace. again, this was worked out between louis marcotte and judge porteous. it took place during judge porteous' last days on the state bench, a final judicial act by

judge porteous for the marcottes' benefit. and evidenced the extent to which judge porteous was beholden to the marcottes. now let me turn to judge porteous' confirmation as a federal judge. at some point in 1994 -- excuse me -- at some point in 1994, judge porteous came under consideration to be appointed as a federal judge. judge porteous knew that if white house and the senate had found out about his relationships with either creely or the marcottes, he would never be nominated, let alone confirmed. in the course of the background investigation and during the confirmation process, judge porteous was asked questions on no less than four occasions that would have logically called for his disclosure of his relationships with creely and amato and the marcottes had he been truthful and forthcoming. first, at some time prior to july of 1994, judge porteous

filled out a form referred to as the supplement to the s.f.86. on that form is a question that goes to the very heart of the issue associated with the background process. i want to show you that question and answer to -- i want to show that question and answer to the committee. in that form judge porteous was asked -- question: is there anything in your personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail you? is there anything in your life that could cause an embarrassment to you or to the president if publicly known? if so, please, provide full details. to which judge porteous answered: no. judge porteous signed that document under the penalties of false statements. of course, the evidence will show that he knew of the facts i have described and, thus, knew that answer was false. the evidence will show that thereafter on july 6th and july 8th judge porteous was interviewed by an fbi agent as part of the background check

process. judge porteous was asked by the agent the same sort of questions, and his answers were incorporated in a memorandum of the agent that summarized the interview. let me again show you the exhibit. in the fbi write-up of that interview, judge porteous was recorded as saying that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on the candidate's character, reputation, judgment or discretion. after that interview the fbi in new orleans sent the background check to fbi headquarters in washington which reviewed the background check. upon that review they directed the agents to interview judge porteous a second time about a very particular allegation that the fbi had received in 1993 that judge porteous had taken a bribe from an attorney to reduce the bond for an individual who had been arrested.

this allegation did not implicate the marcottes. so on august 18 the fbi returned and conducted a second in-person interview with judge porteous probing possible illegal conduct on his part in connection with bond setting. once again the fbi records judge porteous as stating, quote, that he was unaware of anything in his background that might be the basis of attempted influence, pressure, coercion or compromise and/or would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment or discretion. finally, on the united states senate committee on the judiciary -- the united states senate committee on the judiciary sent judge porteous a questionnaire for judicial nominees. again, i am showing you the document on the screen. in that questionnaire judge porteous was asked the following question and gave the following answer. please advise the committee of any unfavorable information that may affect your nomination. answer: to the best of my knowledge, i do not know of any

unfavorable information that may affect my nomination. the signature block is in the form of an affidavit, that the information provided in the document is true and correct. thus, on four occasions judge porteous concealed the truth as to his relationships with creely and amato and the hard cots from the fbi -- marcottes from the fbi and the senate. in addition, the two men who judge porteous had been receiving things from -- creely and marcotte -- were each interviewed by the fbi. each made misleading or false sometimes r statements designed to protect judge porteous. let me turn to ab act that -- an act that evidenced first that judge porteous well hue that his relationship with marcotte was corrupt and, second, that demonstrates he wanted to conceal that relationship from the senate. as i mentioned, marcotte had an employee named aubrey wallace. wallace had two felony convictions, a burglary conviction and a drug conviction

for which he was on parole. in the summer of 1994 at around the time period of the confirmation, marcotte went to judge porteous and asked him to set aside wallace' burglary conviction to take the first step in getting rid of his felony convictions so he would ultimately be allowed to obtain a bail bonds license. judge porteous told marcotte that he would set wallace's conviction aside but only after the senate had confirmed him. i would like to read an excerpt which has been ruled admissible that illuminates young porteous' intent. mr. schiff, you mentioned that with respect to mr. wallace that judge porteous expressed a reservation about setting aside the conviction until his confirmation took place. can you tell us a little bit about that conversation? you said you had to press him. did he tell you why he was concerned it would affect his confirmation? mr. louis marcotte: because if

anyone, if newspaper grabbed hold of it, then he would be worried that it would interfere with him being -- his confirmation. mr. schiff: and can you tell us what his words were as best you can recall, how he expressed to you his concern that things might become public? mr. louis marcotte: he said, louis, i am going to get wallace -- to let wallace -- louis, i am not going to let wallace get in the way of me becoming a federal judge and getting appointed for the rest of his life to set aside his conviction. wait until it happens and then i'll do it. in short, with regard to article 4 the evidence will show that judge porteous deliberately sought to conceal material information from the senate and did so in a calculated manner precisely with the intent to confound the senate in the exercise of confirmation responsibilities. the factual record confirms marcotte's testimony. judge porteous did, in fact, wait until after he was confirmed by the senate and

before he was sworn in to set aside wallace's conviction. judge porteous' concerns that he expressed to louis marcotte that if set aside were discovered it might derail his nomination, appeared to have been justified. the media picked up this conduct and reported that judge porteous had engaged in an unlawful act. but this time, however, judge porteous had secured his federal judgeship. after he became a federal judge, the marcottes' relationship with judge porteous did not continue precisely as when he was a state judge. judge porteous could not do as much for the marcottes, and they accordingly did less for him. they stopped taking care of his daughters. -- cars. they took him to lunch less frequently. however, even if the relationship slowed down, it did not come to an end. you will hear that judge porteous was influential with other state judges from the 24th

jdz. so even when judge porteous was a federal judge, the marcottes continued to take him to expensive lunches, especially where persons they sought to impress -- state judges and businessmen -- would be present. as but one example, the evidence will show that judge porteous vouched for the marcottes with newly-elected state judge ronald bodenheimer in or about 1999. bodenheimer, who prior to judge porteous' intervention held the marcottes in this low regard, ended up forming the same sort of corrupt relationship with the marcottes that judge porteous previously had with them, accepting meals, home repairs and has hospitality on trips and setting bonds as they requested. ultimately, bodenheimer and another state judge, alan green, went to jail for conduct that was substantially similar to that of judge porteous,

vis-a-vis the marcottes. both louis marcotte and lori marcotte were also convicted of felony offenses for having given numerous state officials, including judges and law enforcement personnel, things of value. thus, article 2 alleges that while he was a state court judge in the 24th judicial district court in the state of louisiana and continuing while he was a federal judge in the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana, judge porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman ruth -- louis m. marcotte iii and his sister, lori marcotte. it also alleges that judge porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value including meals, trips, home repairs and car repairs for his personal use and benefit while at the same time taking official actions that benefited the marcottes. and article 4 charges that judge porteous, quote, knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the united

states senate and to the federal bureau of investigation in order to obtain the office of united states district court judge. the last aspect of our case relates to judge porteous' bankruptcy while a federal judge set forth in article 3. throughout the 1990s and into 2001, judge porteous' financial condition deteriorated largely due to gambling attica see knows to the point that by 2001 when he filed for bankruptcy, he had over $190,000 in credit card debt. there are different ways that the evidence will describe his financial activities, but perhaps the most compelling is that his credit card statements from 1995 through 2000 reflect over $130,000 in gambling charges, and his bank statements from '97-2000 reflect over $27,000 in cash withdrawals attica see knows. in 2000 porteous met with a bankruptcy attorney about his

financial predicament. the evidence will show that judge porteous did not tell lightfoot at any time that he gambled. they decided that lightfoot would attempt to work out judge porteous' debts owed to his creditors, and then if that failed, judge porteous would consider filing for bankruptcy. lightfoot's attempt at a workout failed, and in or about february of 2001, lightfoot and porteous commenced preparing for chapter 13 bankruptcy. in march of 2001 in the weeks and days immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy, the evidence will show judge porteous undertook numerous actions to conceal certain unsecured debts and to structure his financial affairs so that he would be able to continue to gamble and obtain credit from casinos while in bankruptcy. first, as part of these efforts judge porteous -- in consultation with his attorney -- agreed he would file his bankruptcy petition under a

false name. to further this plan, judge porteous obtained a post office box so that his initial petition would have neither his correct name or a readily-identifiable address. he secured that post office box five days before he filed bankruptcy. ultimately, on march 28, 2001, judge porteous filed for bankruptcy under the false name g.t. ortous. and listed the post office box as his address. judge porteous signed his petition twice, once under the representation i declare under the penalty of perjury that the information provided in this petition is i true and correct. the other over the typed name g.t. ortous. on april 9, 2001, judge porteous submitted a statement of financial affairs and numerous bankruptcy schedules. this time they were filed under his true name.

however, the evidence will show that they were false in numerous other ways, all reflecting his desire to conceal assets and gambling activities from the bankruptcy court and his creditors. i'm not going through all his false statements during the bankruptcy at this time. but i thought i would at least point out some to you. he knowingly failed to disclose that he had filed for a tax refund claiming a $4,400 refund even though the bankruptcy forms specificallyinquire as to whether he filed. he checked that box, no. he knowingly failed to disclose that he had gambling losses within the prior year even though the form specifically asked that question. in fact, he has admitted before the fifth circuit that he had gambling losses. he deliberately concealed casino debts he had incurred in the weeks prior to filing even though the forms in various places would have required those to be disclosed. he reported his account balance in the his checking account as

$100 when the day prior to filing he had deposited $2,000 into the account. he deliberately concealed altogether a money market account that he regularly used in the past to pay gambling debts. and there are others we will establish during the trial. the single organizing principle that arranges this pattern of false statements is judge porteous' desire to conceal assets and to conceal his gambling so that he could gamble while in bankruptcy without interference from the court or the creditors or even his lawyer. at a hearing of creditors on may 9, 2001, judge porteous was asked under oath to vouch for the accuracy of his schedules to which he testified falsely as follows: bankruptcy trustee, everything this here true and correct? this judge porteous: yes. that statement, like so many of judge porteous' statements under oath that you will hear about during this proceeding, was false. that bankruptcy trustee also

informed judge porteous that he was on a cash basis going forward. at the end of june 2001, bankruptcy judge william greendike issued an order approving the chapter 13 plan and specifically ordered judge porteous not to incur new debt without permission of the court. notwithstanding judge green have been dike's order -- greendike's order, he he applied for a credit card. he continued to borrow from casinos without the court's permission. in some instances he paid those casino debts back from the bank account he concealed. the evidence will show he engaged in a pat everybody of deceitful -- pattern of deceitful activity. i know i've taken some time here, and i appreciate your attention. now let me turn the podium back to mr. schiff. >> senators, i mentioned at the outset the vast majority of what you have now heard of the

evidence is uncontested. so what is, what are the issues here? there are really two arguments the defense will make, and the central one is this: porteous did nothing wrong. judge porteous may have done all of these things, but there's nothing wrong with any of it. nothing none of it was unethical, improper, tls nothing -- it is nothing more than an appearance problem. he's being impeached, essentially, for having lunch. now, there'll be a suggestion that judge porteous may have done all these things, but the house chose not to charge him with the violation of the kickback statute, code section whatever. when as the senate has already made clear to counsel this is not a criminal case, and the house has no obligation to charge or prove the elements of a particular statute. there'll be a similar m suggestion that the house has not charged the violation of the honor services statute when, of course, he is not charged with violating that statute either, nor is the house required to

make a charge of a particular code section. there'll even be a suggestion that, after all, senators, we're talking about new orleans. it's new orleans. they all do it, and if you're going to impeach judges in new orleans for this kind of stuff, you're going to have to impeach all of them. there will be a hint of that. but the real argument is he did nothing wrong, and on this house could not disagree more. we belief that the evidence in this -- believe that the evidence in this case fully supports the view of the house of representatives, that sending court cases to a law firm and taking cash back is wrong, dead wrong. the evidence will show that allowing yourself to be wined and dined by lawyers who have a case before you is wrong. the evidence will show that allowing those lawyers to pay for parties, to pay for your lunches, your liquor, your hotel room, to have a stripper dance in your lap, all of that is wrong. to falsely represent your financial relationship with lawyers in the courtroom is unethical and wrong. the evidence will show that to

solicit cash from lawyers in your courtroom is wrong. to set bail based on how much it will benefit a bail bondsman is wrong. to accept car repairs and be home repairs and lunches and liquor from that same bail bondsman is wrong. the evidence will show that to expunge the convictions of their employees, to recruit other judges to form the same corrupt relationship is wrong. to file a false petition in bankruptcy is wrong. and we believe that when you hear the evidence, the uncontested evidence, you will agree it is wrong and that he must be removed from the bench. there's a second argument that the defense will make that i also want to comment on briefly, and that is the senate cannot consider the evidence of any judge porteous' conduct for he was sworn into -- before he was sworn into federal office. as the evidentiary presentation made clear, some of the conduct in articles 1 and 2 took place before the judge's appointment to the federal bench and after his appointment to the federal

bench. article 3, the bankruptcy count, involves conduct only while he was on the federal bench, and article 4 involves conduct during the confirmation process itself. in judge porteous' view, the constitution prohibits the senate from considering in an impeachment proceeding anything that took place before his severing in. -- swearing in. the senate confirmation process in if his view is a high stakes game of hyperball. if you can get confirmed no matter what you conceal, no matter what false representation you make, you are home free for life. nothing in the constitution compelling this view -- compels this view. in fact, the constitution is silent on when the high crimes or misdemeanors must take place. but judge porteous would have you read into that silence an attempt to make any prior conduct unreachable. this would lead to an absurd result. let us say the evidence showed the judge had committed murder prior to his appointment. could he not be removed?

let's say that the evidence showed a judge were convicted and sentenced to jail after appointment to the federal bench, but based on conduct that was committed before they were appointed to the federal bench. can we imagine a situation where that judge might serve the rest of their life in general, and the senate would be pourless to remove them or withdraw their salary or pension? in this case the defense makes much of the fact that judge porteous was not prosecuted by the department of justice. let's say that he had been prosecuted for the curatorship scheme. it would be the defense's position that because the conduct took place before, notwithstanding that he goes to jail now, he cannot be impeached or removed from the bench. as professor emir, one of the leading constitutional scholars testified before the house, if a judge bribed his way onto the bench, would he be beyond the reach of impeachment? many of course no t. -- of course not. the standard, we believe, is whether the judge has so

misdemeaned himself that he cannot be allowed to remain on the bench. viewed from this perspective matters not when the conduct took place, but whether the public can have confidence that the judge will horn rabblely undertake his responsibilities. we believe that the evidence will show that the public cannot have that confidence. let me conclude where i began, with one final observation on the standard to be applied as you hear the evidence. what does it mean to betray the public trust? i can only give you my view, and that is if i were a member of the public and i had to appear in judge porteous' courtroom in the future, could i have the requisite confidence that he would undertake his responsibilities in accordance with the law? if i had a case in the his courtroom -- in his courtroom that was very important to me and opposing counsel was a friend of the judge, could i be confident that he was not taking cash from them, that he wouldty close his full relationship with them, that he would not ask for

more cash while that case was under submission, that i would not need to hire another crony this of the judge to protect myself? i simply could not have that confidence. if i were a creditor in a bankruptcy case, could i expect a fair result when the bankruptcy party -- when the bankrupt party lied on bankruptcy petitions, used an alias, concealed debts or violated the court order by incurring new gambling debts? in how could i have that confidence? when the party in question can say, judge, how can you criticize me for filing under a false name? doesn't the name ortous ring a bell? and with that, senators, i will conclude my remarks. >> thank you. judge porteous' counsel now has an opportunity for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman mccaskill. vice chair hatch, distinguished

members of the senate impeachment trial committee. good morning. my name is jonathan turley, and i have the honor of representing united states district court judge g. thomas porteous jr. joining me at counsel's table with judge porteous are my colleagues, daniel schwartz, keith around save da, brian walsh, p.j., dan o'conner and the law firm of brian cave. senators, if parties agree on one thing, it is this: by any measure this is an historic moment. it's not simply because this constitutional proceeding has only occurred 14 times in our history. it's a proceeding that the framers crafted with the likes of james madison to guide your actions today, this week and many this case. in this case.

in the history of this republic in over two centuries, there's only been seven federal judges of thousands that have been removed under this standard. now, for past senators and, frankly, current senators it would be an easy thing to simply convict a judge and to yield to the passions of controversy. yet this is an occasion where the senate is given a specific duty to ab jude candidate -- adjudicate, not just legislate or deliberate. impeachments are not about one judge, they're about all judges. and the constitutional guarantees under which they serve. james madison stated it best when he warned that removal must be based on a high showing, a high standard to avoid interpretations, quote, so vague as to be the equivalent of tenure at the pleasure of the senate.

for that reason the framers adopted the standard of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. it is the obligation of every senator -- and i know you take these obligations seriously -- to make two distinct determinations before voting to remove a federal judge. first, you must conclude that the underlying facts, the alleged acts were proven to have occurred. in a criminal case, facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. a standard should be no lower for an impeachment, particularly in a case where the accused was never afforded the protections and due process of a criminal trial. second, if the acts were proven to have occurred, you must determine that the acts constitute treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in most past cases the second

determination was the focus of your deliberations, the focus of the senate. however, in this case your fact finding has far greater impact in the absence of a prior trial record than all of these prior modern judicial impeachments. as i mentioned, the house opted to bring this impeachment -- despite the fact that judge porteous has never been indicted, let alone convicted of any crime. that is unlike any modern judicial impeachment. judge porteous signed three tolling agreements to allow the government to prosecute him regardless of the running of the statute of limitations. he waived that protection. as will be shown, the justice department investigated these very claims and found that they did not warrant criminal charges. as a result, there was no trial where evidence and witnesses were subject to judicial review

or a full adversarials process. a trial of this kind in federal court would take weeks or months. in an actual court of law, you would have months simply spent on going through the evidence. indeed, even with a prior trial former judge elsie hastings' senate trial lasts 18 days. in the 19 hours allowed after opening hours, we will not be able to present a full panoply of witnesses or testimony as if this were a criminal trial. indeed, we've reduced our witnesses to try to stay within the allotted time. however, you will hear testimony that core allegations in this case either did not factually occur or have been contradicted by core witnesses, including the house's own star witnesses. you will be hearing new evidence never disclosed previously many

this case -- in this case, including facts that were never disclosed to the members of the house before their impeachment vote. indeed, i expect many house members may be surprised to learn that the articles were based on alleged acts that we now know could not have occurred. as well as alleged acts used as the basis for removal that were entirely lawful. under east judicial -- either judicial ethics or bankruptcy rules. indeed, this is the first impeachment that i know of where the house impeached on some factual allegations that didn't actually occur. i know of no other impeachment where facts were found -- and we will demonstrate clearly that the acts didn't happen, similarly did not -- simply did not happen. this impeachment reads like a piece in sherlock holmes when holmes solves the mystery by noting, quote, the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.

the scotland yard detective, however, objects and tells mr. holmes, the dog didn't do anything in the nighttime. to which holmes responds, that was the curious incident. it was the absence of the dog barking that holmes found so suspicious. the curious incident in this case is that while the house continually refers to a massive investigation of various judges called wrinkled row and despite the fact that judge porteous waived the statute of limitations on crimes, no indictment was ever brought against him after years of inquiry. there was a reason the dog did not bark in this case. judge porteous' actions, while in some cases showing poor judgment, were, in fact, entirely legal. now, there's been an effort to portray the defense's past inquiries in this case as to cast blame on the judges of louisiana or suggesting that misconduct is generally accepted

in great that. mr. schiff attempted to make that argument saying, oh, t just new orleans. that's not what we're arguing. we've refrained from answering those types of ill-informed attacks in the "times-picayune." we waited to present the evidence to you. the purpose of this evidence is to show how small courthouses work not just in gretna, but around the country. sitting here in d.c. can warp your view of legal practice. in any corner of this city, you can throw a stick and hit two lawyers. in most towns small communities carry out the daily business of the law in a civil and close close-knit environment. lawyers and judges grow up together. they socialize with one another. what may seem sinister about a judge knowing a bail bondsman, for example, in washington is not surprising in a town like

gretna where there's, basically, one bail bondsman handling all the bonds going through the judge's chambers. while we will present new evidence to you, however, we will ask you to keep in the mind two legal truths. first, while we feel obligated to address the allegations about judge porteous when he was a state judge, a federal judge cannot be removed on the basis of prefederal conduct including in this case conduct going back 25 years before taking office. i will not argue the motions to dismiss that we have filed on these threshold issues. as you are probably aware, constitutional scholars have criticized these articles as unprecedented and dangerous. dangerous to our system. the house did not invite a single scholar to testify, to offer substantive evidence on

why these articles are so out of line with the constitutional standard. now, mr. schiff refers to mr. amar, professor amar as testifying and somehow suggesting that this is not a problem. i found that rather surprising, since what professor amar said was the state court stuff, well, that's arguably just state court stuff. he dismissed the idea of pre-federal conduct. now, we've not been allowed to argue these threshold issues before you. i understand the procedural difficulties of presenting that evidence to the committee, and i'm not questioning that decision. but we only ask the individual senators to support our request to be able to present these issues to the full senate before closing arguments. the defense side of these issues has never been heard in oral arguments. they didn't call any witnesses that would support this view in

the house. we are only asking for the same time allowed to the house and the defense that were given to the earlier motions. to present to the senate why this is unprecedented and why it is dangerous, and then we are prepared to go forward with closing arguments. we are not the only ones asking the members to hear such arguments. in the fifth circuit, judge dennis and his colleague vezzed that, quote -- stressed that, quote, congress lacked jurisdiction to impeach judge porteous for any misconduct prior to his appointment as a federal judge. you've just heard the house managers. they want to change that. i think you should seriously consider whether you want to change that. and we would like to be heard in the full senate to that effect. second, whether it is a lunch or a gift, none of these acts actually violated state ethics rules in louisiana and many other states. what the congress has impeached this judge for is an appearance of impropriety, a matter already

addressed by the fifth circuit. indeed, four appellate and district court judges in the fifth circuit expressly objected that the circuit had only found and submitted appearance violations and not impeachable conduct. i commend that decision to you. it's one of the best-written opinions i have read in a long time. ..

>> perhaps for that reason the house managers were quoted in immediate last week stating that they would want to senators to adopt a new standard, to treat a impeachment process as merely an employment termination case. they would literally have this body i top that very standards that madison rejected. for judges to serve at the pleasure of the senate, like at-will employees. senators, federal judges are not at-will employees. you will hear from all four of the major house witnesses, mr. creely, mr. amato come and go to marcottes, that they never bribed the judge, and that they did not and do not believe this judge could be bribed. they will alter that george produced was viewed as a brilliant jurist, who would not be influenced in this decision by any friendship or gift.

in observing our witnesses and evidence that we have gathered, we ask you to demand the same burden in showing from the house that you would want for yourself if you were accused of wrongdoing, and threatened with removal from federal office. without the due process of a trial. you may not approve of the state rules, or even the choices made by judge porteous. however, impeachment as you know are not popularity contests. the framers left it to 100 senators, who they believe have the institutional integrity to demand a showing of proof, and not simply passion from the house. into centuries, senators have shouldered that duty brilliantly. they have refused to remove judges when there is more proof -- there is more passion than proof. unfortunately, this case one --

proves one thing. we all have a hammer, every problem is like a nail. faced with witnesses who denied criminal, include crimes by other, the house substitute generalized ethical claim for the missing crimes and evidence in this case. it was not enough that judge porteous accepted sanctions on his court or announced his resignation next year, the staff and resources for impeachment had been committed. and regardless of the damage to our constitutional system, the house demanded removal on the basis of impropriety in my to bankruptcy violations. the result is precisely what madison warned you against. a standard so dangerous lead to find that congress could literally remove judges at its pleasure. let's turn to article i. in article i the house -- the house impeached judge porteous

on the theory that he deprived the public and litigants of quote, honest services by failing to recuse himself from presiding in the lifemark case, that my opposing counsel mentioned to you. this article poses a unique problem for you. for the first time in history, the house based an article of impeachment on a legal theory that was later found unconstitutional by the supreme court in the case of skilling versus the united states. that is also in one of the pending motions that we're asking to be heard on. putting aside the fact that the supreme court rejected the honest services theory, and by the way, the house managers knew that case was pending when they crafted that article around honest services. this article seeks to remove a judge over his response to and failure to create a recusal motion for a single case, and decades of judging. you will hear testimony about

hundreds of judges who faced recusal motions around the country every year. and they are occasionally reversed due to personal conflict in a case with counsel or parties. you will hear from new orleans professor who is a widely cited expert of the louisiana judicial system. you will see dozens of cases personal conflict with judges, including financial conflicts and recusal controversy. to remove a judge for his decision not to recuse himself would create an absurdly low standard, and could be used against literally dozens of currently sitting federal judges. the use of such an instance amounts to removing a judge because of his judicial decisions, not because of his conduct. what is fascinating is that the lawyers in the lifemark case

testified that judge porteous gave them a fair trial, even the lawyers that lost the case testified that judge porteous gave him a fair trial. now, the house brings up this business about $2000, and alleges that judge porteous fair to recuse himself was due to a wedding gift that he received, i get to that was split by his to long-term friends, longtime friends and former partners, bob creely, jacob amato. the gift was made in conjunction with the wedding that judge porteous his son, and did not occur until three years after the recusal hearing. now, i know that in impeachment, facts become affluent. and friends suddenly become a crony. suddenly, mr. amato is a crony, according to the house manager. suddenly mr. creely is a crony, not a friend.

whatever disagreements we may have with their testimony, we don't believe they are cronies. indeed, judge porteous has never challenged their integrity or their credibility, even though some evidence make it was painful against him. you will hear from both mr. cody and mr. amato, the two witnesses on this allegation, that they have stated unequivocally that they did not give this money to porteous as a bribe or to influence him. indeed, both have testified that they were and continue to be absolutely certain that the wedding gift had no influence on porteous as a federal judge. it was a gift, a wedding gift from long-standing friends. this is not to say, senators, that there is not a conspiracy in this case. there is.

however the real conspiracy involved judge porteous, not as -- sorry, the real conspiracy involved judge porteous s. not as a beneficiary, but the subject of the conspiracy. you will hear testimony that a large hospital corporation had hired an army of lawyers that succeeded in delaying a lawsuit brought against the corporation by a family of pharmacists. at issue was control of the saint jude hospital potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. win this case came to judge porteous, the case had been bounced from judge to judge for years. in that three year time span, the parties had gone through 13 judges. that's over four judges per year. for its part, lifemark seemed

eager to keep the case bouncing from court to court, and actually demanded a 14th judge. judge porteous was assigned to this case randomly, and look at this record, and set in open court, i'm going to be your last judge. that did not sit well with lifemark or its lead counsel, mr. joe mole eric while judge porteous confirmed his close relationship with plaintiff counsel and the subsequent recusal hearing, he stated that he did not do that relationship as a barrier to his ruling family. and by the way, i also would like you to read that hearing transcript i didn't see them counted on people. what i did see at the end of the transcript was his working with mr. mole to make sure that mr. mole had everything he needed to appeal him to the

fifth circuit. i commend that transcript to you to read, and you can decide he was preventing it -- presenting it more fairly -- very. indeed, you'll hear from witnesses that judge porteous' response to the recusal motion was consistent with his practice and those of his colleagues of his former state courthouse in gretna. he had been a judge for 10 years in gretna. it was common for judges to hear cases argued by friends, and recusals recurred since most of judges and lawyers in that small legal community grew up with each other or knew each other. it would shut down small town court if judges recuse themselves from every case with a friend or an acquaintance. just wouldn't get anything done. after judge porteous refused to pass the case to another judge, that 14th judge in three years, mole took an extraordinary step. a magistrate in the case, j.

wilkinson, was a friend of mole mole wanted porteous gone. and he ultimately went to judge wilkinson's brother, tom wilkinson, the jefferson parish attorney, someone could -- so who could help with a palm with a judge. tom wilkinson is reported under criminal investigation in louisiana for corruption, and his brother, magistrate wilkinson, recently recuse himself from all criminal cases. tom wilkinson arranged with mall to have one of porteous' closest friends, tom gardner into the case. carter, as you here, was far closer to porteous and his son and either the plaintiffs attorneys, mr. amato for mr. levenson. mole not only promised gardner $100,000 for just appearing in the courtroom in the case, he

promised them an additional $100,000 if he could get porteous to recuse himself or otherwise leave the case. under this effective boundary agreement on a federal judge, mole had just promised another lawyer a total of $200,000 for just appearing in the case and getting this judge to remove himself. what is remarkable, senators, is that it's unethical promise was put into a written contract. and we have that contract. in return, gardner gave the magistrate's brother, tom wilkinson, $30,000. the problem was that porteous wasn't going anywhere. while the bulk conspiracy should have been the subject of an investigation, the house decided to call mole, as they just told

you, as they witnessed on the alleged unethical act of judge porteous. know, ultimately judge porteous ruled against his closest friend, gardner, and tossed in at $100,000 bounty, and other possible peace. with only a gift made years after the recusal hearing, the house try to rely on money given to judge porteous over a 25 year friendship, before he became a federal judge. this is what led those judges in the fifth circuit to write that opinion that i just referred to. the house argued that judge porteous, as a state judge, granted curatorships to bob creely in order to get the occasional loans and gifts from his friend. mr. goodlatte just told you that the judge concedes the relationship between the money

and the curatorships. that's news to me come and it is certainly news to the judge. we have never conceded that. however, let's look at the actual witnesses. mr. creely recently testified in a deposition conducted by the defense that the senate allowed us to hold, this was his first exposure to the full examination of defense council. in that examination, mr. creely expressly and repeatedly denied that there was any connection between his loans and gifts, over decades of his relationsh relationship. that is why you didn't see any quotes from the recent deposition being thrown up on these screens by the house. instead, they went back years to find better testimony. not that long ago, mr. creely,

just a matter of a few weeks, said that he gave money to the judge because they were close friends. he testified that he never expected any benefit from such small loans or gifts, and that judge porteous would never give him any benefit. and he stated repeatedly, these kids have nothing to do with -- these kids had nothing to do with curatorships. in fact, mr. creely noted in the few times he appeared before judge porteous, porteous wrote against him, including one case where judge porteous cost of a 400,000-dollar judgment. the house continue to advance this allegation on the basis of the statement from amato about what he remembered creely telling him. we have creely. creely just testified and said that he did not give money in

relation to the curatorships. he himself has not expressly denied that in a sworn testimony. we can disagree with judge porteous' decision to remain in lifemark. but judge porteous had good reason to refuse to take this case down the road to a 14th judge. when you look at that docket, most judges would do that docket as a mockery. someone is gaming the system. you cannot burn through 14 judges in three years. you will hear that judge porteous had a reputation for stopping this type of thing. foreboding dockets along and resolving cases. and by the way, come if you look at that docket you can tell, a lot of the judges were more than eager to get rid of this case. it was highly complex. perhaps one of the most complex cases i have ever seen. ultimately, this spellbinding

league complex case was decided by the judge. and by the way, the fifth circuit reversed in part and they upheld in part. but they disagree with the judges were. this was a texas panel. they disagreed with judge porteous on a rather arcane aspect of louisiana will -- law. i'm not going to explain that arcane louisiana law anymore than mr. schiff did. for one simple reason. i am not sure i understand it. reviewing this case only served to reaffirm my decision to a constitutional law professor. in the end, however, a disagreement over his judicial decision is woefully insufficient as a basis for removal. and would create -- would elevate a routine conflict issue to a constitutional clash between two coequal branches of government. moreover, the house would have

you remove a judge, not only on the basis of free federal conduct, but conflicted pre-federal evidence. ya too far partners have not disagreed, and evidentiary status that would not even need a lower preponderance of the evidence standard in a court. once you strip away all the rhetoric, and once you look at all the evidence, a you will find that the houses solution to this problem was not to increase the evidence to meet the standard, but as you just saw, to try to lower the standard to meet the evidence. let's turn to article ii. in article ii the house impeached judge porteous purely on the basis of pre-federal conduct that goes back decades before he became a federal judge. this is precisely by the way with the houses on expert said they could not do.

article ii alleges while a state judge, judge porteous received quote, things about you from bail bondsman. louis marcotte and lori marcotte, a brother and sister. and took action that benefited the marcottes. notably, not only to the federal government rejected this as the basis of a criminal charge, but the fifth circuit expressly ruled out relying on such acts on the state level as relevant to his positions as a federal judge that the allegations in article ii were not part of the fifth circuit inquiry. the marcottes didn't testify because those judges, as with past senators, treat pre-federal conduct as immaterial. to whether he abused his office is -- as a federal judge. the house position on the bond allocations with the marcottes has continued to evolve as conflicting evidence has mounted in recent weeks. as you will see, roughly a week

ago the house stated in its pretrial statement that, quote, the house does not allege that judge porteous said any particular bond too high or too low. so despite months discussing bond amounts and splitting bonds, the house has now conceded that judge porteous did not manipulate bond amount to assist the marcottes. what is left is the fact that design bonds as a state judge with the marcottes, who by the way, handled 95% or more of the bonds going through that state court. what is left is that judge porteous had lunches and received gifts from the marcottes, as did other judged in the district. yet the government does not claim a single bond, not one, was ever sent, was ever set by judge porteous as too high or too low. moreover, the house can see that judge porteous did not sign a

single bond, not one, for the marcottes as a federal judge. not high, not low, not ever. as a federal judge. putting aside the fact that judge porteous' conduct as a state judge is irrelevant to his conduct as a federal judge. article ii ignores that judges are not barred from receiving meals and gifts from lawyers or others. while the house cannot produce any receipts for the gifts or meals, just told you it could be hundreds of meals, if that's their evidentiary standard, it could be millions of meals. he could have never stopped eating. the fact is, we don't have the receipts in the record, but we don't deny that judge porteous and all of the judges in gretna often had lunches bought for them. but they are suggesting that this is, quote, corruption even if it didn't violate judicial ethics. you will hear from all four of

the houses star witnesses, creely, amato and the marcottes, that all judges in gretna were regularly bought meals, given just by lawyers, bail bondsman, and others. we are not saying that this was a den of corruption that we are saying it was lawful. if you go to a lot of small towns you will see the same thing. and if you want to restrict the rules, you can change the rules. but by the way, we put into the record opinions by court that they say they believe this is a good thing to have judges and lawyers who have social relationships. we are to put that in the record. this is something that is not new. you will see it comes up a lot when people allege these recusals. and uniformly the courts have said don't come to us and just think this guy is a close friend. that's not enough to force a judge to recuse himself, let alone to remove him in a constitutional trial. the house does its best to take a small number of lunches as a

federal judge, and make it look sinister. the problem is that the house could only come up with six lunches at a place called the beat connection, in gretna, louisiana, when he was a federal judge. six. now, what the house did is they presented these lunches, and basically portrayed the total value of the lunches that went to judge porteous. it looked like he received a considerable amount of money in these lunches. however, as this shows the house actually was due with a total of meals for large parties where judge porteous was just one of many lunch guests. they just charge the whole bunch against them. in reality, even if he was present at these lunches it would amount to less than $250

in five years. i would like to repeat that. $250 in five years. these meals included meals as well as $29. now, by the way, i said it 40s was at these lunches. the reason i say give, is because the house include a couple of meals were there was no specific record of judge porteous being actually at the lunch. however, what their position is, is that since someone had absolut vodka and judge porteous is no two-drink absolut vodka, must have been him. and so they added those two to six and age is counted those against him. now, i can tell you in a visit to the beat connection, were able to confirm that judge porteous was not the only person in louisiana who drinks absolut vodka. but as you can see, the key

facts they relied on is a notation that somebody at this table have to absolute. and they said they did that to you so you could throw in the mix of removal of a federal judge. the house suggest that such meals from the marcottes were intended to influence judge porteous and get him to help them with bonds, a type of before bonds very. that by giving him beef, they would give him bonds. of course, not house concedes that they are not say that he set bonds too high or too low for the marcottes. you added in his insight any bonds that were invalid where this guy didn't even deserve a bond. after our deposition with the marcottes, the house had to concede this point. you hear from both of the

marcottes, if your testimony is consistent, that they did not believe that judge porteous was influenced in his decisions on bonds by meals or gifts. there was no before bonds -- beef for bones. indeed, they both testified judge porteous rejected bonds from that and could not be bought. you hear from gretna criminal clerk darcy griffith that portis insisted that any representation made by the marcottes he checked out with the district attorney, the police or the jail before the granting of a bond. indeed, you will hear testimony that judge porteous himself often picked up a phone, called the prosecutors, called the jail, to personally make sure that the underlying facts were correct. perhaps the most serious misrepresentation to the house was the portrayal of judge

porteous' granting bonds and splitting them a split bond is well-known to criminal defense attorneys. it is simply split between a commercial component and a property or third party component. in this way a person who might not be able to afford the full or entire bond could still secure the bond by getting a family member to commit and put her property up as a surety. despite was made in this case, judge porteous did not invent split bond. most judges come to her testimony, most judges in gretna split bonds with the support of the state prosecutors. split bond reviewed as a way to the return oppressors who would otherwise be released under mandatory court order. if you have a bond on the guy, someone will find him because i have a financial interest to find him. you will hear from former

district attorney john mumma leaders, and louisiana judge, on how and why split bond were widely used and accepted in gretna. likewise, the house -- dramatically increased the number of bonds as he was living to take the bench. this was a big part of what the house was told. there was this, the called floodgates theory, injured part of it today but you will notice that they stop talking about the bonds suddenly. and now they're talking about expungement, one or two expungements. the floodgates to respect the house neighbors were told about was that in the last month, in the last day, judge porteous issued an unusually high number of bonds in repayment for the beef come into the benefit of the marcottes. the only problem with the floodgates allegation, it happens to be completely and demonstrably untrue.

it turns out that there was only one bond signed by judge porteous on his last day, and only 29 signed in the last month. it actually falls to 27 if you look at from the time he was confirmed. this is described by the marcottes in their testimony as the average number of bonds for any period. there's no floodgate. however, to dispel any doubt we ask the gretna clerk to send us a random year from judge porteous' 10 years as a state judge. we selected 1986. we had no information on that year, other than the fact that it was before the marcottes and establish themselves in the bond business. one of the best ways to look at whether the floodgates theory is true, take a year before the marcottes control the business. those bonds have been submitted into the record and show that there is months of the year exceeded the number of bonds signed by judge porteous during

the so called floodgates month in 1994. even though the marcottes were not involved. indeed, one month, september 1986, showed 51 bonds signed by judge porteous, far greater than in 19 bonds that were presented in this sinister way. this must have been a rush to try to pay back for the beef. moreover, the 1986 record show a total of approximately 3200 bonds signed by all judges in the district. .com if we extend that over 10 years, and by the way, the numbers should be higher because gretna over the years expanded and the court system actually expanded, but let's just take that lower figure and forget about expansion. that would mean at least 32000 bonds passed through gretna while judge porteous served on the bench. the house was never told what

the total pool of bonds were. they were never told that judge porteous signed more bonds and some months before the marcottes and establish themselves. now, mr. goodlatte switched rails come and suddenly the floodgates theory is not about bonds which was the subject of so much discussion with house members. now it's about to set-asides, or exposure cases. what congressman goodlatte said is that judge porteous said that he was not going to set aside or expunge audrey wallace's case, because he did what to do that before he was confirmed. the only problem with that argument is it is also untrue. wallace's burglary conviction was set aside on september 21, 1994, before judge porteous was confirmed. not only that, in the hearing judge porteous said that he intended to expunge the record

before he was confirmed. that was in open court. all that remains in this case is the fact that judge porteous signed bonds for the marcottes. you hear testimony of virtually all of the judges signed for the marcottes for one simple reason. the marcottes purportedly did 95% or more of the bonds in gretna. virtually no one else is doing bonds in gretna. if you take any judge, you will find roughly 95% of the bonds came from the marcottes for the obvious reason. moreover, you hear testimony that judge porteous was a national advocate for the use of bonds as a vital part of the criminal process. jefferson parish, during this entire period, was under a court order for overcrowding. it was a case where virtually any prisoner in meant one prisoner out. it was one of the most stringent

court orders in the nation. people, thousands of felons were being released under cour3 people, thousands of felons were being released under court order, and were just banished. and the judges in gretna would constantly call these people and they would just be told they are gone. judge porteous, and we've heard the houses on witnesses admit this, often spoke publicly and encouraged other judges to use bonds. because the chance that a person will return if they have a bond on them is much, much higher. because you've got a bail jumper agent who will find them. otherwise the only way these people be fined if they get pulled over by police officers and happen to run the record and say, all right, you're a bond jumper. but if you put a bond on them, someone has a clear financial interest to look at that guy, and did. and exact judge porteous who have spoken national on this,

was correct. studies show that by getting a bond on any prisoner, the chances that they will end up in court and not flee, or at least not flee and not be found, are much, much higher. in the end, when you take all this evidence, strip away the false claims, article ii is nothing more than what "macbeth" described, a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. he signed bonds as a state judge. like the other judges in gretna. let's turn to article iii. we actually agree with house managers when they say this is the one that is a basin pre-federal country. we actually agree with that. article iii is, in fact, a non-pre-federal conduct article. instead, what basically what they're arguing, instead of pre-federal conduct is that he made a series of errors and

misstatements in connection with a personal bankruptcy that he and his late wife carmela found in 2001. what is most striking about article iii is that the houses trying to use common problems that have occurred in hundreds of thousands of bankruptcy cases. which you here in testimony. they are trying to take something that occurs in hundreds of thousands of cases and say it's the akin to things like treason and bribery. to do this, now suggest these errors were part of a nefarious plan to defraud the bankruptcy court, or his creditors. the problem with this theory is that judge porteous, and i want to emphasize this, paid more than he was scheduled today in bankruptcy. he paid more than what originally he was scheduled to pay to his creditors. that was never explained to

house members did they just talk about this bankruptcy and enters into bankruptcy. as if that's something you in bankruptcy. it's thousands of citizens each year, judge porteous made mistakes in a personal bankruptcy case. but those mistakes have nothing to do with his office, nothing to do with the basis for removing him as a federal judge. the porteouses file chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2001 this case was processed like every other bankruptcy case, with one exception. but ultimately it resulted in the successful discharge of the portion of their debt in 2004. after they paid more than $57,000 to the trustee of which 52000 went to the creditors. the exception i was referring to was that this case was scrutinized far more heavily than a normal bankruptcy case. he had to bankruptcy judges

preside over it. a chapter 13 trustee, you'll be hearing from, administered. the federal bureau of investigation and the department of justice investigated. in fact, the doj and the fbi specifically met with a bankruptcy trustee while the police is bankruptcy case was still pending. this wasn't after. they met with a trusty while it was pending. and discuss with them all of these allegations. nevertheless, that one of these authorities, not the bankruptcy judges come out of trustee, not the fbi, the doj, took any steps to alter the case of the bankruptcy court. as in the case, there was no bark to be heard to change the status of the bankruptcy case. what's more, the doj's specifically declined to pursue criminal charges against judge porteous in connection to the

bankruptcy case. as you know the doj routinely prosecutes bankruptcy cases. finally, none of the porteouses creditors ever made an objection or file a complaint. they had no problem with this bankruptcy. the porteouses, like so many americans, simply became overwhelmed with their mounting credit card debt, which is the result of raising gifts. and yes, the house managers keep on referring to the fact that they gambled. all right, the secret is out. the porteouses gamble. they gambled for recreation. they probably gambled too much. but that's not illegal. with credit card bills mounting, they sought the help from a bankruptcy attorney that the house managers referred to you earlier, mr. lightfoot. embarrassed by their degenerating financial situation, they asked mr. lightfoot to help quote, workout or restructure their debt. this was an effort to avoid

bankruptcy. they worked through the summer and fall of 2000, in the winter of 2001, to avoid bankruptcy. and then, they concluded they would have to declare bankruptcy, as mr. lightfoot tried to work with the creditors. so, edward 2001 it became clear that they had to file for bankruptcy. and like many others, in that case, and certainly most of the people in bankruptcy, the porteouses were shown to be horrible recordkeepers, and obviously bad money managers are that's a fair will -- fairly common trait of that when people declare bankruptcy. they tend to have problems with records and money management. during these discussions of mr. lightfoot proposed the idea that the porteouses file their original bankruptcy petition under the pseudonym ortous. let me repeat that. mr. lightfoot proposed that they filed under that name.

he previous he testified to that effect. he said it was his idea to avoid embarrassment for the porteouses, and for their children. because they didn't want it plastered all over "the times-picayune." the newspaper in 2001 published weekly names of everyone who sought bankruptcy protection, and come out with particularly embarrassed i that type of publicity for the family. while most bankruptcy filers enjoy anonymity through this process, involving so many cases, public figures were and are singled out other bankruptcy filing. and as public figures yourself, i'm sure you can understand these filings are examined in excruciating detail it and people love it. they love to read about bankruptcy of famous people. to avoid this, mr. lightfoot proposed that the porteouses file their original bankruptcy

petition under the pseudonym, and they also use a p.o. box that mr. lightfoot advised judge porteous to obtain. mr. lightfoot has testified that neither he nor judge porteous ever intended to defraud the court, and any other porteouses' -- porteouses creditors are so evident that mr. lightfoot proposed the change at the same industry to assist in a front. his purpose was obvious. and, frankly, was humane. he was trying to protect the family from the initial embarrassment of bankruptcy. the porteouses, however, when they filed as original papers included their true social security numbers. those numbers as you here are very important in bankruptcy because that's what it's used to track, that's what creditors use to track people in bankruptcy. trustee polio later stated that

he had seen the use of p.o. boxes in other cases, and that since the names were changed since the first notice went to creditors, he said, oh, no harm, no foul. because we cannot understand is that the names were changed about 12 days later so no creditors actually got this mature. there were no creditors that were misled. and the trustee himself said look, it's no harm, no foul and you also hereby the way, even though the house makes this great deal about the use of a p.o. box, p.o. boxes are used over time. it is not a violation. the trustee was a no harm, no foul and house to rent and said, maybe no harm, no foul but let's use it to remove the eighth federal judge in history of the republic. they specifically planned to file and, in fact, they did file an amended complaint in 12 days correcting the name and address.

as a result, no creditor received any notice in connection with the porteouses, without full and accurate information. in the end, the only party that did not get information was "the times-picayune," but i was only for a short time. and the "the times-picayune" quickly began running the venues historic mr. lightfoot and the porteouses wanted to avoid. throughout the bankruptcy process, especially in connection to the decisions about what information to include in these filings, judge porteous relied heavily on mr. lightfoot. as a federal judge i think you'd understand most of the federal judges do not have expertise in bankruptcy. the house has for the alleged a series of other areas and inaccuracies in the porteouses bankruptcy schedules and material. the house argued that each of these discrepancies must be part of a dark plan to go off the

bankruptcy system for his own game. here again, the facsimile don't support the allegations come into allegations, even if to by the way, even if you take everything that my colleagues from the house have said today, it would still not what the basis for removal. the house decided small commissions of assets to suggest the creditors were defrauded, however, the house never told the house members that the porteouses were in the minority of debtors to successfully complete their bankruptcy. they were the minority. of debtors who completed their bankruptcy. indeed, they provide almost 35% repayment to unsecured creditors, and over $52,000. you will hear from experts, former judges and trustees, that this is actually significantly more value to its creditors that would have been the case under a

chapter seven liquidation. the house also relied on the fact that judge porteous gave lightfoot is made -- is may 2000 a step towards income, but he later didn't supply and updated paystub, reflecting a slight increase in salary. what the house did not inform the house members was that this difference about it, not just to only about specifically $173.99, but that had no material impact on the creditors. who are paid $52,000. moreover, lightfoot file shows that judge porteous did tell him that his neck and come -- that his net income was higher. he did tell him. he did reveal it. and reveal that it was higher than that earlier paystub.

the heirs were his counsel and not judge porteous. and by the way, once again, i'm not casting dispersion on mr. lightfoot. these are very small things that happen in bankruptcy. when you have all these receipts coming from people who have trouble managing their money. likewise, the house i'd such errors as a bank one account that you just heard about this. that have as low as $200 in assets, that's about a clever design to defraud creditors. does that really make sense? $200? vendors of the fidelity homestead association account. now here, you can just have $200. we can see the. you had $283.43. so let's rounded upwards, shall request let's say it's $300. is that going to be relied on for the removal of a federal judge after 16 years of service?

whether it's a tax refund check or a single credit card, these problems are routine. that's what these experts are going to tell you. moreover, errors cited by house members were actually not material to the bankruptcy plan, such as this business of small creep petition payments that were not listed. the house members are. they were pretty petition payments that you should consider to impeach mr. judge. the problem is that pretty petition payments are legal under bankruptcy law. white house site entry new debt there is no bar to concurring debt by statute. in this area. it's important to remember that the confirmation order that you are going to hear about was design to complete, to guarantee completion of the repayment plan. most people don't complete it. the porteouses did. they completed it and paid more

under that plan. now, throughout his allegations the house mentions mayors and mistakes, but never mentioned that those intentions had no impact, material impact on creditors who are, after all, the focus of the bankruptcy process. both the porteouses gambled as their primary form of recreation. a practice that judge porteous later stopped with professional help, and hasn't resumed since. however, the house managers keep trying to distract the senate, as they did the house, bite without disclosing -- by without disclosing markers, that's what you'll be hearing about. that is a market. that's what you'll be hearing about. in a descent into porteous case before the fifth circuit, a judge and his colleagues objected to the use of markers as evidence of wrongdoing in bankruptcy matters, because come and i quote, under louisiana commercial law markers are

considered checks as defined by louisiana statute. they treat this as an and cash check. -- as an uncashed check. should they continue to gamble? no. but in the end, discontinued gambling was not a problem for the creditors of the porteouses. it was a problem for the porteouses. it was a personal problem. we will be be creating a record that was never made in the house on this issue of bankruptcy. you hear from professor from the university of washington who will explain important differences between chapter seven and chapter 13 bankruptcies, that the house appears to have missed in the earlier discussion. he was show airs like these that were quite, by both debtors and creditors in bankruptcy cases, and that mistakes in this case

created no material harm to creditors but you also hear from united states bankruptcy judge of the northern district of illinois, rod, who is widely cited and respected in his field. judge barnett will explain to chapter 13 case is developed, had judges in bankruptcy rely on trustee, like magistrate tracy did you explain how the bankruptcy code contained no authority for an order barring a data for incurring debt after bankruptcy. simply as that. something the house did mention to the house members. we will also explain that congress has specified that the principal consequence for unauthorized debt is that the data simply not dischargeable. that's the consequence. if you have that debt is not dischargeable. i would say that significantly different in magnitude than being removed in a senate trial

as a federal judge. you also hear that the united states, united states, from the mistakes bankruptcy trustee, hank hildebrand, we will call a separate trustee. magistrate hildebrand is another later in his field come has worked extensively come his opinions are cited quite widely. you will explain a chapter 13 is a voluntary repayment program and that the most serious problem simply results in the threat of a dismissal of the case. and that that threat is usually withdrawn as soon as the problems are remedied. people explain how chapter 13 debtors frequently fail to complete plans. he will explain that 55% of debtors fail to fulfill the plan. and that the porteouses were in the minority in successfully paying, completing come and paying more to the creditors. none of these issues were

explained to the house. instead of house impeached a federal judge on areas that did not materially affect its creditors. did not complete him from completing his bankruptcy plan or paying creditors that he was originally told. this would take the senate from a standard citing such crimes as treason to the removal of a judge, based on such things as a $200 discrepancy on a credit card. let's move to the last article. as with article two, article four seeks judge porteous' removal on the basis of pre-federal congress going back decades. this time under the guise of a failure to disclose such conduct during confirmation. the standards at the house seeks to oppose is frankly absurdly subjective. data judge porteous failed to disclose information that he, judge porteous that would be embarrassing to president

clinton. assuming judge porteous thought he had done nothing wrong or appropriate, and as we've been presenting evidence about them he would think it would not be investing to him for president clinton. even if the senate comes to the conclusion that judge porteous acted improperly and should put something of these floating allegations down, you can't conclude that he thought these actions were improper and, therefore, embarrassing without concluding that judge porteous acted with the intent to be seized. there's no basis of that conclusion. the evidence will show the allegations contained in this article are also completely and demonstrably untrue. i'm not saying challenged. i'm saying untrue. for example, the house specifically impeached judge porteous on the failure to mention a brief conversation he had with louis marcotte. now come you didn't hear this mentioned by the house manager in their presentation. but boycott it was mentioned

before. but more important it's in the article. the house managers have said that the judge should be impeached because he failed to mention this conversation when he filled out the form. when he filled out the background form. the only problem is we revealed after the house impeached this judge, the conversation occurred after the forms were filled out. it was impossible for him to put into these documents a conversation that hadn't occurred yet. moreover, even if you believe that a judge when someone like marcotte comes to them and says i did a clean bill of health. by the way, the most common thing that background witnesses tell nominees, i gave you a clean bill of health. even if you believe there's something wrong with them, not the neatly picking up the phone and sync i would like to submit

a supplemental filing same disk i gave a clean bill of health, even if you think that warrant an impeachment, it couldn't have happened in this case the way the article stated. indeed, i believe this is the first impeachment that i know of for a fact contain an article of impeachment simply did not occur. the embarrassment question, as you know, as senators, is universally answered in the negative by a nominee. even though there are many cases where some embarrassing facts are, in fact, disclosed. testimony from experts will show you what the figures are like on this, what the cases are like. but nominees routinely omit financial even a criminal histories from the background reporting. omissions that occurred in the dozens of high profile cases that resulted in no action, no

action. taken against the nominee, including some cases would be embarrassing facts were revealed before confirmation, and they were confirmed. revealed not by the nominee that they were confirmed. for the mark the evidence will show that judge porteous issue is a bond intuitions are in line with other judges. there is no reason why he would say this is embarrassing because i did something all of us in credited. not because it was corrupt but because that was how it was done. it was not illegal. finally, we will show that the basic allegation contained in article iv were known by the fbi and the senate committee before judge porteous' confirmation. this is precisely what the house is owned experts warned could not be the basis for removal. the pre-federal conduct referred by the house was not at the time of confirmation. we have put in the record proof

of that. the house numbers were never told that during impeachment. once again, this was never discussed or disclosed to the house. we found new evidence before the senate. moreover, not only are curatorships and bonds matters of public record, that judge porteous took no effort to conceal, they were in fact the same records and actions all of the judges. you hear testimony from professor mackenzie who is widely viewed not as a leader in this field, he is viewed as the leader in this field. is numerous books on the confirmation process and a background investigation. you will hear testimony of the failure to make disclosures is common among federal nominees, with literally dozens of these cases. as senators, we admit we probably don't have to tell you, you deal with it regularly. you have seen countless such

questionnaires, and i daresay i would be surprised if you know of many questionnaires where someone answered the embarrassment question in the negative. but professor mackenzie will show you dozens of cases where it was answer to the negative and either before a successful confirmation or after, embarrassing things were disclosed. not just for judges but also justices. if this could be the basis of removal, think about it. concrete could sit on a background questionnaire and simply remove a judge at will for failure to disclose. you can just filed these things and find things you think he should have thought was embarrassing, and bring them up on the identical article, article iv. literally dozens of judges could be removed on the same ground. judges sitting today on the federal court. in this case the house want you to remove a judge on a failure to disclose information that he did not consider relevant or

embarrassing when those allegations were already known by the senate and the fbi. in closing, i will note that in only a couple of months of representing judge porteous, we've been able to show fundamental errors, contradictions, and withheld evidence in the case. this is the peril of proceeding to an impeachment without a prior criminal trial. that's why congress set in all modern impeachment away for a criminal trial. and even if the trial by the way, doesn't stop you from head to impeachment, but was it -- but what it does give you is a trial record. indeed, late last night we received new evidence, long held by the justice department, literally hours before these proceedings began. the record in this case continues to change, not by the week, not by the day, but by the hour.