>> we have this formulation which is we cannot want it more than the parties themselves want it. why can't we? isn't that a contradiction. if it's a vital interest, why can't we wanted more than the parties themselves? is there a problem in our position? >> i don't think so. i think that in the end there is no way to impose a peace or a plan. i think there are ways to put ideas on the table and do more in terms of the bridging activities, but ultimately, whatever does that comes out of it has to be implemented by the people in the region. so we cannot, from our distance, decided that this is the way it should be. it's the people on the ground don't think so. what's interesting. i talked to the class this morning and the last assignment for my students was to put down what the priorities were for the next year. and mostly people thought it was

nuclear nonproliferation, but a large number of them did think that middle east peace, or lack of them was the key to a whole series of other issues that were not resolved. so in my billiard ball analogy, i think that peace in the middle east is one of those horizontally dynamic events that would have effects in other places. by don't think that we can say that the people on the ground have to want it or it will never happen. >> thank you very much. we will start with the right and then go to the left. please go ahead. and if i make him i'm going to take two questions at the time. so please go ahead. >> you mentioned the effect of iran in noting the students on nonproliferation. how does the united states address the link between iran and their nuclear ambitions in broader arab-israeli areas?

>> and we will take one from the left as well. >> you talked a bit about how you think barack obama is going about this. but my question is, now, what exactly is he doing to pursue peace in the middle east? because all it is is talked and talked in more speeches. that's not really a publishing anything. what sort of things has he done to forward that? and what do you think is being accomplished? it seems like that president netanyahu was all alone in this, and i don't think we're showing the sort of support to israelis or to the other nations there to forward peace, less so that we did in the past eight years. and as you can point to what you think is actually being done. >> first of all, i think that this is the right day to be talking about what is being done about iran and the nuclear threats. they came out this morning saying that they now had his yellowcake which gives them more independent in terms of creating

their own nuclear power. whether a weapon or just nuclear energy. and talks have begun in geneva. they had a session this morning. and the question is, what will be next. and what united states i think in the p5+1, better talking with iran with the idea to persuade them that they need to come clean on what they have on nuclear energy, and to allow the inspectors to go in. so it's a combination -- and when we believe, and by the way, when i say we can't justify because i do not represent the administration in any shape or form. and, in fact, one of the best part about no loading secretary of state if i can actually answer your questions. [laughter] >> but the bottom line is the belief is that the sanctions in fact are working, which is why the iranians have been willing

to come to geneva. they're not going to admit that they are working, but there clearly are pressures on the economy in some chance of moving. there is no question that the israelis, for good reason, regard iran as an existential threat. as the president obama and other leaders come as is normal, has said that they don't take any option off the table, but that they want to see whether they can do this combination of pushing with very tough sanctions resolutions and then also at least holding out the possibility of engagement through talks. on your question, i think that it's very important to understand kind of the choreography of negotiations. what happens is that there are, first of all, the will to do something about this has been stated over and over again by president obama. but you don't normally put a president into the middle of

negotiations and tell there have been a lot of other efforts made at lower levels. so former senator george mitchell is in the region all the time, goes back and forth. secretary clinton has had i don't know how many meetings trying to figure out how to make this work. she said she just spent seven hours with prime minister netanyahu in new york, having spent seven hours with prime minister netanyahu i know how hard that is. [laughter] >> he is not alone. i think on the contrary. i think he is a great deal of support in israel and in the united states. but i think that the way it is set up, or at least it was when we were in office, dennis ross was the negotiator. i would go in and meet at a variety of times commented president clinton would get engaged at various phases where we thought that we could move the process of further. and so that is the way i foresee this going on, which is that

president obama has set the course, has made very clear what he wants, a two-state solution, security for israel, and that it negotiators are trying to move some of the underbrush and try to sort out and put ideas on the table, and that this is a priority for the united states, at least that's my view of it. >> we will take two more again from the right and left. >> secretary secretary albright, regarding the high tensions right now in the peninsula come in show of the few people that have ever in modern times have ever gone to north korea, do you think that any form of armed conflict of war will help the two koreas? >> i am an undergraduate student. my question is more to do with current events right now. i was wondering first of all what your reaction was to wikileaks situation right now.

do you think if it was a positive or negative thing? and then if you are secretary of state what would you do? what with the necessary steps to do just? >> on north korea i do have to say i to north korea in the late fall of 2000. and i still highest level sitting american official to go to north korea and to meet kim jong-il. president clinton and president carter were there in order to get hostages out but they were no longer in office. and so i think that what is most unfortunate is that we left the talks at the end of 2000, and out of office in 2001, that they did not pick up from where we had left them. i believe that we were moving in a positive direction in terms of having made clear to the north koreans that the united states had no hostile intent. they were willing to limit their -- banning missile moratorium, and they also were willing to stop the exports at a friday of nuclear technology.

the bush administration force own reasons did not follow up with that. it was a hiatus, and ultimately moving to the six-party talks, parts of which looked as though they might be successful and in the north koreans backed out of various parts. i think that what is nervous making about this is that we are not very knowledgeable about what is going on in north korea. there is speculation that all this shalit and various -- schelling and acts of force that there's a process beginning and that kim jong-il wants to annoy his 27 year old son. some of you here are 27, -- had 27 notes on. so the question is, how in fact that is going to work. and that there could be miscalculation. i actually do not think -- i

think people are very much aware of the dangers of war, but that there could be a miscalculation because there has been shooting, and the south koreans have said that they are going to have a variety of exercises. and sometimes accidents happen. but i think that we have to be -- i personally do not see a war coming out of this. i do worry that we'll have a lot of leverage your, that the chinese you're supposed to be the ones with the greatest influence are not pushing as hard as one would hope on the north koreans. secretary clinton is meeting today with the south koreans and the japanese. and what is happening is i think a tightening of the relationships around an american center, an alliance, and southeast asia. and that there is more of a dedication to doing things

together. but for me it's the miscalculation that is a bit more of the problem. wikileaks. i think, what i love is, speaking of krushinski who was my professor, said that this reminded him of something that happened in vienna in the 19th century where the people said this is a catastrophe but it's not serious. [laughter] >> it is definitely, it is a very bad problem and i know secretary clinton has been traveling around saying i'm so sorry, i'm so sorry. because part of what happens is that you do have to -- our diplomats, the job of a diplomat is to be the eyes and ears of the country that he or she is representing a broad, and trying to find out what is happening. and so this material comes in, and i can tell you, i mean, a lot of it is just data which event ultimately is assessed by other people and in policy comes

out of that. it is not necessarily the policy. but it clearly is unpleasant, and a lot of people have said just put yourself in the position of, if you were talking to the person behind you about the person standing here, you might not want to know that you don't like his red tie. so i think that the issue is what in fact it just and personal relationships that go on. it is a problem. it is also generally a problem that we don't quite know how to do with the information revolution. in so many different ways. or we don't know what to do about cyber attacks. this is in some ways the beginning of a potentially way that people get inside each other's information systems, and then use them for bad causes. i just finished the helibond to the building blocks for a new

nato strategic concept. we were a group of experts that, in fact, pointed out that cyber terrorism, cyber attacks are going to be the biggest new problem, and how you handle them. this has not had the kind of label, cyber attack. but if you think about what's going on, it is a way to get inside information systems and the damage. and from what i understand, this person has decided that if he is arrested he's going to release a bunch of other stuff. so i never like. i really never liked it when one person decides that he or she has the right to kind of undue an entire system. what makes this person think that he is doing the right thing? i do not think it's the right thing. i also do think that this kind of voyeuristic aspect to it. so it's fun to read but it isn't damaging. and that is the problem. >> we will take two more.

>> how do you think of the role of the committee and solving committees crisis? >> the intelligence committee? >> yes, like the cia. >> do you want -- you want to take another one? >> dr. albright, he had won the most difficult conversations in the world, with one of the most difficult people. i guess i was wondering what are some of the techniques used to do with some of these people, especially as a woman with these very difficult leaders? >> first of all, let me say i teach a course at the university in another place,. [laughter] >> in which i think foreign policy is trying to get some country to do what you want. that's all of this. my course is called the national toolbox. and you look into the toolbox and the truth is there are not a lot of tools in there. there is diplomacy, bilateral and multilateral, the economic

tools that cares, the trade and aid in the sticks which are embargoes and sanctions, and the threat of use of force, the use of force, intelligence and law enforcement. that's it. and the question is how, in fact, you mix-and-match. so intelligence is a very important part of it. and an example that i've used is when president bush decided that preemption was a part of american doctrine, i thought about it this way, which is that if somebody, if you were there and had a gun and you pulled it on me, and i had a gun, i could shoot back. if someone in the back of the room to the same thing and came out with a gun and i had a gun, i could shoot back. it would be self-defense. if somebody came to me and said their summary downstairs with a box, kind of a strange shape and he has been busy in the. so let's go get them. in summary then goes and gets

them, and finds it has a saxophone and it. you have committed murder. that's what intelligence is the achilles' heel of that particular doctrine. but also it shows the importance of knowing you need to know more about your enemy. you need to know about the internal structures in a variety of ways in the country. and that is the analytical part of intelligence. and in costly, and i have literally just had this discussion with my students, and i don't think covert activities the sexes thing at all. the bottom line is it doesn't happen that often and in the nine states by law you can't have covert activity that does not, in fact, match the stated position. so intelligence is important that it has to again, the other part, intelligence is a product. and a the decision-maker is the consumer. and every intelligence that i ever read would say this might

happen. it's a lot of different scenarios. and the question is, what's the decision-maker brings to it and sees different things in the intelligence, although that like a rorschach test. so it is very important. on your in -- on your question i think it's very -- i was just rereading something. whether you're i have to go and do a historical interview on. are just rereading what it was like to go talk to milosevic. part of the thing that happened, here i knew that this person was responsible for the death or ethnic cleansing or removal of hundreds of thousands of people, and yet the issue was to try to go and talk to him about something. and he was on a charm offensive. i thought he was just so disgusting in terms of thinking that he could charm me, and he was, you know, all combed and

oiled up. [laughter] and basically, my father was ambassador, czechoslovakia ambassador to yugoslavia. so happen to know a little bit about the history. so he starts in on history and i said wait a minute, i know the history. we don't have to do this. is talk about what's happening now. and i also had another trick which i would say i have come a long way so i must be frank. and i would really let him have it. now, the problem was the following, and this was, i had turned down the idea that there be a press conference because he wanted to stand next to him and try to make nice? so he ambushed me, and brought cameras in the end he said, if you what has my book is a picture of me. one of the hard parts come for an american especially to be shaking hands with somebody and not smile. or not be nice but it's just

kind of an automatic reaction. so i just had his game face on that was fairly grim. but the bottom line is you have is -- you had to talk to people you don't like it and the question is how long you have some kind of a decent human conversation, and then after that how, in fact, you get to the point. because you were there defending your country's national interest. and if you don't get the point out it doesn't get made. and as a woman, i really think that it's easier to start a charming part, and then they are a little kind of off their game it and then you let them have it. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. >> take two more. >> good afternoon, secretary albright. i'm a graduate student here. thank you very much for coming. my question is this. general petraeus at georgetown

last year actually said, when asked what does winning look like with the war on terror, the war on al qaeda. and i want to ask you the same question. his answer was when we are not being attacked anymore. but the problem is how do we reach that point? so what is your vision of victory in this global conflict? and do you think we will reach that in our lifetimes? >> should we do one -- >> how are you? i'm a senior here. you were saying about the jordanian prime minister, that he bowed down to he kneeled down in front of the families that were, the dogs that were killed that obviously read an article about come it was like a router is a journalist who was fired upon by apache helicopter in iraq. and civilians were killed, little children were killed. and in a helicopter they were just like, great job, nice work,

and just had no remorse whatsoever for killing civilians. i'm just curious how you feel about the building support in iraq and how we are doing that, just trying to build support there when we are doing things like this. >> well, first of all, these questions actually go together in an interesting way. is i think that it is very difficult to try to figure out how to feel safe and secure in a situation where the enemy is using a variety of tactics that are very different from what a normal military has to deal with. i think that we have in some ways changed what people are looking for as a final time. not that afghanistan, i hate this term, we'll ever be a

jeffersonian democracy. that is so ridiculous. at the issue is that basically a way that al qaeda has been dismantled and destroyed, and does not pose a threat to us. i think there is also the additional sense that the taliban not be in charge of the country. but that what will be a winnable moment is when the afghans are running their own lives. the problem is, and i have no answer for this, because what is happening is that as al qaeda is being defeated and destroyed and dismantled in afghanistan, it is moving to yemen, or somalia, or whatever. and the question is, how we view, your generation, lives with this kind of movable threat. and the extent to which we allow the fear factor to dominate our lives. i think that unfortunate will have to live for a lot of this and try to figure out more about

what the cost of it is. and that is going to take much longer. i think to a great extent we know that situations in countries, whether it be the gap between the rich and the poor or dislike have some previous action is what leads to this. so that has to be more work done to try to figure the basis of it, which is one of the reasons i hate the term islamic terrorism. and yet we have to figure out why some of it is a link to those who believe in islam, and one of the reasons that i like this partners for new beginning is try to figure out how we can have a different relationship with various parts of muslim majority countries so that they can deal with some of these problems internally. but there is not going to be any very clear -- i think general petraeus said this, you know, some kind of surrender ceremony

on the missouri, or whatever a very different thing you have to live with. now come under question, i honestly find it, except for a few bad eggs or apples, that americans don't like to kill civilians. it is not part of what the rules of engagement are. it is a very difficult situation. i think that when we -- when i was in office and there were actions that happened during the war in kosovo, and we heard that some convoy was blown up, everybody was distraught. and so it does not happen on purpose, and the americans and nato have apologized. they do go and apologize. and so i hate the term collateral damage. you know, i mean, these are human beings but there are serious issues in terms of civilians being used as shields sometimes. we were criticized, not that i am defensive or anything, but

basically when our embassies were hit in kenya and tanzania, then president clinton decided to launch cruise missile against osama bin laden's camps in afghanistan. and i was the lead witness on the 9/11 commission, and there were those who said, why didn't you hit much harder at that point? and part of it was, we said we did have actionable intelligence, because what we could see was that he was supposed to have been someplace. and then the woman and women and children in that place. so i honestly do not believe that american forces or nato forces ever have instructions to hit civilians. and when it happens, it's accidental and they apologized. >> thank you. >> just a couple more. >> we will take the last two. thank you. sorry to the others. we will take the lassitude spirit in your most recent book you talk about your opinions and

some of the stories behind them and does what if you could make a couple of remarks on the pin you chose today. >> all right. >> as passionate as a universal argument of not just ideas but of resources come and excuse the clichéd nature of this question, but how do the student and faculty members are, how can we utilize our resources not to kind of essentially help the world in the future? or even currently as students and faculty are? >> i will answer the questions and then -- you know, i think that part of it is when i -- i love being in university settings, because they are times when people feel free to ask questions, not just the professors but of each other. university commuters are very diverse. i'm going to talk about my own class. i just had a group of graduate

students, had students from malaysia and pakistan and columbia, and spain along with american students. everyone had a capability of asking, and iran, asking each other a lot of different questions, and exploring. and i think trying to get history straight, not in terms of that baggage that we'll bring whether own understanding. the other part i think is activism. i believe that it is very important for students to go out and really be involved, if you're international, in terms of going abroad and spending time on exchange programs, and working within various even non-governmental organizations or businesses abroad. so it is a time. i think the part that is really important to see herself as operate in a different world. this weekend bob kaplan, with whom i never agree, basically wrote an article that was

nostalgic about the cold war. life was simpler. there was the good guys and the bad guys, and we were the good guys, and people didn't go to war because ethnic conflicts were frozen by the cold war. i think looking backwards is useless. and, therefore, what has to happen is that you have to use your capabilities to be able to go out there and, and really explore the possibilities. the other part that is so interesting that i think you will find is that you will need your student later, your fellow students later in life. and i believe in networking. you have established a relationship with people who will end up in important jobs in their countries or in their states or whatever. and i think having had that experience works together very well. on the pin. can i tell the story about how i got into this at all?

my pin book in my pants would've never happened if it hadn't been for saddam hussein, because what happened is i was ambassador at the united nations and it was after the gulf war. i was and instructed ambassador, there were six -- caesar had been translated into six security council resolutions that had to keep being renewed. and so my instructions were to stay perfectly terrible things about saddam hussein possibly, which he deserve. it invaded another country. and so i kept doing that, and also a poem appeared company to me things, and among them, an unparalleled server that i happen to have a stake in overtime for it when working with iraq. last night spirit and so i think of all sing pictures of the ambassadors as they come out after the security council meeting talking to the press. so all of a sudden a camera zooms in as is why are you wearing that snake pin.

and i said because saddam hussain compared to join unparalleled scherpen. so i thought this was fun and i bought a bunch of costume jewelry, and i decide to wear a dependent upon what i do we're going to do on any given day. so on good days i work butterflies and balloons and flowers, and on bad days, you know, insects and horrible animals and bees and carnivorous animals. so the other ambassadors say what are we going to do today? and i would say we'd like pins. it was after president bush had said read my lips, no new taxes. so i sent him a copy of the book, and he said love the title. so that is how it all started. and today i thought it would be appropriate to wear to doug's. so that's what i'm wearing these pants. thank you all very, very much. -- wearing these pins.

thank you all very much. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for joining us, for honoring us, for your enlightening words. as a small gesture from our side, a token of appreciation, i would like to present you an award that i want to tell you all about this art because we have a competition at the university. it is sponsored by our department, among the art students. and every here we have a competition for the best painting and the best sculpture on the theme of peace. and what i'm presenting to secretary albright today are two pieces that one of 2009

competition. the first one i'm not going to carry, don't worry, i'm not going to let you carry that, it's big, that's a piece of art, the painting that you see on the right, it is by melina barnhart, one of our students of art who is now a graduate student in arizona so she couldn't be with us. and it is called into action, a magnificent piece. and i like to present that you and, of course, wilson that to you afterward but could you please applaud melina barnhart for her fabulous work. [applause] >> beautiful. and this one i can carry. it's called unity. it's by samuel more come and i believe samuel moore is here. can you please stand up so we can applaud you for winning? [applause] >> as you can see coming it's a magnificent work of a bronze called unity. it's a bit heavy but not too

heavy. just a small token of appreciation, i would like to get it is to keep. thank you so much on behalf of the university of maryland, on behalf of all of us come you have really honored us today with your presence and with the words. thank you so much for coming. [applause] [applause]

>> this morning the full senate begins consideration of the impeachment of u.s. district court judge g. thomas porteous from louisiana. the house of representatives has approved for articles of impeachment against a judge, alleging among other things in proper relationships with lawyers and bail bondsman appearing in his courtroom. over the next two and a half hours you hear the case outlined before the senate impeachment trial committee in september. >> good morning. the evidentiary proceedings of the senate impeachment trial committee on the article against judge g. thomas porteous, jr. of the eastern district of louisiana will now come to order. with 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 and -- of procedures and pakistani cinema seating in impeachment

trials. wrote 11 requires this committee to receive evidence and to take testimony on the four articles of impeachment which were presented to the senate by the house of representatives. following extensive pretrial proceedings, we are here today to begin receiving evidence that at the conclusion of these evidentiary proceedings the committee shall as mandated by wrote 11 and by senate resolution 458 report to the full senate and riding a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedinproceedings, and testimony had and given before this committee. and in addition statement of facts that are uncontested, and a summary of the evidence that the parties have introduced on contested issues of fact. these proceedings may be utilizing each senate office on television are on the committee's website at www.sitc.senate.gov. the proceedings are also being reported so that each senator who is not on the committee may have an opportunity at any time to be the testimony of the

witnesses as well as read the transcripts of their testimony. under senate impeachment rule in lebanon, the full senate retains the power to determine the competency, relevancy, and materiality of the evidence the committee will report to it. the senate also retains the power to send for any witness to testify in open senate, or indeed to order that the entire trial be conducted in 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. row 19 requiring that senators wishing to ask questions at the question 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 differ to both sides of the trial to begin their opening statements.

>> madam chair -- [inaudible] >> you need to turn your microphone on. >> thank you, madam chair. yes, much better that i'm joined by my colleague bob goodlatte from virginia. we'll be joined during the trial by our colleagues hank johnson, jim sensenbrenner and gym locker. were also assisted by counsel, alan baron, mark ivester, terry damon and kirsten cohen are. at the outset the house recognizes one extraordinary proceeding this is, and how seldom 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, the vastly short of which, have not given cause for the mobile for office. i think it's also attributable to the confirmation process that does a good job of vetting of those who are not suitable for the bench. and also think it's a reflection of how differently the house believes that this extraordinary remedy is required. i won't spend much time this morning and discussing the standard for impeachment, the content of high crimes and misdemeanors. there will be time for that later. more than that, i think the members of this committee understand that standard probably better than i or anyone 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 senate judicial impeachment. and that is that a judge has committed a serious violation of the public trust. that in the phraseology of government aboard, the judge has

so misdemeaned himself but by violating public trust that it necessitates his removal from the bench. i will also say in any unanimous view of the house of representatives, the conduct of trade one was somewhat ethical, so deplorable and amicable to the public trust that he cannot be allowed to remain on the bench. what was that conduct? i'd like to give you a brief overview of the fact of the case before i turned over to my colleague, mr. goodlatte, to go with evidence in more detail. but before i do it's worth point out that the vast majority of the facts, the underlying conduct in this case is not disputed. the central conduct in this case is simply not contested. and that conduct involves four areas. in the balls to judges relationship with two attorneys, jacob amato and bob creely. it involves his relationship with a bail bond company run by louis marcotte. it involves the concealment of

the corrupt nature of his relationship with these attorneys, with his bail bonds company during his senate confirmation. and it involves his numerous false statements and representations and violations of the bankruptcy court order during his bankruptcy case. let me start first with lawyers amato and creely. the evidence will show that he had known as the source for a long time, that he in fact have a partner of theirs in your law practice before he was appointed to the state bench. that at some point while he was on the state bench, whether because his expenses in the course of his family complications, weddings or whatnot, what it was because of his gambling or his drinking or his taste for expensive lunches, he started asking for cash from one of these -- one of the attorneys, created in the beginning of a small amounts, $50, $100, whatever path could had on them. but over time he came to ask for more cash, $500, $1000.

and at some point bob creely got tired of being hit on by the judge for cash. and he told the judge it had to stop. the judge had to change his lifestyle or do whatever was necessary, but the cash had to stop it and after they this conversation, the judge started sending curatorships to the law firm of creely and amato. curatorships are essentially small administrative cases, often when there's an absent party is necessary for someone to take an ad out in the paper or do other administrative tasks. these cases were not worth very much a $175, $200. amato and creely will test what didn't even want these cases. they didn't ask for them and they didn't want them. wants the judge starts and is curated to the firm of amato and creely, he started again to get him up for cash. he would call and he would want some of the curator money. and evidence will show that they started to give him basically 50% of the curator money.

it will also show that they continue to give him curator money and they would both take a drop on the firm. they would each basically get $1000 as a draw from the firm. they would internet into cash and give the cash to judge porteous. this went on for a time until judge porteous was appointed to the federal bench. want to is appointed to the federal bench he was no longer able to send your readers to the firm of amato and creely. when the curators stop the cash also stopped. that cached stopped, the request for cash stop at the end of the carriage when he was appointed to the federal bench, the request for cash stop until he certain point. and that point came when judge porteous was assigned a multi, multimillion dollar piece of litigation called liljeberg versus lifemark. involving a site over hospital

contract, a pharmaceutical within a hospital. a very complex case. it's not necessary to go into great detail about. but this case has been going on for years. six weeks before the trial, liljeberg brings in, among others, to new lawyers. and one of them is jacob amato. the other is another -- a lawyer named levenson the opposing camp, a gentleman named joe mole, became concerned with a late addition six weeks before trial and his multi-your very complex multimillion dollar, perhaps as much, as the evidence will show, was worth $200 million. very concerned with a late addition of these lawyers so he did some due diligence, contact the 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 model 11 to was, they were close friends, basically cronies of the judge.

they were told and no uncertain terms, mr. mole was told them not by people who want to identify themselves, not the people would fix publicly, but the fix was in. they better make a good record for themselves on appeal because they were going to lose this case. now, this but mr. mole in a very difficult 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 that he could cite to come most of what he was so, basically was told in the way he could not use in court. but he did know that they had lunch together, although he did not know how quickly. and he was able to find through court records that he believed that mr. ahmad or mr. levenson had given a contribution to judge porteous his campaign. and these were the only fact he really cite to.

their friendship, having lunch together in his motion to recuse. they felt he had no choice. he had to try to ask the judge to remove himself from the case. so he filed the motion. the judge makes it quite clear during the recusal hearing, we will share with you the transcript of the recusal hearing because is was was a limiting pieces of evidence indicates. he says he understands the ethical standards. he says he understands what he has to take himself off the case. he goes through that with counsel. and then he chides mr. mole for suggesting that he'd gotten a campaign contributions from mr. amato and mr. levenson. he said i never had a campaign. the contribution you're talking about was a contribution to all the judges for all their campaigns. a program that was called justice for all. that was the only money he got from these lawyers. now, this of course we know was

a quite deliberate conceived, and misrepresentation because, in fact, he had gotten thousands and thousands of dollars or the curatorships from mr. amato and mr. creely. none of which he discloses. all he does is chide the attorney for not doing his homework. of course, if mr. mole had really done his homework, he would've found out about all this cash the judge had received, the recusal motion on appeal as he later appealed and the court of appeals does not information and denies him, they appeal would've been successful and the judge would have been forced to recuse himself. but the judge refuses, the case goes to trial. after the case goes to trial, 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 as 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 a million dollars. he has taken no other case in two years as mr. amato has taken his case. it's worth an awful lot to his firm. the case is on his mission for three years. they continue having their lunches together. the evidence will show that creely or a model, levenson had lunch with the judge probably hundreds of times over the years. expensive restaurants, lots of liquors. 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 on the fishing boat and a 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 give me that cached? can you give it to me? can you 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 them the money. can't remember what he gave it to them personally or have his, or the judge sent his secretary over to pick it up. but he gives in 2000, $2500 in cash and an awful. during the retooling the judge made a point in saying i know the standard i'm to be held to. 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 than what disclose at any point during the case where it's under submission he has solicited cash from one of the

lawyers? lawyers? gussied up of the council about it? of course not. ultimately, the judge rules come and goes in favor of mr. amato's client. it's a huge victory for mr. amato's client. he writes a lengthy opinion. mr. mole as he knew he would have to, that feels the opinion, and in large part the court of appeals reverses. and not only reverses but in in one of the more scathing opinion should you ever read, accuses tread one of making up remedies and arguments. baseless, a baseless decision is essentially what the court of appeals views of what george porteous has written. the evidence will also show that at the same time that this illicit relationship is going on with amato and creely it's not the only relationship of its kind going on in the gretna courthouse, the state courthou courthouse. judge porteous also has relationsa 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 similar pattern to 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 judges cards, doing repairs at the judge's home. and for his part, the evidence will show judge porteous set bonds on a manner that will maximize the profits to louis marcotte and his company. and one would hope that the judges priority and setting bond would you be ensure that the defendants appears in court. but the evidence will show here that the marcottes for bonds that would be set at a mouse that would benefit him, mr. marcotte, and the judge porteous when 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, but no longer be licensed to work in a bail bond business because of their convictions. so louis marcotte goes to the judge and says will you expunge the convictions first of a guy named jeff duhon. and the judge doesn't. in the lead of another bail bondsman, aubrey wallace. and the judge expunge that one also. and interesting these were the two employees doing the car repairs and doing home repairs. and when the judge takes the federal bench and can no longer set bonds to advantage for louis marcotte, judge porteous helps to recruit a new judge to take his place with marcottes. a state judge, a new state judge named bodenheimer who would later go to jail after pleading guilty to charge almost identical to conduct your. 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 the senate. how do we know that the failure to disclose was known? how apart from the obvious fact that he was certain aware of the cash that he got from creely and amato. 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 deliberate captives from the senate? he tells us so. he tells us and he shows us so. let me give just one example of how he does that. louis marcotte come we ask them to expunge one of these convictions, and a second conviction, aubrey wallace, he will testify that when he asked judge porteous to expunge his

conviction, and one said i would 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 happens. he waits until after his senate confirmation, and just before he is sworn in, to expunge the conviction of aubrey wallace. now, why did he do it precisely was obvious he doesn't want to do before the confirmation because he knows this would materially affect his confirmation if he is expunging -- if he is expunging conviction for his bail bond company. but why does the word is sworn in? he also knows them only as one into the federal bunch is a lot in a position to expunge a conviction. he can only do that at a statement. that's exactly what he expunge is the conviction. during the confirmation judge porteous is asked by the senate, is he aware of any unfavorable

information that may affect his nomination. and he 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. now, defense might object, how can he -- when he waited until after the confirmation to do it. and the answer is, he has already done it with respect to jeff duhon. this is only the second time he did it. but, of course, he also knew about all the cash, knew about all the other expensescome and failed to disclose that. and i think there's no question that would admit to not only affected his confirmation, attended 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 a petition with a phony name, not porteous, but he picks a name ortous.

he files his name, the petition on the name ortous he opens a post office box so that his first petition won't be associated with them publicly. why did he do this? wife out in a phony name? well, perhaps it's to avoid certain creditors. or perhaps it's to avoid having to casinos and read about his bankruptcy and declined to extend credit, markers for him in a future. or perhaps as the defense will accept -- will present, it's to avoid embarrassment. but a man who go to extreme lengths to file a bankruptcy petition under a false name, and certify under penalty of perjury that that name is in pakistan, and will go to for the length today get post office box to type -- to conceal his true identity of the evidence will show that he would and that he in fact did. there are numerous other false

statements in a bankruptcy proceeding which we will chronicle later. judge porteous repeatedly violates the bankruptcy judge's order not to encourage new debt when he goes to casinos again and again, filling out credit applications, taking out markers and borrowing from the casino to gamble. as i mention of the ascent of the stacks were seriously intended. in fact, judge porteous admits to most of them in the fifth circuit. he is asked about the curator monies and he admits in the curators and he admits 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 fifth circuit proceedings, his answer, i have no earthly idea. i have no idea. not, i didn't get the money, not out of the which are talking about, but in terms of how much, i have no idea. ..

creely would give him the money as requested. over time as judge porteous's request for money persisted and the amounts he sought increased creely came to sought and resent them that he would avoid judge porteous's phone calls. creely went so far 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 admissible so i will quote here from what creely previously testified before the fifth circuit, quote, i don't recall if i specifically told him if it was because of his lifestyle but i told him -- 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 creely power to assign creely curatorships.arty in the case sh generated from the curators.

creely told his partner, amato that judge porteous was asking for money from the curatorships. here's how amato described this in his deposition in august 2 of this year in response to judge porteous's 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. yes, and how did you reach that understanding? answer, bob creely came in my office one day, told me that porteous was sending curatorships and he wanted us to give us some money and i told him this was going to wind up bad. and as you can see, mr. amato could not have been more prescient. now, let me pause here. the evidence is not here the simply of the testimony of creely and amato. judge porteous have admitted the sequence of events including his actions regarding the curatorships.

in his testimony under oath to the fifth circuit, judge porteous confirmed that mr. creely refused to pay him money before the curatorships started. answer, he may have said i needed to get my finances under control. yeah. similarly, judge porteous confirmed that during the time he sent curatorships over the to the amato and creely firm, he would receive money back from them. question, after receiving curatorships, creely and atm money. -- amato when you were getting cash back was that cash you received a cookie for the curatorships in your mind? answer, no, sir. though judge porteous disputes whether the arrangement should be characterized as a 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 acceded to judge porteous's requests. creely and amato took equal draws to come up with the cash to give judge porteous in response to his demands. here are examples that judge porteous signed assigning a curatorships to creely orders that judge porteous signed in his judicial capacity in order to enrich himself. during the 1988 to 1994 time period, the house has identified approximately 200 curatorships that judge porteous assigned creely amounting to fees of close to $40,000 to the firm. creely and amato have each estimated that they collectively gave judge porteous approximately $20,000 or $10,000 each from the curatorship proceeds. and as to monies and amounts he

received, judge porteous had received, question, judge porteous, over the years, how much cash have you received from jake amato and bob creely or their law firm? answer, i have no earthly idea. question, it could have been $10,000 or more isn't that right? answer, again you're asking me to speculate. i have no idea is all i can tell you though the money came directly from the creely the evidence will show the judge porteous well understood that the money was 50/50 from amato th 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 porteous in 1994, 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 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 lilberg case in court a case where amato was an attorney in the case. judge porteous now a federal judge porteous 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 lilberg. trial was set for early november 1996 and prior to the date prior to trial in late 1996, the lilberg hired mr. amato and the law firm of amato and creely 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. lifemark argued that the timing

of known close friends of judge porteous entering this complex case raised 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 happened 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 whether i'm a friend with mr. amato or mr. levinson, i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative, yes. mr. amato and i practiced law together probably 20 plus years ago. judge porteous further stated, yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have you ever been to either one of they're house the answer is definitive no.

have i gone along to lunch with them the answer is a definitive 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 simplies same unexceptional relationship that he would have any member of the bar as, quote, going to lunch with him. even that that is misleading because the evidence will show judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato without reciprocating. more significantly in describing his relationship with amato, judge porteous makes no mention whatsoever what really is the issue. that is he has received thousands of dollars of cash from amato's law firm. money he knows that 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 pons on this, quote, well, likely, 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 have 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 judge porteous that saying that mole, quote, should have done his homework 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 when you have a here is judge porteous and amato who know the facts, just not disclosing it. completely misleading and

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 porteous's fund. -- general fund. and that they should have done their homework better he didn't tell them about the approximately $20,000 in curator fees that you and your partner kicked back to him, did he. no he didn't tell them anything about the curatorships. do you think that was misleading mr. amato for him to pound his chest to say i got no campaign contributions but failed to tell him he got $20,000 of 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 honest. in the summer of 1997, judge porteous presided over the lilberg trial and took the case under advisement. he did not offer his opinion until april 2000. the evidence will show in may of in an 99 while judge porteous had the lilberg case under advisement, judge porteous invited creely, amato's partner to las vegas for judge porteous' son's bachelor party prior to his wedding. prior to that creely paid for the hotel room and paid for other entertainment for judge porteous. 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, giving money and the fact he solicited money from amato in 1999 in connection with his son's wedding and while the lilberg case was pending is not really contested. here's how judge porteous testified. question, do you recall in 1999 in the summer, may, june receiving $2,000 from them? answer, judge porteous, i've read mr. amato's grand jury testimony, it says we were fishing and i made some representation that i was having difficulties and that he loaned me some money or gave me some money. question, whether or not you

recall asking mr. amato for money during this fishing trip, do you recall getting an envelope with $2,000 shortly thereafter? answer, yeah, something seems to suggest that there may have been an envelope. i don't remember the size of an envelope. how i got the envelope or anything about it. wait a second, is it the nature of the envelope you're disputing? no, money was received in an envelope. question, and had cash in it? answer, yes, sir. question, and it was from creely and/or -- answer, amato. amato? yes. and it was used to pay for your son's wedding? answer, to help defray the cost, yeah. question, and would you dispute that 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 lilberg case under advisement, creely and amato paid over $1,000 for a party in honor of judge porteous's fifth

year on the federal bench. in april, 2000, judge porteous issued his opinion on the lilberg case ruling on the lilbergs on all major issues. lifemark appealed judge porteous opinion and the fifth circuit reversed judge porteous in scathing terms describing it as, quote, inexplicable, constructed entirely out of whole cloth, boarding on the nonsensical and absurd. article 1 shows a partner of course of conduct in connection with judge porteous's handling of the lilberg case including his failure to recuse himself, his making false and misleading statements at the recusal hearing, his solicitation in receipt of $2,000 from amato while the case was pending before him 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 2.

judge porteous' relationship with bail bondsman lewis marcotte and his sister laurie 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' action physical 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. lewis marcotte the bail bondsman would testify that he would make no money if the 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 restaurants 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 trip to las vegas for judge porteous.

in return, judge porteous willingly became marcottes go-to judge for setting bonds. marcotte went directly to judge porteous with recommended bond amounts, bond amounts that would maximize their income. judge porteous was receptive to them and signed countless bonds at their request, judicial acts which he knew to be of financial benefit to them. now, at a prior hearing that it's argued 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 temple. -- term. they knew each other solely from

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 du-haan, this was worked out between lewis marcotte and judge porteous. and judge porteous expunged the conviction as marcotte requested. in 1994, at marcotte's request, judge porteous expunged also set aside the conviction of another marcotte employee, aubrey wallace, this was worked out between lewis marcotte and judge porteous expunged. it took place during judge porteous expunged's last days on the state bench, a final judicial act by judge porteous expunged for the marcottes benefit and evidences the extent to which judge porteous expunged was beholden to the marcottes. now, let me turn to judge confirmation as a federal judge.

in 1994, excuse me -- at some point in 1994, judge porteous expunged came under consideration to be appointed as a federal judge. judge he would never be nominated. let alone be confirmed. 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 sf86. 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 the -- 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 8, 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 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 -- the united states senate committee on the judiciary sent judge porteous questionnaire for judicial nominees. again i'm 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 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 statements designed to protect judge porteous. now, let me turn to an act of judge porteous during the time of the confirmation process that evidenced first that judge porteous well knew that his relationship with marcotte was corrupt. and second, that demonstrates that 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's burglary conviction to take the first step in getting rid of his felony conviction so that wallace would ultimately be allowed to obtain a bail bonds

license. the evidence will show that 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 from mr. marcotte's testimony before the house impeachment task force which has been ruled admissible that illuminates judge porteous's 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. lewis marcotte, because if anyone, if the newspaper grabbed hold of it then he would be worried that it would interview 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 he said, 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 the 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 he -- if the set-aside was 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. by 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 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 jdc where he had previously presided. moreover, the marcottes knew that it was useful to have a federal judge in their corner 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 persons would be present. as but one example, the evidence will show that judge porteous vouched for the marcottes with newly elected judge bodenheimer. who prior to judge porteous's intervention held the marcottes in 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 hospitality on various trips and in return, setting bonds as they requested. ultimately, bodenheimer and another state judge, allen green went to jail for conduct that was substantially similar to that of judge porteous, vis-a-vis, the marcottes. both louis marcotte and laurie marcotte were convicted of felony convictions of giving law enforcement personal of things of value.

while he was a state 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 with bail bondsman louis and laurie marcotte, 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. 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 offense 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 gamble at casinos 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 1997 through 2000 reflect over $27,000 in cash withdrawals at casinos. in 2000, judge porteous met with bankruptcy attorney claude lightfoot about his financial predicament. the evidence will show that judge porteous did not tell lightfoot at that time or indeed at any time that he gambled. they decided that lightfoot would work out judge porteous's debts owed to his creditors and then if that failed judge porteous would consider filing for bankruptcy.

lightfoot's attempts at a workout failed and on or about february, 2001, lightfoot and porteous commenced preparing for chapter 13 bankruptcy. in marcotte of 2001, in the weeks and days immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy, the evidence will show that judge porteous undertook numerous actions to conceal assets, 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 that 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 28th, 2001,

judge porteous filed under bankruptcy under the false name g.t. ortis and with a post office box that judge porteous obtained on march 23, 2001, listed 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 true and correct. the other over the typed name g.t. ortis. 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 $4,0$4,400 re. 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 his checking account at $100 when the day prior to filing, he had deposited $2,000 into the account. he deliberately concealed all together 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 arranged this pattern of false statements is judge porteous' desire to conceal assets and to conceal his gamble 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 here true and correct? 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 greendike's order, judge porteous did incur debt.ñi he applied for a credit card, more particularly, judge porteous continued to borrow from casinos without the court's permission. in some instances, he paid those casino debts back through the bank account that he concealed. in short, the evidence will show that he engaged in a pattern of deceitful activity designed to frustrate and confound the bankruptcy process. i know i've taken some time here. and i appreciate your attention. now let me turn the podium back to mr. schiff. >> senators, as i mentioned at the outset the vast majority of what you've now heard of the evidence is uncontested. so what -- 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.

none of it was unethical or improper or wrong. it is nothing more than an appearance problem. he's being impeached essentially for having lunch. that is the gist of the defense. now, there will be a suggestion that judge porteous may have done all of these things but the house chose not to charge him with the violation of the cookie statute 18usc, 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 will be a similar suggestion that the house has not charged a violation of the honor services statute when, of course, he's not charged with violating that statute nor is the house required to make a charge of a particular code section. there will 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 will 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 the house could not disagree more. we 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, 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 to solicit cash from lawyers with a multimillion dollar case under a submission in your courtroom is wrong. to set bail how much it will benefit a bail bondsman is wrong and to accept car repairs, and lunches and liquor from that same bail bondsman is wrong. 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 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 mapresent that will to comment on. that any of judge porteous's conduct before he was sworn into federal office. as representative goodlatte's evidentiary presentation made clear, sections articles 1 and 2 took place before the judge's appointment of the federal bench and during the confirmation proceedings and after the bench. article 3 the bankruptcy account involves conduct only while he was on the federal budget and the final article, article 4, involves conduct during the confirmation process itself. in judge porteous's view, the constitution prohibits the senate from considering in an

impeachment proceeding anything that took place before his swearing-in. the senate confirmation process in this view is a high stakes game of hide the ball. if you can get confirmed, no matter what you concealed, for matter what false representation you make you are home-free for life. nothing in the constitution 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 intent to make any prior conduct unreachable. this would lead to an absurd result. let us say the evidence showed that a judge committed murder prior to his appointment, could he not be removed? let's say that the evidence showed that a judge were convicted and sentenced to jail after their 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 jail? and the senate would be powerless 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. let's say that he had been prosecuted for the curatorship scheme, it would be the 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 amir one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars testified before the house, if a judge bribed his way onto the bench, would he be beyond the reach of impeachment? of course not. the standard we believe for impeachment is whether the judge has so demedian himself he's above the public trust and cannot remain on the public bench. matters not when the conduct took place but whether the public can have confidence that the judge will honestly and honorably undertake his public responsibilities and in the accordance with the law. in this case we believe the

evidence will show that the public cannot have that confidence. let me conclude where i began with one final observation of the first degree 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 remember 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 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 would disclose his full relationship with them? that he would not ask for more cash while that case was under submission. that i would need to hire another crony of the judge to protect myself? i simply could not have that confidence. if i were a creditor in a bankruptcy case can i expect a full result when the bankruptcy

party -- when the bankrupt party lied on bankruptcyñi petitions, used an alias, concealed debts or violated the court order by incurring new gambling debts. 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 ortis ring a bell? and with that, senators, i would conclude my remarks. >> thank you. judge porteous' counsel now has an opportunity for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman mccaskill. advice chair, hatch, distinguished members of the senate impeachment trial committee, good morning. my name is jonathan churly and i have the honor of representing united states district court judge g. thomas porteous, jr. joining me at counsel table with

judge porteous are my colleagues, daniel schwartz, keith arzata, brian walsh, pj middle, dan o'connor and the law firm of brian caved. -- brian cave. senators, if the parties agree on one thing, it is this, by any measure this is a historic moment. it's not simply because the 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 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 has given us is specific duty to adjudicate, not just legislate or deliberate. impeachments are not about one judge. they are 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 or 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 that should be no lower than a impeachment, i believe it in the 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 or misdemeanors. in most past cases, the second determination was the focus of your deliberation, 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 adversarial 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 l.c. hastings trial lasted 18 days. in the hours left we will not be able to offer a full panoply of witnesses or testimony as if there 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 had been contradicted by core witnesses including the house's own star witnesses. you will be hearing new evidence never disclosed previously 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 uses the basis for removal that were entirely lawful under 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. simply did not happen. this impeachment reads like a scene in sherlock holmes in the silver blaze case when holmes solves a mystery by noting, quote, the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime. the scotland yard detectives 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 wrinkle row and 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 inquiry in this case as to cast blame on the judges of louisiana or suggesting that misconduct is generally accepted. mr. schiff attempted to make that argument saying that we were going to argue, oh, it's 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. it's 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. on 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 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 mind two legal truths.

first, while we feel obligated to address the licenses 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 as testifying and 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 prefederal 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're not the only ones asking the members to hear such

arguments. in the fifth circuit judge dennis and his colleagues stressed that, quote, congress lacks jurisdiction to impeach judge porteous for any misconduct prior to his appointment as a federal judge. you 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 laws 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. judge porteous has already accepted punishment for any lapse in judgment despite what the house managers just told you. he has been sanctioned by the fifth circuit for those appearances of impropriety. and he will retire next year. from the federal bench. such appearance controversies are routine and they are used as a basis for removal would wipe away centuries of precedent by this body in defining what are removal offenses. perhaps for that reason, the house managers that were quoted in the media last week stating that they want the senators to adopt a new standard, to treat the impeachment process as merely an employment termination case. they would literally have this body adopt the very standard 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, and the two marcottes, that they never bribed this judge. and that they did not and do not believe this judge could be bribed. they will all tell you that judge porteous was viewed as a brilliant jurist who would not be influenced in a decision by any friendship or gifts. in observing our witnesses and the new evidence that we have gathered, we ask you to demand the same burden and showing from the house that you would want for yourself if you were accused of wrongdoing and threatened with removal from federal

offices without a due 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 believed had the institutional integrity to demand a showing of proof and not simply passion from the house. in two centuries senators have shouldered that duty brilliantly. they have refused to remove judges when there is more proof -- there is more passion than proof. now, unfortunately this case proves one thing and that old military adage that when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. ...