embarrassment question in confirmation. article iv is an open demand for senators to engage in pure conjecture. if senators can simply assume embarrassment to remove a nominee, there is no standard of proof. our day is over. and there's no standard of removal. threl a just serve at your pleasure, just as madison feared. it's preslice what adams worried -- it's precisely what adams worried about, uncertain wishes and imagination as a substitute for proof. i want to conclude before i sit down and i rest this case for the defense and before my voice gives out. i want to address one thing about this case. and that is the fact that judge porteous didn't testify and some of you may be wondering about that. the reason can be found in the

fifth circuit testimony when the fifth circuit sought to question judge porteous about the allegations in article i and article iii, judge porteous took the stand and did not deny many of the factual allegations. somehow the house keeps citing that like that is a major sinister thing that he actually said, i'm not contesting these facts. and you know what? the house seemed to make fun of the fact that he couldn't remember details about what occurred with the $2,000. what was the point of that? you had a judge that had obviously addictions, he had depression, felt with them, and when he showed up in the fifth circuit, his memory was not clear, but he didn't say that to say, and, therefore, these things didn't happen. he said the opposite. he said, if i were you, i wouldn't rely on my memory. if creely and amato were saying that, they were friends of mine, i don't think they'd lie.

what's bad about that? he is just disagreeing with the implications of these things. when they quote him and fact fun of the fact that he tried to answer about what happened with that money, he was doing his best. they seem to leave out that at the end he said, just assume that it occurred and hold me to that standard. ultimately, he accepted he veer discipline from the fifth circuit for his poor decisions and he announced that he'll retire some months from today. did he betray his office? no. i think he betrayed him servings maybe his family, but not his office. his failings were that of being a human being, a man who was overwhelmed by addiction, the defnlg his wife, financial troubles. did he help bring those on? perhaps. whatever judge porteous may appear to you during this

period, he was and he is proud of his nearly 30 years of public service as a judge. but he believes that's for others to judge, judge now. he didn't feel it was appropriate in the fifth circuit to be contesting things that his friends had remembered, and he also doesn't think it's appropriate for him to beg to you excuse any of his actions. he wants you to judge his raksz. he believes he can be judged harshly, and he was judged harshly. he tainted his own legacy, but judges are humans. and that humanity can make some of them the best of their generation. jurists like thurgood marshall's experiences in life, louis brandeis's experiences in life made them towering symbols for lawyers and law students and the public. others, like judge porteous, that humanity showed frailties and weakness.

some of the men and women who don these robes have those frailties and weaknesses. this is going to happen again. judges will have bankruptcy problems. they only look inviolate in those robes. we elevate nem in the courtroom. but beneath those robes is a human being and some have problems, some of them make mistakes. but they shouldn't end upped here on the senate floor as we debate whether he's moocher, whether he paid for enough launches. he'll let the record stand and you judge him for t it. he felt he deserved to be disciplined. maybe he deserves to be here. i don't know. but he doesn't deserve for removed. he didn't commit treason. he didn't commit bribery. he didn't commit other high crimes and misdemeanors. he committed mistakes. but in the end only a u.s. senator can say what's removable conduct. it comes to you.

a longer road has been traveled by two centuries by your predecessors, a road that began with people like james madison, george mason. one senator who sat where you sit now was senator edmund ross of kansas, who stood in the judgment of president andrew johnson. many of ross's republican colleagues wanted johnson out of office for good reason. the public demanded his removal. he was viewed as a public enemy by ross. he was the subject of john f. kennedy's book "profiles of courage." he was one of those profiles. kennedy explained that the 11th article of impeachment was deliberately obscure which had been designated by thaddeus stevens to furnish a common ground for those who favored conviction and were unwilling to identify themselves on basic issues. does that sound familiar at all?

well, the record was filled with abuses and poor judgment by johnson. ross was forced to consider whether they amounted to an impeachable offense. as the roll call occurred, he found himself at the key vote standing between johnson and removal from office. ross described the sensation as -- quote -- "almost literally looking down into my open grave and everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man was about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever." he then jumped into that grave and he uttered the words "not guilty" to the shock of his colleagues. his career ended. he was chastised at home. but he became a profile of courage, snot not just for john f. kennedy but, i hope, for many people in this chamber. no career will be lost with your vote today. indeed, in a week of votes of sweeping immigration changes and

nuclear treaties, i think the world is in a bit of amazement, in awe, that we would have so many of you here today that just stop to decide the facts and future of a federal judge. that's a testament to this system. no matter what you do today, judge porteous will not return to the beth. he will be convicted or he will retire. no senator career will turn on his vote. but of course impeachment has never been about one president or one judge. but all presidents and all judges. the framers understood that. what will be lost today is not a career but a constitutional standard that has served this nation for two centuries, a standard fashioned by the very men who laid the foundations of this republic. a standard maintained by generations of senators who sat where you now sit in this very chamber. we ask you to do as they have done and hold the constitutional line. we ask you to acquit judge g.

thomas porteous. the president pro tempore: thank you very much. representative schiff will conclude the case for the house managers. and the house has 26 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. schiff: mr. president, senators, let me begin this conclusion by some agreement with my colleague. this is a remarkable proceeding, and the true import of it is demonstrated by the fact of how much you have going on this week and the amount of time we're devoting to this today. it is a reflection of the seriousness, it is a reflection of the fact that these cases come around very rarely and for good reason. the constitution sets the bar high. it doesn't want either the house

or senate to take the process of impeachment lightly, and we in the house certainly do not, and we know in the senate you don't take that responsibility lightly either. we've set out the facts about why this judge needs to be removed from the bench. i would like to take this opportunity to rebut some of the points that my colleague has made. i think when you go through the evidence and when you discuss it with the senators who sat through the trial, you will find on each of the articles as charge youd that -- as charged that g. thomas porteous must be removed from office. counsel began by stating that the judge wasn't prohibited from being prosecuted for many of these crimes, that he signed tolling agreements with the department of justice. but this is what the department of justice said in its letter transmitting the case. "although the investigation developed evidence that might warrant charging judge porteous with violations of criminal law relating to judicial corruption, many of those instances took

place in the 1990's and would be precluded by the relevant statute of limitations." the tolling agreements that judge porteous signed contained this clause: "i understand that nothing herein has the effect of extending or reviesk any such period of limitations that has already expired prior to april 5, 2006." so anything that was gone by then was gone for good and he made no agreement to revive it. and so the case was referred to the fifth circuit. the fifth circuit had two days of hearings and according to judge porteous's counsel provided unprecedented sanctions on the judge. do you know what those unprecedented sanctions are? that he has heard no cases and earned his entire salary for three years. he has paid his -- he is paid his full salary for doing nothing. that was the enormous sanction

that was placed upon hirnlg the sanction that i think many americans would love to have, to be paid a federal judicial salary for doing nothing. that is the sanction. now, counsel said he offered to retire. well, why didn't he? why didn't he three years ago retire from the bench? he could have. but the judge's whole intent, which has been demonstrated throughout the procedural history by changing attorneys and moving for delays and continuance, is to draw out the clock, to go another month with another federal paycheck, to just see if he can eke it out a little longer until he can get his full salary, his full retirement for life. it was nothing -- there was nothing preventing this judge from retiring three years ago. now, turning to the claims made by counsel in article i, that the articles don't charge a kickback scheme, let me read from article i. "while he was a state court judge in the 24th judicial district in the state of louisiana, he engadgetsed in a

corrupt scheme with attorneys amato and creely whereby he appointed amato as partner in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from amato and creely a portion of the cure rarity fees." it says right here he sent them the cases and thereafter requested and received a portion of the money from those cases. if that's not a kickback, i don't know what is. now, i guess counsel's real argument is well, why didn't they use the term "kickback," and because they didn't use the term the counsel would iewrks therefore you must acquit. that is not the law in impeachment cases that we've to charge it use be a particular word. what we do have to do is oat out the conduct. senator leahy asked, well what about perjury? we don't use the word "perjury" in the fourth article. we set out in the fourth article that he had made material, false statements before the senate knowingly, willfully, deliberately. that is perjury. so we don't use that particular

word. we don't have to use that word. we don't have to charge a particular criminal statute. when we do use particular word, counsel takes issue. when we don't take particular words, counsel takes issue. what is the requirement here? that we charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, ants, yes, those words do appear in the articles. now, the gift, the wedding gift as counsel calls it. you will a he notice from the portion that he read to you, mr. amato never calls it a gift. mr. turley does in his questioning. in fact, after mr. turley asks those question, i asked -- both creely and amato, it is what a wedding gift and their answer was, of course not. now, counsel has just said, well, back in the fifth circuit when judge porteous was explaining what happened, you know, he really -- ah, he didn't want to contradict his friends. or maybe he didn't have such a

good recollection. so three years ago during the fifth circuit when he said he called it not a loan that he just never paid back. but he didn't have as good a recollection three years ago as counsel does now when he calls it a wedding guilty of. well, nobody has ever referred to this as a wedding gift. it is not a wedding present. it wasn't something they registered fomplet in fact the testimony in the trial was, amato says we're out in on a fishing trip. look, i invited too many guests to the wedding. i can't afford this. you got to help me out. can you get me $2,000? can you give me $2,000? can you find me a way to get $2,000? now, does that sound like a gift to you? you don't have to take my word for this. there were 12 senators who sat through these days of stm. ask them if this was a wedding gift. say, well, these were just really close friends of the judge. this was uncle jake and uncle

bob. these were just close friends. and yet look at transcript that have reciewls hearing. where the judge says, bases at that point he wants to distance himself. have we had lunch? yes. but i have lunch with all the lawyers in the courthouse. have i ever been to their house? no. well, that's odd. this is uncle bob and uncle jake. they're that close, according to counsel, the judge has never been to their house? clearly for the point of the recusal hearing where he's trying to mislead the parties, he doesn't really know these attorneys any better than any other attorneys he has lunch with. that is one thing. but here is uncle bob and uncle jake now. counsel also says there was a partnership between the cash and the curators. that's not the case. if you look at creely's testimony, he says the judge called him and was hitting him up for the curator money.

creely says the reason creely doesn't like calling it a kickback apart from the self-serving obvious reason is he says i didn't ask for these curator case, therefore, it can't be a kickback. i didn't want them. they are a nuisance. he said the judge sent them to me because he wanted to hit me up for the money. he basically forced me to take these cases. therefore, it wasn't a kickback. i don't think that's really how the definition of a kickback work. plainly creely testified that the judge understood the money was coming from the curatorships. plainly the judge knew it was a kickback. and even if creely doesn't want to admit it or call it that himself, that's exactly what it was. in fact, amato testified creely said look, the judge is hitting me up for the curator money. what do we do? and amato said, well, let's just give it to him. basically it wasn't going to

cost them much. they're getting these cases, they're kicking back a portion of it, so they decide to do it. counsel makes the suggestion here, again, he's being charged with being a moocher. he's being charged with having free lunches. again i would encourage you to talk to the senators who were there as my comments earlier about senator johanns' observations make clear. this is not about whether the judge was a moocher or had too many free lunches. this is about getting money from attorneys. this is about setting bonds not with a public interest in mind, but to maximize the profit of a bail bondsman and get a lot of gifts, favors, trips and car prepares and -- repairs out of it. counsel says everyone in the case agreed this is the best judge in louisiana god, i hope not. if that's the case, we're in much more serious trouble than any of us could imagine. but that was certainly not the testimony in this case. counsel says why weren't there records produced by the house of

the curatorships? they could have gone and got the records. this is somewhat inexplicable because we did go get the records. we went into the courthouse and got the box and found the records of the curator cases and introduced hundreds of curator cases that were in fact assigned to creely that were the subject of these thousands and thousands of dollars that were returned. counsel says the witnesses couldn't specify exactly how much. was it $20,000? was it $19,000? was it $21,000? therefore, you can't believe they actually got the money. the judge himself doesn't deny getting the money. you know why we can't be precise about whether it was $19,000 or $20,000 or $21,000? because the witnesses said during the trial they paid in cash so there would be no paper trail. i guess counsel is saying if you pay in cash, you could never be charged or impeached because the government can't prove exactly how many dollars went into your

pocket. counsel then makes the claim that if you impeach him because he lied to the attorneys or misled people during the recusal hearing that what you're really doing is impeaching a judge because of a judicial decision and that will erode judicial independence as if it was a problem with the case law on the motion, case law on the opinion or judicial philosophy. that is not what this is about. this is about taking money during a case. this is about denying a motion when you know you received money from the attorneys and lying about it. it's not about the merits of the cases you cite or judicial philosophy or what the standard ought to be. the judge set the right standard during the hearing. he understood exactly what was required of him. that's what makes it so egregious. he set out the standard, if you read that transcript, perfectly. he said if anything should come up during the trial that should require me to take myself off the case, i will let you know and give you that taoufpblt so what happens -- opportunity. what happens? the case is under submission.

counsel points out it's under submission for three years. and during that period does something happen that would cause an objective person to question his impartiality? yes. he hits him up for $2,000 and they give it to them. does he do what he said he would do during that recusal hearing and give the parties a chance to ask him to get off the case? of course not. no, instead counsel paints porteous as a victim of this conspiracy is to go through judge after judge in this hospital case. but, no, he's a hero. he's going to stay in there. he will not recuse himself. he won't let those parties manipulate the system. this was judge porteous' hero, occasionally as victim, but never, never as the abuser of the public trust that in fact he is. the fact that the opposing counsel who loses the recusal motion has to bring in another crony of the judge with an

agreement that says if you get the judge off the case we'll give you $100,000 to start and $100,000 more if you get him off the case, shows you how the system is corrupted by this judge, that the other party has to bring in the crony for his side of the case. counsel says that mr. amato testified that, well, he thought that porteous was going to do the right thing, as if that makes it okay. i guess you have to ask what did mr. amato think the right thing was. i'm sure he thought the right thing was he was going to rule for him. and in fact that's of course exactly what judge porteous does. he rules for mr. amato in an opinion that is excoriated by the court of appeals as being made out of whole cloth. now why didn't counsel -- counsel asked why didn't he

recuse himself? that way his other crony would have gotten $100,000. if he did that, then mr. amato would lose $500,000 to $1 million because that's how much he stood to make in fees on the case. if he lost the case, he made nothing. if he won the case he made $500,000 to $1 million. here the judge had to decide do i favor my one crony who stands to make $100 thousand or my other crony who would make $500,000 or $1 million. article ii. counsel claims article ii 1 about six lunches, the same kind of issue raised with senator johanns. this isn't about six lunches. not even the portion of article ii which deals with federal conduct is about six lunches. it's about a skwrufrpblg recruiting -- a judge recruiting his successor into the same corruption scheme that he was engaged in while he was a state judge, a recruitment that was

successful. judge bodenheimer was recuted. he went to work with a marketup so he wouldn't deal with until judge porteous. then judge bodenheimer goes to jail. this is the character witness judge porteous calls during the trial -- judge bodenheimer, who went to jail for almost four years for the same charges. if you look at the charges judge bodenheimer pled guilty to -- counsel says, well, the house said at one point it wasn't going to show that any particular bond was set too high or too low. counsel didn't mention the fact that what we were saying is we weren't going to say that this particular bond in the case of joe smith should have been $50,000 higher or $20,000 higher. no, we weren't going to say in a particular case.

what we were going to say is the arrangement with the bondsman, as the evidence showed during the trial, was that in each of the cases that went before the judge, the bondsman would say this is where i can make the most money. set it at this point. that's what we said we would prove, and that's what we showed during the trial. counsel then says something to the effect that the duhan expungement was downgraded. i don't know what that means. mr. duhan was called to testify. he testified about the fact, just like wall -- wallace. he didn't hire the attorney. mark hunt did. he didn't tell the attorney anything. mark hunt arranged the whole thing. if you look at the transcripts of the expungements and set-asides between the judge, when the judge sets aside the convictions of these marcotte kpwhraoerbgs you know what is -- employees, you know what is said about them? there is no case about why these

two deserve to have their cases set aside. the attorney doesn't say he really deserves this. it's silent. the judge just says i'm going to do this. i'm setting aside this conviction under code blah, blah, blah. there's no discussion. the judge doesn't want there to be. he doesn't want anybody watching or listening to read the crypt to know -- to read the transcript to know what is really going on. the evidence during the trial showed that the judge lacked the power to set aside one of the convictions because louisiana law said you can't set aside a conviction where the person has already started their sentence. this person, wallace, had already finished his sentence. but regardless of that, even if you believe that somehow he had the power to ignore louisiana law, the question is why? why did he exercise that power? on this issue, counsel never had an answer. the uncontradicted testimony was the reason he exercised that

power was because mark hunt asked him to. more important, duhan and wallace were doing him favors. they were pick up his car, getting it washed, fixing the transmission, leaving $300 buckets of shrimp or bottles of vodka. marcotte asked him to, because he was doing favors for the judge. counsel continues to make the assertion which i really can't understand, that somehow the conviction wasn't set aside after the confirmation. the record is plain, that's exactly what happened. the conviction was set aside right after he was confirmed. there's no reason why that couldn't have been done before except for the fact he didn't want you to find out about it. he didn't want you to know about his relationship with the marcottes. and that the reason it was

delayed. that's the reason it was concealed. that's the reason he said nothing about it. that's the reason why the record corroborates exactly what mr. marcotte testified. in article iii, counsel says, he filed under false name. during the pleadings earlier, counsel called it a pseudonym, as if it's a romance novel, he's using a pen name. during the trial at one point koupb sailed it was a -- counsel said it was a typographical error. now he says it is the lawyer's mistake. this is not a situation where you have a layperson going to an expert lawyer and being advised of some arcane provision of bankruptcy law. this is a federal judge with 20 years of experience, and the lawyer concocts this scheme, let's just use a false name. and why don't you go out and get a p.o. box so we don't have to

list your address. and the judge does this. this is not advice of counsel. this is collusion. what is the judge's explanation for why he is entitled to file under a fake name? he doesn't want to embarrass himself. i guess now he doesn't want to embarrass his wife. what does this mean, that if you're a federal judge you have a right to file under false name under penalty of perjury because you don't want to be kpwarsd. but -- embarrassed. but if you're an ordinary citizen you don't have that right. is it only a judge embarrassed by bankruptcy? you don't think a teacher who files bankruptcy is embarrassed or a banker who files bankruptcy or a baker or anyone else would be embarrassed if their neighbors or employer or someone else finds out they had to file bankruptcy? it is a painful and embarrassing process for everyone. a federal judge doesn't have a right more than anyone else to use a fake name.

counsel says no harm, no fall because he finished his bankruptcy proceeding and creditors got paid. he didn't want the notice in the paper, but the creditors found out about it anyway. the creditors found out about it because it went public. the hope was it never would. and what the judge also wanted, in addition to avoiding the embarrassment, he didn't want the casinos to know. he didn't want the casinos to know. because if the casinos knew and they weren't listed as creditors, even though he continued taking out his gambling chips and gambling, if they knew, they would deny him credit and they wouldn't let him keep gambling which is exactly what he did during the rest of the bankruptcy. on article iv, counsel concedes that prior conduct can't be impeached as long as it's during the confirmation process. i guess they have waived any

objection constitutionally to impeaching on prior conduct for the purpose of article iv because of course article iv -- the lying to the senate -- is during the confirmation process. he says these questions were broad, they were about embarrassing facts. he focused on one word, embarrassing. when you look at those forms and the question that you ask in the senate is not just about embarrassment. it's are you aware of any negative information that may affect your confirmation? and he answers, i am, to the best of my knowledge, not aware of any negative information that might affect my confirmation. that's what he told you. it will be your decision, is that truthful or is that a lie? now, counsel implies it's impossible to know what that question really means. so i asked his own expert this during the trial, if information came out before confirmation that a candidate for judge took

kickbacks from attorneys in exchange for the official act of sending them curator cases, would that be unfavorable information that would affect the nomination? answer, this was professor mckenzie, if it were true, yes, it would be. question: it would kill the nomination, wouldn't it? answer: yeah. question: and a reasonable person would understand that. answer: yes. questions that wouldn't -- yeah -- no i agree with that. question, if information came out before confirmation that the candidate set bail to maximize the bail bondsman, et cetera. same answer to each of these questions their own experts said plainly that information is called for by that question. their expert said, you have no right to lie. if you don't want to suffer the humiliation of revealing that you're corrupt, you know what you do?

you withdraw your nomination. in fact, that's why these cases are rare. it's rare, frankly, that you don't find this information during the vetting process. but when it comes out, when the white house nominates someone and it comes out that there's a problem, you know what happens? they withdraw. now, they may withdraw and say, i've had second thoughts or i want to spend more time with my family or for whatever reason. they don't have to say why. but that's what happens. the confirmation process shouldn't be a game of hide and seek with senate where if you can keep your illicit conduct or corruption hidden by the senate and get by the confirmation hearing, you are set for light. that's not the precedent we want society. that was the unanimous view of the house of representatives. it will be for all of you to decide to what degree you want nominees in the future to feel that they can mislead the senate, that they can conceal information about corrupt activity if they can just get through the confirmation they'll be home free. they'll be beyond the reach of

impeachment. i think that's a perilous path to go down as well. when counsel summed up, he asked, did he betray his office? and i think that's the right question. i think hitting up attorneys when you have a pending case worth millions for $2,000 cash, that's betraig your office -- betraig your office. i think recruiting other judges into a corrupt scheme, that's betraig your office. lying to the senate is a betrayal. lying to the bankruptcy court is a betrayal. i think in the most plain terms, what does this mean to violate the public trust? it means what if someone -- let's say you don't impeach, what if someone walking into judge porteous' courtroom or any other judge in new orleans or california or anywhere else to think or do they think that,

well, i guess i can file something under a false name because the judges do and that's all right. i guess maybe i need to see if i can pay the judge some cash for fill up his car or fix his radiator if i want them to rule in my favor. can anyone go into judge porteous' courtroom after this without wondering those very things. isn't that the kind of abuse of the public trust that the framers intended to provide a remedy for so we wouldn't have to continue to suffer someone on the bench that would damage the institution in that way? we believe that this conduct is beneath the dignity of anybody to serve on the bench that is not only toward judge porteous but toward all who served with him and has raised questions in

one courthouse and certainly in others just who's sitting on the bench. the remedy of impeachment is not punitive. it is not designed to punish judge porteous. instead it is designed to protect the institution. and i believe on behalf of the house it's not possible to protect the institution by deciding that this level of corruption is okay. that solicitation of cash is okay. that striking deals with bail bondsmen that don't take official acts on the public's best interest or public trust but on how to enrich the judge is okay. these things are not ok. these things are not just an appearance problem as counsel suggests. this is unethical. this is criminal. and for the purposes of an impeachment proceeding, it is also a high crime and misdemeanor warranting removal. thank you.

the president pro tempore: all time has expired. the questions have been submitted in writing and the clerk will now report. the clerk: senator franken to in turley, isn't what happened before he was a federal judge relevant if he subsequently lied about it? mr. turley: senator franken, what i would say is that we've agreed if those lies occurred during a confirmation hearing, if it was an act of perjury, then certainly you would have a potential impeachable offense. i think that the lying is -- that the line being drawn here is i think this may be the thrust of your question is that if it is pre-federal conduct, the answer is no. that is -- this body has stated in cases like archbald that it

will not consider pre-federal conduct for a very good reason, the constitution guarantees life tenure for good behavior in office. that's how the framers defined it. if you allow for the house to go back in this case three decades -- three decades and say look at all these things you did before you became a judge, we're going to have a doover. we think that now you should be removed because of those things. not because of what you did as a federal judge. and i think there is a distinction. i'm willing -- i believe that if -- if there was perjury in the confirmation hearing, i would -- i'm not -- i don't think that mr. schiff and i would disagree on that point. but there is a big difference. that's the constitutional rubicon. that's where this body has never gone. and i do believe if you look at it objectively, you can see that the perils on that path are obvious and that this body should not go there. there are articles here that

refer to federal conduct. and you have every right to judge this man, but you should judge him as a judge for what he did to the office that you gave him and i think that's what the framers intended. the clerk: senator specter to mr. turley, why did judge porteous waive the statute of limitations? did he think the move was a realistic possibility that he would have been exonerated? mr. turley: thank you, senator specter. i want to emphasize with regard to section limitations, he waived the section limitations he was requested to waive and the house has come forth and said, well, they said they couldn't proceed in this area or that area as i mentioned they were able to do that with bodenheimer. the reason he did it is the same reason that he went to the fifth circuit and said i'm not going to contest these facts whether i

remember how the money was given to me, he said i recall i was given the money. it was a gift. it was a mistake. i'm not going to fight that. it was wrong and the same thing with the statute of limitations. he said i'm a judge, and if you can find a crime to charge me with, you should do it. there is no other point of waiving a statute of limitations, you take a risk and, you know, you -- yourself is well known defense attorney and a very well known litigator, i should say, but as many people in this room, but usually you encourage people not to waive statute of limitations because you don't know where it will lead. this judge decided he would. and ultimately the justice department found that in looking at all of the evidence they couldn't bring a charge and they certainly could not secure a verdict on that basis. but i don't think there -- i don't think there was anything sinister about waiving a statute

of limitation to the extent that you believe that he waived it didn't think he could be charged with a crime. the answer is, i think, yes, he didn't think he did commit a crime and he waived it. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. another question. the clerk will report. the clerk: senator merkley to mr. turley, judge porteous, while he had the lifemark case under advisement, solicited a cash gift from an attorney, amato, who represented one side of the dispute. he then accepted a $2,000 gift from this attorney. you have referred to this gift as only an appearance of a conflict of interest. how can parties to a case expect fair treatment from a judge if the judge solicits and receives

a gift from an attorney on one side in a case? doesn't such a solicitation during a trial constitute a complete abandonment of impartiality and a fundamental abuse of a judge's position and a betrayal of the public trust? mr. turley: senator, i -- first of all, i agree with the sentiments expressed in that question. he shouldn't have accepted the gift, that's why he accepted discipline. but it was an appearance of impropriety. that's how the court treated it and you can read the opinion by the dissenting judges and look into whether an appearance of impropriety should be an impeachable offense. there was no suggestion that it was a bribe. it's not alleged that it was a bribe. and so what you have then is something classified as an

appearance of impropriety. and an appearance of impropriety does all the things that the question suggests. that's why you don't want appearances of impropriety because it makes people uncertain as to whether the judge is being fair and unbias and he admitted to that. it was a mistake, but it was not during the trial. the trial was long over. this was years after the trial. but it was still a mistake because the case was still pending. and he should have realized that. and, yes, we do refer to as a wedding gift -- i'm not too sure why we're having the dispute because it was amato who said he raised the fact he needed money to pay for his son's wedding. and the result of that is that amato and thamato and creely ga0 cash and it is true that they are friends with timothy. it is true -- you know, i'm surprised to hear a suggestion that creely, that there might be an overstatement of the

relationship. i suggest that you read the record. but they were very close to timothy. but it doesn't excuse anything. and that's why he accepted the punishment. but words mean things in impeachments. you know, mr. schiff pointed out and said, why do we actually have to say kickback? why are you making us say kickback. look how these words hold together. isn't this what a kickback is? yeah, it could be conspiracy, it could be mail fraud, wire fraud, it would be a number of other things when you talk about corruption. the reason we want you to say kickback or bribe is because it's a specific allegation and one of those is mentioned actually in the constitution itself and, by the way, the house managers knew that the issue before the supreme court was whether you are going to allege a kickback, so they knew that courts, in fact, turn down honest services for the failure to allege kickback and they still didn't mention it. why? because they wanted to use corruption. and so the point is in answer to

this question is that if it is not a kickback and it is not a bribe, it is is what the court said it was in the fifth circuit, an appearance of impropriety and that is not good. and mr. schiff and i will agree on this, no attorney wants a judge to do what was done in this case and that's why he was disciplined. and he was disciplined harshly. that is the most severe discipline this court has handed down. mr. schiff might, in fact, say, what's that? you don't get to be a judge? that's a lot. because you're reprimanded by your colleagues, you're held up for ridicule. i've got toll tell you it is not something most people would want for themselves. it is an appearance of impropriety and he was severely disciplined for it. the president pro tempore: do you have anymore questions? the chair recognizes the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i move that pursuant to impeachment rule xx the senate now close its doors to commence deliberations on the motions and impeachment articles and ask unanimous consent that floor privileges

during the closed session be granted to the individuals listed on the document i now send to the desk. [list] the president pro tempore: without objection, the senate will now close its doors and only members and staff granted floor privileges may remain. the sergeant at arms will ensure the chamber, the galleries, and the adjoining corridors are the adjoining corridors are

>> we're going to show you part

of judge porteuos's trial shortly. senate majority leader harry reed said the deal to expand the tax cuts is something that's not done yet and said it needs more work. he spoke for 5 minutes following the senate lunch for party senators. >> this is not an arrangement, but we understand the president is negotiating and are ready to risk everything to secure tax cuts for the wealthiest of all americans. i commend the president for fighting for a lot of thing, but certainly protecting small businesses from income tax hikes including the tax incentives for working families include the payroll tax, earned income tax

credit, and insisting those who lost their jobs, can continue looking for work. this is only a framework. it's up to the congress to pass it. some in my caucus still have concerns about the proposal as i suspect republicans have concerns about it. we'll work with republicans over the next many hours to address these concerns. as always, our support for any tax legislation is incumbent on its ability to strengthen middle class families and small businesses. we have this impeachment going on, i'll take a few questions, but i really have to go start that. >> are there things you want added into the compromise? >> well, the concerns are wide ranging. some deal with man matters other

than taxes frankly, but we were not able to work through this all today. the vice president got there after 1:30 # and went until just now. i have a chairman's lunch at 12:30, but we'll have another caucus to talk about this. we're working through the issues that people have, and we'll continue doing that. >> did you -- how big a problem is the estate tax? >> the estate tax is something that a number of people raised the issue about. we have been fighting that tax for a long, long time. i have voted against the lincoln-kyl proposal on more than one occasion or a variation of that. i'm not a big fan of what has been negotiated, but we have to realize where we are, see where the votes are when this is all done, so, yeah, this was an

issue that was raised. >> okay, over here. >> do you know how much this will cost even a ballpark figure, and diable any of it will be paid for? >> yes, some is paid for, some suspect, and the numbers of, we didn't define a number, but there were a number of things said. we had a number of economists there and i don't know if i can remember all the names, but mark zandi, center for american progress, greenstein's group, and a number of economists talked about this decreased number of jobs by about 2 million. what vice president said clearly based on the stimulus bill with how many jobs it would create,

he said, i don't do that anymore so that's why they ask others to render their opinion, so it's something that's not done yet. let's make that clear. one last question, i have to go. >> [inaudible] can you tell us -- [inaudible] >> i am not going to say this for fear it would interfere with some of my caucus doing what they feel is appropriate, but i'll do what i think is right when it comes down it it. i hope that indirectly answers your question. >> are you confident that if you sign off on this, your people will sign off on the deal? >> no, i think we have more work to do on it. >> do you think you'll have to take things out? >> and now senate republicans.

republican leader mitch mcconnell says a majority of the republicans support the decision to continue taxes for another two years. he spoke to reporters for about 5 minutes at the capitol. >> well, good afternoon, everyone. let me just say we're pleased as you well know and have been reporting for the last 24 hours to reach an agreement with the preponderate and vice president on how to deal with the issues here at the end of the session which is to make sure the american's taxes don't go up in a time of 9.8% unemployment. i'm optimistic that a large majority of the republican congress will find this worth supporting, and i'm hopeful the democratic leaders will be able to convince their members as well this is the way to go

forward and the right thing to do under these circumstances here as we move toward the 111th congress. with that, i'll call on john kyl. >> excuse me, leaders. several of you have asked about some very specific provisions of tax law and whether or not it's included in what we might be doing. i just ask that you give us and our staff an opportunity to work through some of those issues that haven't been discussed by the president. give us time to work through those before asking us to tell you exactly all of the specific things that are in our outside the tax package. we are working through them rapidly, and i think we concluded fairly quickly. >> there are a lot of stories as this would be expected to be about who won or lost politically in this agreement. the way i look at it, and i think a great many members of

our conference look at it is what would be best thing for our country right now? we believe our number one goam is to make is easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs, and the best thing we could do right now to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs are not to raise taxes on people who create jobs and on the american people in the middle of an economic down turn, that's why the right thing for the country is to support the tax agreement to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. >> i think the american people have two major concerns. one is they want us to deal with the issue of the economy and job creation, and secondly, they want washington growing and spending and debt under control. i think that the proposal that's been reached on taxes is an important one where the economy is concerned because i believe if we're going to create

conditions favorable of economic growth, we can't have taxes going up on small businesses and job creators, and this particular agreement preserves the current tax rates and hopefully will unleash economic growth to get people in the country back to work. the second thing that i think the american people want addressed and they want it addressed in short order as well is the issue of spending and debt, and i hope before this congress adjourns we'll come up with an agreement on a spending bill that doesn't increase spending, that recognizes that we have to get our fiscal house in order here in washington, and i hope that we can get a clean cr passed before congress adjourns and deal with the issues of taxes, spending, debt, and put the other things off until next year when we're going to have an opportunity to debate a whole range of other issues. >> i appreciate the president's willingness to work in a bipartisan way to give the kind

of certainty that american businesses and the job creators in this country have been asking for and by not raising taxes on anyone when there's 9.8% unploimentd in this country -- unemployment in this country, i appreciate the president's efforts to agree that that is the proper way forward in working to revitalize the economy. >> okay, i'll take a couple questions if there are any. >> is this agreement final or still concessions passed by the other side? >> well, the agreement is essentially final. senator reed and i have to discuss procedurally how to go forward, and that requires a pretty broad agreement ongoing forward. i believe it is his intention, he can speak for himself to bring it up first in the senate. we'll deal with it sometime soon. >> [inaudible]

well, i think it's pretty early to tell who is going to vote how. i reported to you a few moments ago and i'll say again i think the vast majority of the republican congress feel this is a step in the right direction, an important step to take for the american people, and i think that the vast majority of my members will be supporting it. thank you. >> the senate is meeting in closed session to talk about the judge porteuos hearing. while that's happening, we'll show you the trial this afternoon. he's georgeed with corruption and lying, and at the end of the trial the senate votes on whether to remove him from office. members of the house outlined

the case against the judge and answered questions from senators. they are followed by the judge's defense attorney. >> the senate will resume consideration of the articles of impeachment against judge g porteu -- portoeous. mr. shift asked to speak first. do you wish to reserve time for closing, and if so, how much time? >> if it's permitted, after i make brief instruction remarks, i'll turn it over to my colleague to speak, and when he is finished speaking, i would like to reserve the balance of my time unless we have to set that in advance. >> you may proceed, sir.

>> mr. president, and members of the senate, this is a case about a state court judge from gretna, louisiana who had a gambling problem, a drinking problem, and as a result of those problems also had serious financial problems. he was constantly short of money. this grudge entered into a corrupt scheme with lawyers and bail bondsman to help him lead a lifestyle he otherwise couldn't afford. he sent the lawyers cases, and they paid for his meals, liquor, his parties, even some of his son's expenses. he set bonds for the bail bondsmen at the amounts to maximize their profits and expunged their employees and they paid for his meals, trips, home repairs, car repairs, and lavish gifts. the white house was not aware of this corrupt activity, and they nominated the judge to the

federal bench. the judge misled the senate about his background, concealed the kick backs, waited until after his confirmation hearing, but before he was sworn in to expunge the conviction of another employee, and falsely told the senate that there was nothing in miss background that would adversely affect his confirmation. unaware of what the judge had been engaged in, he was confirmed. the very reason why the information sought by the senate was so material whether he had a drinking problem, whether he had a gambling problem, whether he lived beyond his means, or was the subject of compromise was to prevent the damage to the constitution of the judiciary that would be caused by putting a corrupt man on the bench. what happened when the judge took the federal bench was all but predictable. the problems continued.

credit card, violates the bankruptcy court order by incurring new debt. he files false judicial financial disclosures stating that he is no more than $30,000 worth of credit card debt when he owes over $100,000 on his credit cards and most pernicious to the interests of his creditors, he keeps on gambling. the judge is assign add complex case and a trial that has been years in the making, pit ago hospital against a pharmacy and worth many tens of millions of dollars. six weeks before trial one of the lawyers that had been paying him kickbacks in the state court is brought in at the last minute is brought in at the last minute to present the pharmacy. the hospital smells a rat.on't w back, but they are suspicious about why an attorney with no experience in the case were so

complex bankruptcy litigation be broadened, so they ask around.hr and they don't like what they re hear. they asked the judge to recuse h himself and they've refused. and also present did not receive was only a campaign contribution that with two other of the judges of that parish. the case goes to trial and is by ile n under submission by the judhege. while he is considering how to e rule, he goes fishing with aer d lawyer who paid in the cakemoren packs and hit them up for $2000t more in cash. the two partners at the law firm put the cash in an envelope andu thedge judge sentenced a secrety to pick it up right at the law asked, what's in the envelope? s labor secretary rolls her eyes you'd never mind, the judge's secretary says. i don't want to know. bondsma and the relationship of the bils

bondsman isn't over either.e he can no longer set bond for them, but he can help them b recruit other judges by vouching for their character, by putting, them together and he does. and now we are here. everyone around the judges on. v the bonds that have gone to jges jail. the other state judges h help recrui recruit have also gone to jail. the lawyers who gave them theher cached that lost their licenses and given up their practices. most of us stating the institution itself has suffered greatly. but again semipublic in new orleans wonder, see an example of this judge, whether they too must be a judge in cash and under the table. to the home or car repairs or other favors for the judge to tw win their case or have their conviction expunged. only the judge remains defiant, claiming his problems are no

more than the appearance of appc impropriety, not actualual wrongdoing. he retains his office, his title, his full salary through s years of cases and hasn't for years. ars. and if he can just eke it out a little longer, a full retirement the judge is a gambler and he im batting that he can beat the system just one more time. in a moment, alternate over to b give a detailed presentation oft what they proved at trial, orr g high crimes and misdemeanors committed by judge g tomas g. porteous. the remarkable thing about thisl case is that most of the pertinent facts are notca in ase dispute at the neutral factual prepared by the senate impeachment d demonstrates, the- evidence on most of the salient points was uncontested. at the same time, the report iss not a substitute for hearing

from the witnesses themselves or because that is not part of allt forir entire senate. hearing from the senators who it did. senate impeachment committee of 12 conducted a remarkable childt cannot heleave the credibility f every witness, rolled in every e objection, heard every argument. and they will be a great resource to you in youryour deliberations. to uncontested that judge porteous solicited and received $2000 cash secretly from an attorney and his partner while that attorney fees is underdge portet submission.before t judge porteous himself admits this before the fifthehcu circu. the judge called it a loan that te never paid back.calling i but if council is taken to calling it a wedding gift, as im it were a piece of china from the pottery barn.nsel significantly, no one other thai defense counsel is never called this cash a wedding gift. not a motto and creeley who paid

it, not the secretary who delivered it and not even they d judge himself. this is the best defense counsel at his most creative. the 12 senators who heard the testimony are in the best position to refute those carrot acteri relations, which are so at odds with the evidence. one example before he turned over to mr. goodlatte. the defense has suggested manyrr times during prayer preceding foayr me today that judge portes has been impeached for somethini nothing more serious and having2 lunch with attorneys and bill bondsman. this is rethpresented to the committee told senators that the pretrial deposition of bob creeley, in which only senator johanns wasbe present.mony, he w but because senator johanns entered the testimony, he was able to inform the other senators that would get really fed as johanns admonished the defense, quote, i sat through te the creeley deposition.est thiso and to sutuggest this is about a purchase launched is really, in

my personal opinion, very misleading. he later s went on to say i will emphasize, please don't try to convince mye colleagues that tho creeley deposition was just about a free lunch. itut was not and i can cite whai heard that day. the 12 senators heard these witnesses can cite what they heard during the trial. tremends and they will be a tremendous t resource. i would now like to introduce mr. goodlatte of virginia for a. detailed presentation of the evidence the house presented. and when he concludes, we hadvee posumed -- reserved the ladderpm of her time for an argument. >> the chair recognizes representative >> thank you, mr. shays. mr. president, let me turn to what the evidence showed. by way of background, in the early 1970s, judge porteous practiced law as a partner with jacob amato, robert creely was an associate to work for them.

amato and creely form thurmont. from sql partners. they used to make friends porteous. in 1984, judge porteous was elected judge of the 24thna, judicial district court in jefferson parish, louisiana, with its courthouse in gretna, e outside new orleans. he served as a state judge from august 1984 through october 28, 1994, when he was sworn in as the united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana. with starting with article i, let met first describe t what the evidee established, concerning judge tp porteous curator shiv kickback scheme with creely and amato. while he was a state judge,oney. judge porteous started to ask creely for money. the first ds for small amounts, $50 or $100, money that creely had in his wallet, which clearly would give him.

at some point in the mid-to-lata 1980s, judge porteous began to o request more significant sums from creely, amounts in the range of o $500 or $1000. greely resisted giving judge porteous that sort of money as m creely testified, i did tell he them i was tired of giving themo cash. i felt put upon and i.t. continue to ask. i thought it was an imposition on their friendship. i told him a couple of times, ig am tired of giving you money. ad i am tired of you asking for h money. judge porteous data cache and creely wouldn't give it to him. so what do you judge porteoustee do? the evidence demonstrated thatju judge porteous came up with whak was a kickback scheme. judge porteous use the power of his judicial office to assign creely curator shiv someone requested and received from creely and his a partner, amatoa portion of the fees received by their law form for handling those cases.roximate over time, judge porteous received approximately $20,000

result of this arrangement. let me show you what what one of these orders bookplate. of you see here, mr. president, but may say that i know it's difficult for some of the senators to see these exhibits at the conclusion of the lea all arguments, we will leave all ofs these exhibits for the senators to examine, if that isopriate we appropriate with the senate. as you see here, in order signer by judge porteous,te as signing robert creely to be the curatori rr a missing party in a civil case.a greely and his law firm received a fixed fee, $200 for handling each of these matters and it wah from those feeds that judge porteous out the cash fromthis u creely and a motto. the scheme went on forpt years.f the proof of the series of events is the interwoven and ansistent testimony of creely, amato and judge porteous himselh in his testimony under oath before a special committee of it the fifth circuit.court

it is also collaborated by thers court records. first, creely testified after cr judge porteous started assigning lling over the curator shiv, judge porteous then started calling over to hic office and saying, look, i've been sendingur you curators, you know, can you give me the money? hr the curators? creely testified that evenresis though he previously had nsisted giving judge porteous h cash, he would now -- he now would give him cash in responsed to judge porteous is demand because they quote was not costing them anything, ende mony quote. it did not cost really anything because the money creely gave judge porteous came from the curator shiv thieves.rteous with amato, who split the payments ty judge porteous with creely 50/50, collaborated creely's account of events.amato to unify the testified that creely and support the judgein with any curator cases to him and he would in turn give money to the judge.the amato agreed to go on with thetn

arrangement, but told creely that it was quote, going to tur" out bad, which it clearly has. hirs amato testified he knew that stg your readership is wrong, but he was not strong enough to say no to any understood to be a kickbk classic kickback arrangement. creely and the mono providedo je judge porteous cash every few months in response to judge porteousav requests. oppos t they gave him cash as opposed to textron on the firm's accounts. kin according to amato's testimony,l this was to avoid any kind of td paper, trail, and quote. ju as creely testified, they gave him cash because that is what judge porteous wanted. in m post instances, creely gave the cash to judge porteous. crey however, both amato testified that on occasion amato gaves cod judge porteous the cash as welll judge porteous converted his testimony underwrote, before tho fifth circuit, the essential aspects of the scheme. admit

one,tw he received cash on cree. to come at some point in time gg clearly expressed his displeasure with giving judge porteouseas cash.igning thereafter he started assigning, creely curatorship spirit and four, judge porteous is received of kashmir and creely and amato decisive curator ships. first, judge porteous admitted that he received cash from answer, probably when i was on this day bench. wn y question, and that practiceudge, continued into 1994 when he became a federal judge, did it not? i believe the answer -- ihat' believe that's correct.ere came judge porteous said there became a time when creely expressed resistance to give judge porteous money before the curatorship started.all, question, do you recall,

mr. creely, refusing to pay you money before the curatorship started? answer, he may have said ier needed to get my finances under control. ceipt of yeah. from judge porteous admitted that his receipt of cash from creely and amato occasionally followed hiso assignment of curator ships to creely. although judge porteous refused to label the arrangement of the cake back, a he accepted the arrangement that he had with g creely and amato is one where hv curator ships and was getting cash back. the cou and quote. what about the court records? t during its investigation, the bu house located close to 200 orders signed by judge porteous, assigning creely curator ships between approximately 1988 ande. 1994. all of these orders are in evidence. these curator ships he feeds thi 0%arly $40,000 to the firm, bot5

creely and amato have testified consistently that they gave judge porteous about 50% of the proceeds of the curatorship these were approximately $20,000 in total. for his part, judge porteous had testified at the fifth circuit that he had quote, no earthlya"m idea, and quote, how mucuch crey and amato gave him, although he did not deny the total could have been more than $10,000. follows. recd fro question, judge porteous over the years how much have you chevy receiver jake amato andano bob creely for their law firm? and there, i have no earthly idea.000r question, it could've been $10,000 or more, isn't thatto right?i he answer, it can you ask me toell speculate. i have no idea solly can tell you. on october 28, 1994, judgefederc porteous was sworn in as a federal district judge. to judge porteous was no longer ino a position to assign curator

stopped asking them for cash at least for the time being.ts for the fact that judge porteous to requests were cast on creely ane amato temporarily came to an ens at the same time he stopped assigning them curatorships constitutes additional powerful evidence that those two actions were inextricably conctnected ir the cash payments from amato included to judge porteous were not merely gets from the two met separate and apart from the proe curatorships. let me provide you with a little ato bit more flavor after judge porteous relationship with amato and creely. the way a focus on the cash and curatorships, aisha's judgeprovs eddie depended on the two men to provide for his entertainment and support his lifestyle another major respects., b for example, while judge porteous was a state judge, both a amato and creely took him too lunch at expensive restaurants. amato testified he took judge porteous to launch a couple of times a month, amounting to luns

potentially hundreds of lunches and that judge porteous paidimet only two or three times out of ifie 100.d at these lunches, amado testified that he typically paid for at least two vodka drinksrle for judge porteous. l similarly, creely also took mon. judge porteous to launch approximately twice a month. crilly testified that when he and judge porteous went to lunch, either creely paid were somebody else paid, but not judge porteous. in addition, amato and creely porteous on hunting those and fishing trips and arrangeir the strips, some of which that e involved air travel to mexico, so that judge porteous neveraste paid. on a they give them cash on one other occasion of his request.994, in the summer of 1994, when judge porteous his son timothy was in washington d.c. for portus had externship, judge porteous had a secretary, rhonda danos solicito

and receive money from creely and amato to sponsor timothy's position and pay for his expensive. this is on the record. turn now, let me turn to judgeporteo porteous relationship with amato & creely after he became a federal judge. 1996, on january 16, 1996, judgeomplit porteous, now a federal judge was assigned a complicated civil action. lexmark hospitals liljeberg v. lifemark dispute between hospital lexmark and a pharmacy and involve bankruptcy law, e really straight on contract law. the mother was particularly contentious but tens of millions of dollars at stake. the case of a separate non-trial before judge porteous in early november, and the 96. he was to be the trier of law and fact. the in mid-september, just six weeks before prior to the scheduled trial, date, the liljeberg filed in appearance to try amato and

money by then, another one offre his fans as their attorneys. amato was hired on a contingency basis, which provided his law firm would receive a percentage of any award. the amato estimated that if wou liljeberg succeeded in the casen they would receive between $500,000 a million dollars.jebeg if liljeberg lost, he would receive nothing. lexmark's lead counsel, joe hired by liljeberg on the eve o. trial. even amado testified, i'm sure h my relationship with judge porteous has something to do with i it, and quote. tt judge moore was concerned that judge porteous would figure out some way of getting to the liljegbergs. he feared with amato on the woud other side he would not receive d a fair trial. could so molded the only thing he circumstances. he filed a motion asking judge w porteous to recuse himself,

which essentially requested thae porteous h judge porteous have the cases assigned to another judge. mole drafted the motion based on his limited understanding of the alleging and substanceporteo only quote, that there was a porteous and mr. amato and mr. levenson, and quote.that ama they were known to socialize t together, that amando and the as judge of the mob partners and the timing of amato's entry into the case into the trail created ong w suspicion. mole had no idea what that amato along with his partner creely had given judge porteous approximately $20,000 pursuant to the curatorship kicked backr. arrangements, nor did he know the other things of value thatue amato or creely had provided toi judge porteous. judge porteous held a hearing ot mole's motion. judge porteous statement that the hearings are set forth in detail in her brief in thell hearing transcript is also in

evidence.judge porte so i'm not going to repeat all of them here. in sum, judge porteous made a series of deceptive, misleading and lowland statements in which he minimized his relationship with amato, concealed thecized curatorship kickback schemes and criticized mole for filing a splyn. in essence, judge porteous portrayed his relationship witht amato is simply the same sort of unexceptionalhat relationship th he would've had with any member of the bar.teous for example, judge porteous stated, quote, yes, mr. amatoher and mr. levenson or friends of mine. have i ever been to either of their house -- haveee i evern bs to either one of ben's house? the answer is a definitive no. e ans have a gun to lunch with them? e the answer is a definitive yes.e have i been going to lunch with all the memberss of the bar? answer is yes. even not as misleading because t judge porteous had unpacked except in hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants. sigcant

but most significantly, judge whatsoever of what he knew was that is, that it received approximately $20,000 in cash wes creel from y.amato's law firm, money that he knew came from amato as well as creely. when mole, a great disadvantageo many reference to the fact thate amato and levenson had contributed to judge porteous'st campaign, judge porteous went on the offense. l quote, well, ucluckily i didn't have any campaigns, so i'mted to interested to find out how you know that. any i never had any campaigns, oppo" counsel.he went i've never had an opponent, andt quote. he went on to say, the first time i ran, 1984, i think is the only time they gave me money. urse, that blanket statement was of course a deliberate falsehood f because amato and his firm had given judge porteous cash

approximately $20,000 in cash pursuant to the kickback schemeh judge porteous concluded, withie the self-serving comment, in which he promises to notifyny qo counsel that he has any questions, that he should recuse themselves been concluded, i don't think a well-informed individual can question my impan impartiality in this case. effe, so wwhen the facts, which you have is judge porteous, who knowste the facts, just not disclosing it. completely deceiving like mark and its counsel as to the true nature of his actual relationship with amato and with judge porteous, not into the world how honest he was,ck complete with a mockeous denied indignation. judge porteous denied the recusal motion after the court n lexmark appealed seeking tor, b overturn judge porteous order. however, because of the false record created by judge porteous

of the recruits a hearing, that was tonight.ge trial was held without a jury in the summer of 1997 and judgent. porteous to e a case under advisement. while the case was pending, was licit pending his decision, judge porteous continue to solicit ane accept cash and things of value from amato and creely.ad in may 1999, while judge porteous had not yet ruled on the case, he went to las vegas, nevada, withve several friends,s including creely for his son'shr bachelor party. creepy for judge porteous hotel room is a mental firm charges amounting to over $500. he also paid over $500 for a n portion of timothy porteous' these payments amounted to more than $1100 are set forth on dinr creely's american express card, which is in evidence. where after the dinner, creely e accompanies judge porteous and others to a strip club, wherege creely gave a club employee $200 to pay for a lap dance for judge porteous in a courthouse employee. judge porteous admitted in his m

fifth circuit testimony, that creely paid for his hotel room and a portion of the dinner. in june of 1999, while judge heljegberg case underr. consideration, the two men took a nighttime fishing trip together. on the fishing trip, judge porteous told amato he needed ad cash for his son's wedding and requested that amato gave approximately $2000. in response to that request, amato agreed to give judge porteous the money he solicitedt approximately $1000 from his and partner, creely and gave judge porteous $2000 in cash in an envelope as amato would later--- testify, it was close, a decision i regret until the day i die. end quote. as a senate impeachment trial committee report found, theas

$2000 or picked up by judge ll danos. when danos ocelot from secretary was in the envelope on the secretary rolled her eyes inever response, danos said, nevermind, like much of the other evidencey the fact that judge porteous solicited and received money from amato in 1999, while theed. liljegberg case was pending istd not contested. befe here's how judge porteous testified under oath before the fifth circuit. not you question, whether or not youor recall asking mr. amato for money during the fishing trip, do you recall getting an $2,000 envelope with $2000 shortlyre me thereafter? envelop answer, yeah, something seems to enve suggest there may have been anoe envelope. i don't remember the size of the envelope, how i got the envelope or anything about it.ure of t question, wait a second, is that the nature of the envelope d you're disputing?isanswer: no, answer: no, money was received in an envelope. a question: it had cash and a?

answer: yes, sir. it was from creely.ispute answer: yes. question: would you dispute the amount was $2000? dispute it. answer: i don't have any basis eq dispute it. r at the time he made the requesti of a judge porteous hadyoavme significant financial leverage over amato and a solicitation oa cash from amato had a shakedowny quality to it. amato bought big knowledge that one of the factors that impacted his decision to give judge porteous the cash was that amato stood to make a lot of money in connection with the liljegberg o case, then pending in front of " the judge and that amato was not willing to quote take the risk e of not giving judge porteous the couch the judge solicited.ca judge porteous solicitation of cash grand amato demonstrates judge porteous egregious misuse of his judicial power to enrichn himself. n such unfitengages i conduct is inserted to continues

to hold the office of the united states district judge. in addition, amato and creely to judge porteous actress of that lunch is on a regular basis and paid over $1000 for a part iy in honor of its fifth year on the bench. mole do nothing of judge porteous relationships with amato and creely while the case was pending. specifically, judge porteousno s not inform mole of the meals, ch payment in las vegas or the $2000 cash payment. 26, on april 26, 2000, judge lilje porteous issued a written fincil opinion in the liljegberg case. at that time, his financial situation is desperate in histt. recent paper meeting with a bankruptcy attorney. judge porteous would take an judicial action in the past with amato and creely to enrich himself a powerful financial their favor, their favor, reward them for the past loyalty encouragesity and them in the future. in

does, it is not surprising thatv judge porteous ruled in all major aspects in favor of amatog to bes. clients, the liljegbergl he testified this oswas quote a resounded month for life mark and mike subsite appeal does. in august 2002, the fifth circuit is. in doing so, the fifth circuitog characterized various aspects of judge porteous really isucted inexplicable, constructed absurd, close to be nonsensicalw and not supported by law. fifth circuit -- by the fifth circuit and sent back to judge porteous, the parties settled pe because lifemark understandably did not want to go back before judge porteous. article ii, judge porteousrelatp relationship with the bondsman

louis marcotte and his sister lauriemarquette, it is essential to begin with his roots as a state court judge. bon first,ds let me briefly describe how the bail bonds business worked in jefferson parish. from a financial perspective of bill bondsman louis marcotte, he would make no money if the judge dge set said bond is so high that thehat prisoner or his family could not afford to pay for premiums.set o worth a judge set bond for a t the premium insignificant son.fo a what marcotte really wanted was for a bond to be set at the pay maximum amount for which the prisoner could afford to pay marcotte the premium, which was typically 10% of the bond amount. he and that is how he maximize coud profits. he fowould interview the prison, know what the prisoner couldfit afford an attempt to have bond set at the profit maximizing fay amount. if a prisoner or his family could scrape together $5000, marcotte would want a judge to set bail at 10 times that amount

amnt wou or $50,000, even if a lower amount would've been appropriate. now, in the gretna, louisiana courthouse to more judge porteous said, bill bondsmandsmn like kaufman.one-on-one directlm with the judges and magistrates to have been set bond. prosecutors and defense lved attorneys were virtually never involved. it is against this background that judge porteous relationship with ththe marcotte can this bea understood. marcotte needed a judge who would be receptive to his b bond request, to reduce bondsman they were too high in fat and entire amount that they were going to be set too low. as we know from judge porteous relationship with amato and creely, judge porteous needed and welcomed fin sancialvian sut from whoever would provide iter and was more than willing to use his judicial power to obtain it. judge porteous and marcotte each understood what the other could doth for him and they formed ar.

mutually unofficial, corrupt relationship. first, as to what the marcottes judge porteous. evidence established thenks, ovr high-end restaurants for lunch, paying for meals and drinks forl over 10 dysfunctions may have occurred as much as twice per o week. these lunches seem to have started in or about 1992 and are collaborated by several witnesses. rteous the marquez but judge porteous . invite to everyone and come especially other judges. and judge porteous, present astp the marcottes gas, help the paid marcottes establish their legitimacy. the marcottes also paid for car repairs and routine car maintenance for judge porteous. on occasions, these are substantial and acquitted inon i such a tiny new tires or enginee entrance mission repairs or new installing a new radio. in addition, marcotte employee,g aubrey wallace would routinely pick of judge porteous car to watch it until fill it with he

guys. gave wallace testified that judge ntrteous gave him his security i code so that he could go into the judges parking lot lot at ve tcourthouse. lea judge porteous would leave the key under the mat.wallould wallace woul pd pick up his cart and return it, washed, gas and d occasionally what they get such as liquor left inside. no fewer than five witnesses cooperated the fact that the ado marcottes paid for his carudge repairs.us in a wddition, marcotte also pan for home repairs for judge porteous, the 80 section offense had to be replaced. testimony at trial from archives employees, duhon and wallace established the project took tw. days to complete.ip the marcottes also played for ae trip to las vegas for judgeudge porteous. on the strip, judge porteous's h secretary, rhonda danos and paid transp for the judges transportation up front. the evidence is clear that that laurie marcotte later paid for

both louis marcotte and laura marcotte testified the payment t wasn't has to consider the fact that theess marcottes had paid g the trade. there is no pretense this was i somemp sort of legitimate act or generosity. it was obviously improper in hin by the parties for that reason. e' return, judge porteouscott tlllingly became marcotte's gomc to judge for sending bonds. rnd mark i wented directly to judge porteous with recommended bondn. amount.ju ondge the mouth to maximize thed income. judge porteous was receptive to them and find countless aunts at request. they would go to his chambers and tell them how much the c prisonerou could afford as parte the s discussions where they requested that he said bill.the as senator risch observed during the trial, he was really the por poorest families who were heard by judge porteous relationship with marcotte. aspec an inherent aspect of theirspect corrupt dealings was that bonds would be set at a higher amounts than might have been set by avet

mutual judge who is not on the e take. and the opposite is also true. hee public interest wasomised w potentially compromise, when judge porteous reduced a bond that marcotte's request, which someon thereby led to thee release as someone who otherwise should've been confined. the marcotte porteousave been relationship what should've been tached a mutual patch process. as in addition to sending bonds isf requested, judge porteous took other judicial like sixcotte's significance for the marcottes.j in 1993 at louis marcotte's request,uds judge porteous expuc the felony conviction of a marcotte employee, jeff duhon,dn so duh con could obtain his bill in 1994, again and marcotte's request, judge porteous set aside another marcotte employee, aubrey wallace. this took place during judge jue porteous last days on the statee bunch and evidences the extent

i which judge porteous was beholden to the marcottes. as a rudimentary moment judge him porteous timed this judicial action to recur after the senate confirmation of him for the jrde federal judgeship, so as to conceal his corrupt relationship with the marcottes and thereby not jeopardize his lifetime appointment. there was one more thing to for marcotte did for judge porteousl of thate part of their corrupt a relationship, when judge porteous was a state judge.f 194 in the summer of 1994, whenbackd judge porteous was undergoing his background check, in thatn interview, marcotte laid foric . judge porteous on three specific points. first the figure judge porteouso would go to have a beer or acotw beer or two at lunch, when in fact marcotte knew that judgewee porteous was a happy vodka drinker, with an alcohol or problem, who would on occasion t second, marcotte stated that he

had no knowledge of judge circumstances, when in fact hese knew that judge porteous finally, and most importantly, nhen interviewed by the fbi,anyi marcotte denied that there was anything in judge porteous the j background that could subject the judge to coercion, blackmail or leverage. true b this was also not true because w marcotte do that he had a he corrupt relationship of judge porteous mit himself had o leverage over judge porteous because of thatat relationship. in fact, marcotte testified watley in september before the senate impeachment trial that he could have that he could have quote, destroyed judge porteous had he chosen to do so. marcotte told the fbi that he.bt believed judge porteous wanted f believed judge pedorteous wanteo him to say.judge judge porteous injured and lying to the t fbi. the judge porteous says to thee contents of the interview is then told judge porteous he gave

him a clean bill of health. indeed, there can be little pretense that judge porteous, anything other w than a corrupt business relationship. they were brought together by their financial needs.reas marco was clear that the omitted took into lasho vegas, fixes cam are fixed his house, was b iecae the judge was assisting them int sending bonds and using the prestige of his office to help them with other judges. the marcotte testified, quote, judge porteous would do more"jug fe after judge porteous became a federal judge, he could no longer set bond for the m marcottes. judge p nonetheless, the marcottes would continue to take judge porteous to lunch, particularly when they sought to recruit other state judicial officers to take his

place and a similar corrupt scheme or to impress business gtuis marcotte expanded judge"bn porteous quote, but strength to the table, and quote, by his table" -- e presence and his assistants. marcotte testified, quotes, itoe would make people respect meknom because you know i am sitting that the federal judge, and poe. as laura marcotte described, quote, state court judges have uss a trusted people because wei were hanging around with the federal judge.." plus, judge porteous use the his power and prestige of his office as a federal judge to help the inflnce in t marcottes expander gouging forof honesty, vouching for practices and helping to recruit a trial successor. our posttrial brief detail several instances of judge fed porteous provided assistance to judge. when we talk about one of thoses instances in particular. in 1999 at louis marcotte's request, judge porteous spoke to newly elected state judge, ronald bodenheimer. f

prior to that conversation, had bodenheimer stayed away from louis marcotte because he had concerns about marcotte's dirtme and believed that marcotte was doing drugs. porteou during a conversation withnited bodenheimer, judge porteous,urtd then event states district cours judge bush were louis marcotte'' integrity. bodenheimer to judge porteous'o, statement seriously enough the result of the conversation, bodenheimer began to set bond for the marcottes. charaistics o the marcottes and bodenheimerpro about to relationship that took on the characteristics of the relationship thaeotus previously existed between judge porteous in the marcottes. the marcottes began providing ms bodenheimer meals, house repairs and a trip to the poor bosch casino and bodenheimer in return began to set bond that wouldtte. maximize profits for the marcottes. and bodenheimer was eventuallytencet criminally prosecuted, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison on a federal corruptionie count, arising from his corrupt e-lationship with the marcottest

you maypo now get to one final e ofar the marcotte at porteous relationship. court and nearly 2000, the fbi washeir investigating state court judges, including bodenheimer for corrupt misconduct arising out of the relationship with th2 marcottes appeared in april 17,d 2003, louis marcotte signed aneb porteous's attorney, in which hd falsely denied that he and judgt relationship. men i mentioned this 2003 affidavit for two reasons. first, this 2003 affidavitorrupt reflects that the corruptmates d relationship between the marcottes and judge porteousas l continued well into his tenure as ase federal judge. second, just as marcotte's 1994e galse statements to the fbi iesi helped obstruct the background check investigation, marcotte's 2003 false affidavit prepared by judge porteous attorney was parl of an effort to obstruct a,

criminal investigation.he f.b. in both instances, marcotte liee to the fbi to assist judgeheir porteous by concealing their corrupt relationship.n he reflects how we than in 2003e nine years after he took the his federal bench, judge porteous was compromised by his relationship with louis marcoe marcotte. inplea march 2004, louis marcote conspiracy charge, involving his corrupt relationship with state judges. he was sentenced to 38 years ine prison. brother an his sister, lori marcotte pleaded guilty at the same time as her brother and was sentenced to three years probation,ention. including six months of home detention. in his house testimony, his deposition and that trial, louis marcotte repeatedly described judge porteous overall impact on the marcotte business is even more significant than to otherrd state judges who are federally prosecuted and were sentenced to

prison.ponse t question: mr.o marcotte, you testified in response to mr. turley that she did things , for lots of judges. answer: yes, i did.son, did question: and some of those judges went to prison, did they not? answer: yes, they did. question: of other judges that she did things for, who was the her? answer: thomas porteous. t now, let me turn to article iiie including judge porteous bankruptcy while he was on the federal bench.emonst the evidence demonstrated throughout the 1990s and into porteous financial conditionet deteriorated largely e point due to gambling at casinos to the point that by march 2001, when he filed for bankruptcy, he had over $190,000 in credit care debt. his credit cards and bank statements in the years preceding his bankruptcy orollai flight tens of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals at r

casinos. before discussing how judge for porteous to see the bankruptcy court, i want to stress that for the years leading up to hisfinae bankruptcy, judge porteous had concealed his death in the financial statements that the a filed with the chords. let me show you an example. deto this is a little detail, so let me walk you throught. it. what you see here is a portion of judge fiporteous 1999 financo disclosure report, in which youa is required to disclose hisimum liabilities. he recorded two credit c the maximum liability being $15,000 each, oj for a total maximum liability of $30,000. in fact, he had five credit cards a with amounts -- with des amounting to over $100,000. they should've been reported in the form ofe liabilities boxed cake on the death of her porte $15,000. this form is blatantly false. judge porteous filed false financial statements that failed t honestly disclosed the extent of his credit card debt for each of the four years into 96 in

through 1999. those forms are in evidence. even though judge porteous has e not been charged in an article with filing false financial as reports and abuse reports constitute a powerful evidence as to judge porteous of intent.r the false financial reports makw it clear that the false conscio statements and bankruptcy were part of a conscious course of conduct involving his finan concealment of financial of activities and not sensitive innocent mistakes or oversights as claimed by counsel.ge pteous in 2000, judge porteous that would bankruptcy attorney, finan claude lightfoot, about his predicament. the evidence demonstrates a judge porteous did not tell lightfoot at that time were indeed at any time that he deced gambled. the two men decided that lifek who would attempt to work judge porteous debts owed to hit creditors and then if that thenj failed, that judge porteous would consider filing forwo bankruptcy.t a lightfoot attempted a workout filled in and about a february

february 2001, lightfoot anda judge porteous commenced preparing for chapter 13jue por bankruptcy. consultion prior to falling for bankruptcyf judgeil porteous in consultation with lightfoot agreed that he would file his bankruptcy petition under a false name.poro to further the plan, judge porteous personally obtain an wd p.o. box or thate his initial irtition would have neither isy correct name nor a readily identifiable address. if you look at this exhibit, you will see that ultimately on sng march 28, 2001, judge porteous,y a sitting federal judge filed for bankruptcy under the false name, gt ortous with a p.o. boxe for judge porteous had obtained on march 23, 2001, listed as hig addresnes. judge porteous sign his petitior twice heard once under the representation quote, i declare you the penalty of perjury that theur information provided in ts petition is true and correct, end quote. the other over the tightening,

gt ortous. on april 9, 2001, judge porteous submitted a statement of of financial affairs and numerous bankruptcy a schedules.ru this time they were filed under his true name.howeve they however, they were false and numerous other ways, allonceal reflecting his desire to conceal assets andam gambling at goodies from the bankruptcy court in hie creditors. while you're not go through all of his false statements during the bankruptcy, they are detailed in our post-trialtr brief.e to i want to at least bring us unto th you. he falsely failed to disclose that it filed for for a tax clan refund, claiming $4143.72n thouh refund, even at the bankruptcy h forms pathetically inquired as to whether he had filed for a tax as you see, this chart sets datd forth his tax return, dated march 23, 2001, 5 days before he it also shows the place on the form where he was required to list any anticipated tax refund.

a copy here is not as clear as we would play, but question 17cy require judge porteous to disclose, quote, other liquidated debts, only better, including tax refunds, end see quote. as you see, the box none is d checked. judge porteous never disclosed the fact ofef his refund, not to cred a his attorney, not to creditors and upst to the bankruptcy cour. instead, he kept it secret and money went right into hishin the pocket. year, he deliberately failed to disclose it can live losses than ore prior year, even though thef form specifically asked thatcirc question. in fact, judge porteous has admitted before the fifth circuit that it didn't live losses. in the days immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy and he t paid casino.video of them inredc as unsecured creditors. additionally, you feel to record those creditors in the bankruptcys att forms, which required the

disclosure and failed to tell his attorney about them. of it does come as casinos to which judge porteous owed money in march of 2001 received a 100 far cents on the dollar, while othen creditors received but a fraction of that amount.mble judge porteous favored casinos i over other creditors because he did not want to jeopardize his ability to take out credit and gamblen at casinos while in car bankruptcy. he had his secretary pay off one of his wife's credit cards five days prior to filing for bankruptcy. judge porteous unreimbursed hist secretary and failed to disclosy this preferred payment to the credit card company on his schedule to filed under oath atu the core. he reported his account balance in his checking account is $100r for the day prior to filing bankruptcy had deposited $2000 into the account. he deliberately failed to account that he regularly used in the past to pay gambling debts. this particular nondisclosure demonstrates judge porteousble determination to have a secret

account available with which to pay gambling debts while inru bankruptcy.er this nondisclosure clearly waskt not inadvertent. since the evidence is clear he wrote a ch teck on my account on march 27, 2001, the day prior to filing for bankruptcy. the single organizing principle that arranges his pattern of false statements is judgeling sc porteous desire to conceal gambling, so that he could wyer. gambled on bankruptcy without on interference from the court or1 the creditors or even his lawyer. at a hearing of creditors on schedules were accurate. that statement, like so many ofl his other statements under oathy was false. inf ator that hearing, the bankruptn trustee also in for judge porteous said he was on a cash1 basis going forward. at the end of june 2001, bankruptcy judge william plan greendyke issued an order withut

the chapter 13 plan, t specifically directing judge porteous not to incur the debt notwithstanding judge greendykee through the order coming topplid incur additional debt without ci permission of the quarter.card. he applied for and used a credia card. here is a book that includes a g copy of judge porteous 2001, application for credit card and use in september 2001, in violation of the order of thepon court. more particularly, judge porteous continued to borrow from the casinos without themis. court's permission. this chart, which was used at cn trial was 42 times that he tookb a data casinos to gamble and the first of the three years he was in bankruptcy. further, as judge porteous hadan planned, in some instances, he paid theseo casino to do the fidelity money market account tf that he concealed. here at the top of this blowupdy

is a check he wrote on the concealed fidelity money market in the amount of $1800 to the treasure chest casino on november of 2001. below is a check in the amount of $1300 to grand casino marketa gulfport, also drawn on the undisclosed money market accounc in july 2002.debts to t bothhe of these checks repay the outstanding debts to thecasin of casinos. in short, he engaged in a frustd pattern of deceit collectivity,e designed to frustrate and confound the bankruptcyss proce. the harm brought by judge porteous conduct in bankruptcy e is really intelligible.e the bankruptcy process depends totally on the honesty and candor c of debtors. the trustee does not dispatch investigators to check on a p debtor sworn representations. ce judge porteous is displayed contempt for the bankruptcy court is little more than a display of contempt for some fac judicial office. a federal judge to infect herhod bankruptcy appeals appeals and escort should be expected tos it

uphold the highest standards of honesty. it is inexcusable that judge porteous manipulated this process for his own benefit.le i may not discuss article for. and for that i need to return to the summer of 1994.at that let me set the stage. federal at that tanker will judgeas porteous is being considered for federal judgeship, he was engaging into corrupt schemes. first, curatorship kicked tax scheme with creely and amatoon t that i previously described in connection withic article i and second, current relationship the with the marcottes are described in connectioenn with article ii. judge porteous knew that if the white house and senate found out either creely and amato or the marcottes, he would never becess nominated, let alone confirmed. the background q investigation and during the confirmation process, judgens porteous was asked questions on four w separate occasions that d he were to answer the questions truthfully and candidly requirey

him to disclose his marttes. relationships with creely and amato in the marcottes. in each instance, judge porteous allied. because those four statements i, are at the heart of article iv, let me show you exactly what exa judge porteous was asked and hit exactly what he answered. first, sometime prior to july a july 1994, judge porteous although they were far referredt to as oa supplement to the sf u on tndhat farm is a question tht goes to the very heart of the issue associated with the background process. on that form, judge porteous way asked question: is there anything in your personal life that can be used by some into tarser black value? is there anything in your life that could cause an embarrassment to you or to the president is publicly known? details. to which judge porteous answeref no. judge porteous signed that document under warnings of criminal penalties for making

false statements. this statement was aul lie.994, on july 6 in july 8, 9094, judge porteous was personally interviewed by an fbi agent is a part of the backgroundec checkht process. judge porteous was asked by thet age of the same sort of questions i discussed inorandu fnnection with the sf 86. the his answers were incorporated in a memorandum of the fbi agent that summarize the interview. for me show you the relevant portion of the memorandum. judge porteous was recorded as saying that he was notea feeling any dignity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coarser compromise ann in any way, or that would impact negatively on the candidates juo cared your cover reputation, judgment or discretion.,he you're also a lie. after that interview, the fbi in new orleans that the background check to have theiinr headquarts in washington d.c. for the review.us fbi a headquarters director of r

agents to interview judge porteous the second time about a very particular allegation the fbi had received in 1993, that judge porteous had taken a bribr from an attorney to reduce theen bond for an individual who 18, 4 would've been arrested. sond so on august 18, 1994, the fbi conducted a second in-person interview with judge t porteous. this time, probing possible connectionag with bomb setting.d again, the fbi write up of theih interview records judge porteous at saving quote, that he was unaware of anything in his infee background that might be the basis of attempted influence, ao professor, coercion or compromise that would impact negatively on a scared group, reputation, judgment or reputation., and again he lied. finally, after he was nominated, the united states senate again, i committee and the judiciary sen. judge porteous a questionnaire r.r judicial nominees. answe

again, and show you the document. judge porteous possess the following question and gave the following answer. t question: please advise the committee of any unfavorable information that may affect your answer: to the best of my any knowledge, i do not know of any unfavorable information that may affect my nomination. aff the signature block is in the form of an affidavit.ate the information provided in the document is true and accurate. judge porteous vied for the fourth time. por the questions judge porteous asked are clear and unambiguous, in each of the four instances, the questions called for judge porteous to disclose his the relationship with amato and creely and the marcottes. as additional evidence to tho suggest judge porteous would've understood the reach of thosequ pr interviews address to judge porteous bargaining practices.ie it's hard to imagine it could've been put on more specific notica that in his relationship with

marcottent and his conduct in setting bonds was relevant and should be disclosed. rel second, judge porteous understanding of the materiality of his relationship withconceal marcotte and his intent to i conceal it is further evidence by his statements and conduct, aubrey wallace b. b. felonyas conviction, which i referencedea earlier. as i w mentioned, marcotte had n employeeel named aubrey wallaceu who took care osef his cars and also fixed his house., marcott confirmation, marcotte went to judge porteous and asked him to set aside wallace's burglary his conviction, to take the first fellating convictions so that wallace would ultimately be ablu to obtain a bail bond license. judge porteous agreed to do would do so only after he wast confirmed by the senate becauses he did not want to jeopardize his quote lifetime appointments, and quote.ponse to h

when asked to describe judge porteous's response to his request, marcotte testifiedanswer come he put me g not going to let anything stand in the way of me being confirmeo in my lifetime appointment. so after that's done, i will do it. marcotte went on to explain the nature of judge porteous concerh quote, if the government would've found out some of the things he was doing with me, it would probably keep him from spy getting his appointment, and judge porte quote. senator mccaskill specifically asked marcotte as to whether judge porteous used the lifetimt appointment phrase. in response, marcotte's answer was clear.teous quote, that was the words of judge porteous, and quote. in substance, judge porteous the said that he was satisfied waltzes conviction, but that he was going to hide it from the senate. it is hard to conceive of a clearer, more explicit expression of intent to deceive the senate.corrorate

judge porteous's actions cooperate marcotte's recollection of theon oct conversation. he was confirmed by the senate on october 7, 1994 and satisfied waltzes conviction as he said he would after that on october 14, 1994.confirmshat jud the timing of the wallace set-aside confirms that judge porteous calculated and plottedm to conceal material facts concerning his relationship with louis marcotte from you, the united states senate.salientacts the conviction if he chose to do so weeks prior to his confirmation. absolutely nothing in wallace's case occurred that explains his delay in waiting until after the confirmation. the only event of significance that explains the timing is that judge porteous was confirmed in the interim. moreover, judge porteous' willingness to set aside wallace's conviction at marcotte's request constitutes proof positive that judge

porteous was, in fact, subject to coercion, leverage, and compromise, the very fact as to which judge porteous was requested and which judge porteous denied. because of the fraud committed by judge porteous on the f.b.i. by judge porteous on the f.b.i. on the fbi and the senate, he was in fact n confirmed and was sworn in october 28th, 1994. he has been a federal judge init the fruits of his deceit and the power of the position since tha, date. in conclusion, the house has proved each of the four article. of impeachment. the evidence demonstrates judge porteous is dishonest andthe corrupt and does not belong on the federal bench. he essonnes false financial docs forms, false questionnaires and documents under a false name under penalty of perjury.n c he is engaged in corrupt scheme. with attorneys and bill bondsman to the he has betrayed his oathy in handling a case dishonestly and with partiality in favor,ine

statements at a hearingh one of concerning his financial relationship with one of the attorneys and in soliciting cash from that attorney while theort' case away did judge porteous ' e decision. he has brought disgrace andederl distribute to the federal benchs the evidence demonstrates he has committed high crimes andests tu misdemeanors. the hous he requests you find he guilty on each of the four counts and removed him from an t office he is not fit to occupy.d thank you for your time andf our attention. we reserve the balance of our time.very >> thank you very much. >> what you may proceed on behalf the judge. >> thank you, mr. president,, fr members of the senate.nt for those who are not present this morning, i am the chicagoew georgel washington university ad porteous, a judge on the

district court in the eastern district of louisiana. join me again at the counsel table are my colleagues from the law firm of bryan cave, daniel schwartz, p.j. and daniel konarm sitting here listening to my esteemed opposing counsel, we hd are putting mind of anotherrs trial held almost 220 years ago almost to the very day. the turi it proved to be one of theamerin turning point in american law, eight british soldiers accused a of murder and what americans call the boston massacre and the english called the boston rye yet. columnists demanded the soldier beto executed and everyone camef the trial expected less of a trial as much as a hanging. adams himself solve the casein s differently.ust in fact john adams salt not jusu

another case, but the very cause for which he was already fighting. on the creation of a new nation based on due process and principles of justice.e, as in today's case, many facts it was clear the british c soldiers firedro into the crowd, but adams stopped the jury and o challenged them to consider twoe questions. one, whether the soldiers hadnd acted with required intent and malice and number two, whether the requested punishment datafit fit the crime. it was also one of the earliest uses of the reasonable doubt standard ever recorded in our country. prieta proportionality became theon touchstone of that case ad

later cases in the republicds tu adams held in existence. in words that would echo through the ages, adams warned the jury, quote, whatever may be our es, wishes, our inclinations for dictates of our passions, they and evidence. the law will not bend to imanatn uncertain wishes, imagination of want and timbers of men. when the framers turned to the protec constitution, they sought to protect the judiciary from want and tempers and mentionedframers offenses. in cases of impeachment they expressed fear that congress would yield the passions over approved and the removal of federal judges. others carefully crafted the standard of impeachment tociary, protect the independentt they wn

judiciary, at madison said va standards, quote, so vague to be the equivalent of pleasurehey wo during the senate. that's what they wanted to the avoid. they rejected corruption because the new the term correction could be used to mean the most term anything. and for that reason that term was adopted by the house in this case. it hasn't changed. the framers explicitly debatedae and rejected this standard of now administration and instead demanded a federal judge could not be removed absent proof ofgs treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. applying the standard this congress is refused to remove judges, not because they agreed with their actions. every judge whose case was brought before members of thisen

esteemed body worthy of condemnation. they had few friends. but this body to the distinctioe between judges who have done wrong and who have committed of. removable offenses. i would like to tell you about the man that is on trial today, g. thomas porteous, jr..ly he spent virtually his entirelic life as a public servant. he served as an assistant and district attorney, state judge . and then a federal judge. he served a total of 26 years, the past 16 as a federal judge. when asked, all the witnesses it this case without exception describe him as one of the bests judges in louisianan. as i will discuss later, as however, his skills as a judgexe to not excuse his failing as a e person. to the contrary, he has not contested many of the facts in this case and ultimately

accepted severe discipline for the poor decisions that he made. he is here for you to judge nows to judge him.ure but he is not the character described by the house. descri indeed, i don't know how the man described by the house avoided , iciminal charge. justice about weaver's to look into all of these crimes. many the investigated him and many other judges. when i was sitting here i was oh thinking my lord, how on earth could he avoid a criminal charge, and the reason is the te professionals. they look for crimes and theyt a didn't find a crime that couldve be proven a trial.e, g any crime, great or small e,ainst this judge. the his son, timothy, expressed what this has cost him and his famile ranging from the death of hisis wife, the loss of his home inmas

katrina. one way or the other this man is he will either be convicted or t he will retire in a matter ofs months as he's already promised. what is clear either way, thomas porteous will not return to the bench. he has however, remained silent for many months as newspapers ce and commentators have said false his character. he waited for this moment, for his defense to be presented. s have so many defenses in histi courtroom for impartialmpartial judgment. had he gave impartial judgmentst even the house own court rteous gav witnesses said that judge porteous gave them a fair hearing. gave everyone a fair hearing. t, you can disagree with actions ha took but you don't have to turna them into a grotesque not.

anricature. m he's not.the es of o he may have been many things in the eyes of others, but he was never corrupt and he loved being a federal judge and despite his feelings, he conever compromisea the court and will never brookfield's. he took as a federal judge in pu october, 1994.n to that we semiprecious distinction to some, but he's here to fight. for that legacy. he has accepted his failings but he will not accept that.ust this case is not, however, just about thomas porteous. all impeachments speak to allles judges.f this case presents articles of v impeachment that are novel and the are dangerous. we discussed some of those issues this morning. of course the constitution puts the incredible burden on you.ore it requires you to read more of the passion and want and tempers described by john adams.ide

you must decide when considering all the evidence whether theactt actions that were taken in thisv case riseel to the level oftrea, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. and and i would like to return to st something that senator durbin had asked about which is the standard of proof. m as we mentioned in the past mana have cited beyond a reasonable doubt as the most obvious standard for impeachment because terms that are incorporated and also many impeachment are crimia crafting articles taken directly from prior criminal cases. we also noted and stressed thely members of this body have to determinations to make. first, you must find these factd occurred and second, you mustdir

find those facts that did occurt to your satisfaction rise to the level of the removable offense. it's the first part of thehis determination that's difficult in this case because as we noted this is the first modern impeachment that has come to this body without a prior trialm this judge has never beenge. allowed review from a judge.eend he's never challenged things ses against him. indeed most of the things you a just heard wouldn't be allowed , in federal court and we challenge the accuracy as youart will see. but that is a part of the value of having criminal charges a brought because usually this body has looked at the case it has been siphoned through that filter of process and fairness.e each center does have to establish what he or she willo use as a standard of proof but i have to say i do not agree when he says it is up to you.

with a free to decide is enoughm where i disagree with mr. shift from this morning is where we can distinguish between couldo and should. there is no question.the questi you can aondopt any standard. the question is whether youvioue should. didn' obviously, the framers didn't want people just to take an fac, arbitrary that check on fact particularly when there has been no criminal trial. the expected something more from ha -- you. you and what is expected is that you apply some consistent standardut and we talked about the standard applied in the house which is clearly convincing. this body in the past has talked about a strict standard. indeed, senator alan specter wha is vice chair of the triale-ch committee at an earlier time t

colleagues, and i would commend it to you. val, t where you have a judge of for independence requires a very qun strict standard. this is not a question of whether you would confirm him ty you were before us today.hether it is not a question of whetheri before hofim, but it is a questo of whether we are going to oustm him from office what comes intor play. buatt i believe senator specters bligat saying is you do have an obligation to apply some is objective standards because this mig isht a legal proceeding.nal it might not be a criminal case you are sitting at the world's most unique jury and charges. in this case the fifth circuit itself did not consider the allegations an article to an

article for. the reason is simple as the five judges i mentioned earlier congress lacks jurisdiction tony impeach. mist judge porteous for any a misconduct prior to hisderal appointment as a federal judge. clean and simple. the federal judges wrote a evidence in this case. those judges declared the t following. this is not one of those rare py and egregious cases presenting the possibility of an the impeachable offense against thes nation. they didn't approve the decisions made by the july and,o and this fell far on the other side of an impeachable offense.w those judges which included the public in the district judge's a said the evidence here does not support a finding judge porteous and used or violated the federat

constitution judicial power entrusted to him. evidenc instead, the evidence shows thad appearance of serioushat improprieties that he did not in commit an actual abuse in violation of the constitutional power entrusted to him.ontroveri these apparent controversies are routine in court. they are used here, however as a pe basis for removal to wipe awayt. centuries of president. the perhaps for that reason, the house managers are quote to the media entered urging the adoption of a new standard tohms treat the impeachment process a. merely an employment termination case. thi they would literally have this t body adopt the standards madisoo rejected for judges simply to of serve at the pleasure of the senate like attwell employees. unfortunately, this c tase provt one thing in the old military

adage that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like it's not enough judge porteous accepted sanctions from the nction court, unprecedented sanctions. it's not enough she announced his resignation in a matter of months from the bench.hs f it's not enough that no one hass ever been removed for theor pre-federal conduct. staff and resources have beenva. committed and the house demandel removal let's look of the basis for removal and turn to i article 1. house an article on the house impeached judge porteous on thet theory that he deprived public and litrvigants on his honest services as we discussed this um morning.act we discussed unique problems of the fact that it was crafted t around a fury the supreme court rejected. it was a bad debt. you'l now youl will notice in the opening statements again today

both mr. schiff and mr. goode what kept on bringing up again kickbacks.nd i actually counted up to 20 and then i stopped. i pose the question to you i don't know how many times you counted the would kick back andu i ask you to look at the articles and see how many times it is mentioned in the actual articles of impeachment. camto y the alleged scheme and come to w you and said you know what, thi. is going to be out kickbacks.sot but f the reason the framers rejected corruption is preciselg because what is occurring right now in front of you in the will of the senate. corruption can mean anything.e j mr. schiff could have just stood up and said you know what this . is, this is mail fraud.this or he could have said this is conspiracy. anything he could have said anything thad constitutes corruption ande.

rewrite the article here, not w fulfilling the will of the house but fulfilling whatever is thean passing will ofag the managers e the house. that is aoc violation of the process the framers created. in fact, we now hear five references to the finding of financial statements that were inaccurate. looat i suggest the members of the homany tim articles. how many times is that mentioned in the articles? corption zero. but when you use corruption as n term you go to the will of thes senate and say that is what this is all about. defen ndd what that does for the a defense attorneys like myself and myes colleagues is we just p stand here and try to keep track what it is the cry and we are supposed to be defendingit could against. it could be anything under the criminal code, anything on theec criminal code for the foreignan corruption and now its financiae record. that is why the house has the te responsibility to articulate mr

those articles and when disetio, mr. schiff says they have a lot of discretion, they do.onoorly, and when they use that description poorly, articles of d tha impeachment get rejected and that is what this body has said. repeatedly in history. you cannot bring to us articles that present any possible crime, crime issuer and that is when you are seeing today.y notably in article 1 there is one fact that literally all of the house witnesses agree on. ps judge porteous was never brought. but more importantly, he was noa bible. article 6 to remove a judge based on a decision in a single case and that decision was a simple motion not to recuse 16 himself in 16 years of the federal judge. r ioe life mark motion was the mot first and only such a motion he was faced with in three decades

as a judge. now allow me please to cut to the chase. a new deal with one allegation in article 1 which deals with this w single gift to the judgey his longtime friend jake amato,e that is in my view the most serious allegation and i. article 1. a it was a colossal mistake. but i need to correct the you record. the house stood up and said you know, nobody called this a wedding gift except the defenser council. that's news to me. in the hearing before the amato committee, jake amato describede how he and the judge nor a drinking and the judge got veryl acotional and was talking aboutf the fact he could not cover the expenses for his son, timothy, r wedding. at was amato is free close to timothy. that was the context of this asd

discussion. but more importantly, i asked amato, in fact, the money that you recall ever going to judge ; porteous was this wedding gift, right? was amato's answer was correct. dise now judge porteous had never disputed that gift. what he disputes is the implications of the gift. judge porteous acceptedearance responsibility because it created an appearance of and impropriety, and it did. and accepting a very severe very punishment by the fifth circuity he publicly apologized and gavee his quote sincere apology and regret that his actions had brought the court to addresster. this manner and he also leaderar said that he would in factin before delving into the gift let me be clear what we are discussing and i think it'sall important to call things for what they are in this case witha

all the parties agree on that. this was not a bribe and was in to kick back.e i thais they don't allege an article 1 that this was a kickback. so what was it? a ifnd it wasn't a bride and it kb gift. what is a -- was a dumb gift you shouldn't have accepted? you bet. but the framers thought it was important to define things as they are. this isn't a bribe or a kick back and that's the key thing looking at this impeachment. the appearance of impropriety is a standard raised the federal courts and not uncommonly theeew court oitf appealsh will disage with the trial judge's refusal to recuse themselves, hundredsel of judges are faced with recusa. motion.re sometimes they makecu mistakes. recusals are usually based upon

past relationships, financial a day to send over thee waterfront of conflicts.ge when the judge gets it wrong usually gets it, just a reversal.rearely sometimes you have a reprimand is off. very rarely will you have discipline at all.lication of but consider the implications of accepting the appearance ofy as impropriety as a standard forre removal. that this could be so easily used to strip our courts and appearance of impropriety is that what we are going to substitute a other high crimes d edsdemeanors for, something thas hundreds of judges or accusedd e of. brought all of them would be capable to be brought before this body. ths now we talked a lot about this life marked the case and i must tell you it is exceedinglyerciac complex as a commercial case. it's between a subsidiary of a joint corporation called

lifemark and a family get pharmacists from louisiana. i se dsee no need to build into the specifics which i think you would be happy to know.it it sufficient to say this was a long-running dispute between femark these two parties. lifemark was accused of delaying the cost. it bounced from judge to judge and ultimately was assigned to over a dozen judges, one dozen in three years. that is the lifemark case. then, in 1996, it was randomly e assigned to judge porteous, andn defense witnesses stated when asked that judge porteous had ag reputation for moving pieces to verdict. judge he was a judge from gretna, a state judge, lawyers judge. they tended to get cases done, and when he looked at the dockew

and salles a dozen judges in and out of this case and no trial,tm he probably announced to the i party's claim the last judge yog were going oito see in this case and we are going to try thishe case. now i want to emphasize something. he said that to the partiesny before any friends or lawyers i, before anyone that he had a ae friendship was counseling the tt case. in he said i will be the last judge in this case and we are going to go to trial. so he was. seven district court judges, three magistrates, and he endedo that. and they went to trial. now, when he said that, the lead counsel for lifemark, joe mole e wanted to have him to recuse anr go to yet another judge and he filed a motion to recuse and cited the fact that the judgepo

was close friends with jake amato and mr. levinson. and indeed he was. what we heard testimony fromn witnesses is and who gretna, a small town like many small towny that lawyers practiced in and judges preside, most judges know the attorneys in their courtrooms. if the judgesec have to recusewo themselves because they know a judge in the courtroom there would be no cases in these sma courts. commu these are small communities. and in gretna, the judges didn't recuse themselves. me correct our witnesses, let me correctsew that, the house witnesses saidge they never heard of a judgeuse recusing themselves because thei couldn't.judge porteous that was the tradition that thed judge came from and the judges agreed with that that as long ae you back knowledge you have a nt relationship it isn't being hidden you don't have to recuse

and he w and he was friends with amatonig and creely and i will bea returning to mr. gardner in a ao second. he was friends with amato and creely since the 1970's both crh amato and creely said they were edth friends.ic the practice altogether, the men hunted and fished together, them knew eachil other's families. timothy testified that there were known as uncle jake andbob. uncle bob. creely taught him how to fish, amato taught him how to cook. they were close friends, so was done gardner was even closer.gardener he asked him to be the godfather to one of his daughters. bacrou, now with this background i would like to read senate article 1. e first, the house asserts these,l judge failed to disclose while he is a state judge the corrupta scheme with these attorneys. ise this is of course predicated on the fact that there is a corrupe

scheme.se i the problem with thes house case is the house witnesses who denied the scheme. sen both at trial and in the senatep deposition, mr. creeleyvowed -- expressly disavowed come had an agreement with the judge where he received to readershipr in exchange for loans or gifts.t was no relationship between the gifts and the curator ships. he said i gave him gifts becaus" we were friends, and he said ibe gave him gifts before i ever got the curator ships. that, but not only that, up but he said hd didn't like them and he told hi. that.ee he was a very successful lawyer. they were bringing in a few hundred dollars here and there and he said he hated them because they were more trouble than what they were worth. worth

judge porteous frankly asn, something of. i mean, that i guess was point congressman goodlatte's point ot when he pointed out with great emotion to you the judge went to a locht of lunches with these mn and he didn't pay for his share. ofus the lunch. he just paid for some of them. let me ask you did you ever think that you would be sittingt here on the floor of the senatea trying to decide whether that is an impeachable offense being fos moved? he paid for a few lunches and the witnesses said that lunches in gretna had been paid fornely them.luncheid f the houseor witnesses said they couldn't remember the joy that isn't true they could remember one judge on one occasion on her own lunch. that is the record in this case.

so, creely is the one in the ben house report that is theeged linchpin between this alleged ct scheme between the curatorts. shipped and these gifts. senat only problem, creely came to the senate and said there was no any agreement. he never gave any money to the judges of a quiet, never gave him a kick back, never expectedn to receive anything in return te the gift. they were just friends.aid that have given those gifts without regardless of the t curatorships. not only that, but in the house witnesses said by the way, all the judges in gretna give curatorships to friends and of acquaintances.

all of them this has been in discussed in louisiana.isiana but the louisiana officials have decided they would allow that. judges routinely would give the, to the former partners, friendss and it has been reviewed and wel heard from the only expert in this case on louisianan efiks and that was the professor and perfectly ethical under the rules.it is ll known it is well known, it is aas practice that has existed for a long time and a stila exists today. every this doesn't mean every judge in 's louisiana is corrupt. they don't view this as cor corruptionru. witnesses said judge porteous gave curatorships to givee attorneys and he gave

curatorships to creely. the house never went and all the actually found the records of cr all of the curatorships. you notice there's no discussion of any of your curatorships. they had the ability to havehavy come to you and said years allat of the curatorships issued perid during this period of time. they went to creely. t they didn't do that. but even if 100% of them went to his friends, it was perfectlyder ethical under the local rules.hs the only testimony the house wab able to present attempting to establish a connection between the curatorships and the gifts was jake creely. the problem was with creely saying there wasn't any relationship house report said creely said that. g so they went and got creely andn he said oyn one occasion many

years ago he remembers creely hu saying there was a relationshipt the house wasn't deterred by tho factny amato was giving testimon with creely here in washington denying he ever said that.eterhe but that didn't deter the housed they just went ahead and haventy amato say w that they wanted creely to say. and then, amato said these figures that are being thrown around by the house were not figures that he came up with. he said they were but he referred to as guesstimates. gue of the gifts and the now, amato said that actuallyn'e the number to have heard today didn't come from him, didn't come in fact they could recollect there was no record to establish this conclusively.

they said that, amato said the number came from an fbi agent who came up with an estimate of total gifts and just assumed of it and they started pressing them to stay within that be accurate? so there is a nightmare for youn the government gets guesstimates from witnesses based on the a figure that was just extracted by one of the investigators withoutme documentary proof.le a the second obligation in this article was that the judge intentionally that it should be removed for misleadingy statements of the regional hearing. i can simply fighting to end e this by encouraging you, pleasea read the recusal hearing. it's not a very long.ourwn reach your own conclusions.don's don't listen to me or the house. u will it speaks for itself. you will see the judge actuallys

gives hearings to read a lot of judges don't, they just denying it. instead he gave a full hearing,d told them he understood why he w was bringing this issue,e had seknowledged he had aip with the relationship with these lawyers and then he went and said tommy what i need to do to make sure you can have a right to appeal me and he stated the case to allow the appeal. most judges want to that. w he did not say in detail whathet the relationship was. a he understood he was going to appeal.cts one thing he did want to correct is that mole said incorrectly he had received campaigne contributions from these tru individuals, and he said that'sn just not true and he corrected on the record.rela heti never denied therelationsha relationship. from his perspective having ae n relationship of friendship from the time was not a problem. it wasn't a reduced issue so he left it that that. removed the third obligation is the judge should be removed fromenid

office because he denied the lifemark recusal motion. that is the most dangerous i. allegation. a because that would remove a judge for the substance of his decision. in this case a recusal motion. can you imagine if you start toy remove judges because you disagree with the recusal decisions? judges are constantly appealed recusals, sometimes upheld and sometimes not but when you star. to remove judges because you rem disagree with their conclusion even though many judges shareir the view of recusal, then you open up the federal bench to unlimited manipulation. i do now the hearing in the senate is do not want to tell you was a o total cost.ho it was not. for those of you who are looking for a conspiracy, we found oneve and it came out and live testimony a scheme, a very

corrupt scheme, but in that scheme he was the subject, not s the beneficiary.t. ave strings salles testimony h from mr. marcotte you heard the house refer to as this paragon a of a witness. recuse himse he brought this issue should hee recuse himself and he was fact,i shocked if he didn't. in fact i think mr. goodlatte said he had no alternative but o proceed the way he did. but house members didn't mentioe how he proceeded. after he lost the recusal motion mole decided he had to get this- charge of the case.e case. west bank judge rule in this case of markets.f m a 14th reassignment of the caseo that he had anything to do aboue it so he talked to a guy by the name of tom wilkinson. tom wilkinson is the brother of the magistrate who was assignede to the case so he went to thetoe brother of the magistrate, and this is the former jefferson w

parish attorney known as someon. who could solve problems like this, known as the go to die too fix a problem with a judge he didn't want. wilkinson is now reportedlyn entered investigation for him corruption in louisiana. then mole met with him and then wilkinson got him to meet with one of judge porteous's closest, ndiends on gardiner. gardner a and he went to gardiner andry offered an extraordinarythe contract which we've put in theo record. that contract promised $100,000 if he joined the case and offered him another $100,000 ifo he could get porteous to recuse himself $200,000 but that wasn't the all.ouss the contract actually said by the way, once he's gone, you are gone. rece

if you get him to recuse himsele i will give you $200,000 you goa bouncing this can't be beat cookies to the court system. the problem with this scheme whereby mr. mole is that it didn't work because he said you do not want to go to tom. you don't want me to go to him and tell him to recuse himself t because he will react veryusedo negatively and refused to go, on this is his own testimony, refused to go to ask for his ultimately the judge's decision cost his closest friend to hundred thousand dollars. mole himself admitted that hee e would never seen a contract like the one he wrote and witnesses a testifying said they werewher shocked toe s learn of the conto where someone put a bounty on a federal judge and offered to hundred thousand dollars if he

can get him off the case. nevertheless, gardner lost that case he said the judge gave him a fair hearing. he said look discharge isn'te bright double, he disagreed with us and we lost. by the way, this has been mentioned by the house, creelyed als bo practiced before the jud. way a lifemark.ases but creely had a couple casesind from the judge and the judge huge ruled against him and cost him a huge amount of money. in one case where he lost a great deal of money, creely toop his best friend on repeal andbuh th rot his friendship didn't stoptf the judge and one of his biggesm case.s against him.use he didn't feel the need to d reduce and it didn't influence his decision. of

now, the article also talks anor about things of value in anothee general term these are small, and it is both creely and amato have admitted they gave and were very common in gretna as in many small towns.er. and yes, they had lunch together for their whole 30 year d a f relationship. did and few of them did continue lis while lifemark was pending in front of the judge. the judge paid for an occasional role but representative goodlatte is absolutely correct abso he didn't pay for enough meals.y and the house did not contest t the only ethics expert in this case who said those lunches ares permitted under state law and they still are permitted today. back then they had the same rule the united states has, the

senate allowed the centers to be brought lunch is not because the invited corruption, neither dido the people in louisiana when itg came to lunch is being bought j. for judges it was just courtesy.alk now there has been talk about pe creely attending tom porteouswah bachelor party. if you look of the testimony creely said he was friends with timothy, timothy is a lawyer.se he was very close to timothy and had a great love for study and expressed that in a hearing. he went to his friend's weddingt by the way, when he brought the. launches, porteous was not at tr the table and he threw in with the other attorneys said that time. now, as i mentioned earlier, thm wedding gift is frankly the mose serious problem. y it occurred three years after it thery recusal hearing.t i

but i wish he would keep in mind because the dates get blurred. it was three years after the recusal hearing when this wedding gift was handed over. and yes, he went on this fishing trip, it was a very emotional hn thing he was having trouble paying for his son's wedding ana was adm huge mistake and the ju. admitted that. it was not a bribe or kickback, it was a gift and was done. dum to be offered and to be clear tw accepted. a but both creely and amato made esear it wasn't a bribe or a amt kickback. felt in fact, he testified he felt ai theng judge always going to do ' he didn't see any connection in terms of inoufluencing the outce of the case.we one question the house has never been able to answer and thee senate might want to put and that is if the judge could be se

influenced for $2,000 or some other small thing of value the s house alleges why don't you just reduce himself? himse so his close friend could collect $200,000?collec$200,0 why don't you world for him and he had to friends in the case of lifemark, he cost 1200 grand. why did you accept money like w the other judges that were mailed in? of the appearance of impropriety is a danger destroys for this bodyt to import in the impeachmentment standards. professor would not contradicted ouse said that state ouse said that state bars have continued to move away from the appearance of f impropriety because they view it as a standard that i is virtualy meaningless. if it says don't be that it's almost a direct quote from whatg he said. he's a big critic of the standard. they are moving away from it at the time the house is asking you to adopt that for the andard. impeachment standard.article ii.

let's turn to article 2. article ii we have already discussed is the article that i. a pre-federal conduct tow allegation. i willdi leavesc that to your wv discretion since we have notrulr ruled on or you have not ruled on the motion i will try to this case.e agree with if the senate agrees with the defense that a judge cannot betn removed for the conduct than most of the article ii is gone.o there is virtually nothing inco. terms of federal contract. the evidence that is supportedct an article to in terms of federal conductor six lunches that took place over 16 years.dd some of sure to un tderstand thn the evidence in article 2 of thy conduct that you can removeou a judge for is 6 inches. note

i should note the judge attendea several of these lunches but there is no record he attended x all of them so the six might be rdhigh you see, the house had no recorn he attended some of theseebod launches but somebody at the launch had absolute dhaka. i kid you not, and so with the house is saying this because a judge to gibson would dhaka youe should just assume he was out those lunches and use that as a part of the evidence to remove a federal judge. i'm not overstating the that. we ask the committee to take notice that judge porteous ishua not the only human that drinks a dhaka or even absolut vodka.what what they are inviting you to dv again is remove a judge on pure speculation.

and by the way, the value of yes these lunches over 16 years was also not mentioned. they're less than $250 over 16nd years. the individual meals benefit judge porteous the average was $29. i if i mention experts testify ine this case and we notnot contradicted the judges wereha allowed and stitll allowed toowe have the one just purchased for them in this respect. the most the house can come up e with is by attending the lunch is the judge broad strength to the table.quoughttrength that's one of the statements of the witness that he brought strength to the table, and that that's enough imagine if that ie enough. if you're permitted to have senches brought for review but e

someone benefited from your being present, its third party,u because you brought strength to the table, that would be enough for the charge for impeachmentod under this approach. tha the record shows that senatorhee had some lunches with. w does the house so just because a to lunch he should be body? expelled? that would be ridiculous.itnessd every witness called by the house and the defense testifiedt that the judges dealt exclusively with the marcottes. bondsmen you heard the house say they would often deal individuallyeed with the judges. to e did need to correct that. they were not in plural on aplun practical level.ctic the marcottes were it. marcottes control over 90% of fr

the bonds from the with the bill bondsman to be it's not a huge t town. so by the way to thi tnk about y that, it oumeans every judge tht signed the bond was almost nertainly sign it for the o marcottes. certainly bail bondsman, practical level.ou now here's the thing that you might find confusing. heari, at the evidence you're hearingy of the house conceded not only that they could not prove a link on these bonds but that they did not specifically allege a e relationship between the size oe the bond and this relationship , with the marcottes. quoting, quote, the house does not allege judge porteous said in a particular bond too high os too low. r so allef of the references are about setting things too high or low, how they would admit, how

they benefit a ballan sesnon, alleging that the set thesethin things too high or too low, and, esce again, we find that the bed articles are being redesigned irrespective of what was previously set by the house. the house goes little beyond noting the judge often approved mates bond amounts by the marcottes and indy 500 tells of the briefn the house witnesses demolished theha delegation. is -- the amount of a bond is set to reflect the assets of thethe sae defendant, december the second report in front of you on pagea8 18 and says, quote come in many, cases the highest bond a defen defendant can afford can also be the socially optimal level so at detention while providing maximum incentive for the defendant to appear.thathe that is p a point of bond. you said is high enough they ark going to come back to court andw it iass v very good reason thee

witnesses in this case testified wa george porteous was a national at for the use of bonds andof fl connected into overcrowded people, dangerous people from e their jails and judge porteous spoke nationally on the need for judges to use bonds and he waso, correct as we submitted the record studies have proven him therect if you get a bond on an individual the chance they woull return and not recidivate are much higher and the judge did speak to every judge he could find to say start issuing bondsu because people are not showing up. get himt under a bond and they will. nowou you also saw that the houe suggested somehow the marcottes got special treatment from the e judge. pe fact is they were the only basis so if you want toou get ge bonds he gave bonds to theh the

marcottes but by the way his the secretary, granda said on occas, occasion he would say, you knowy not to let them in and she said they would not given any speciae eseatment and access to thet inc judge.the he said the judge very popularol judge and they would gather in . his office. these let's turn quickly to these twom cases.ning sho i'm afrtraid i'm running short n time so i will have to ask you tion or your staff to look at our position in our filing.ha but i want to note that on the e duhon that has resurrected like a phoenix on the floor of thef senate we thought was dead. we the reason we thought was deadei ee because it had beene it d b downgraded in the trial and where the witness is simplyotew. referred to it as noteworthy. by the end of the trial would f have gonore from a matter for

removal to be noteworthy case. the reason is witnesses testified this was a routine er the witnesses showed, and there were no witnesses called by thee house, there were experts in this area. talklled witnesses to about these types of set-asidest and expense and said this was oy perfectly ethical inappropriate, not only that, in the duhonfollh matter, judge porteous was following the lead if another rv judge. that was never revealed to the house. we revealed in a hearing. turns out a prior judge hasn t already taken steps in the case. louis marcotte testified he was the the jury asked judge porteous for assistance on the duhon matter.llegat nevertheless, the managers and put it the obligation in the article. hous as for the sete aside, the house could not call any expert to

testify that it was improper, and we did call people as it wal perfectly proper. it is both legal and appropriate under the louisianan law.hing now i want to address one thing about the wall less satisfied. the government once again is coming here. the house is coming here to say you know, he did this so youabot would know about it. t he waited to take actions in the wall this case after he was confirmed, and what do you think of that? it's i suggest what you think of that is it's not true. were as we sit in the hearing this is we were surprised to find mentioned in the floor of the senate today. it's not true that the judge held a hearing beforehe hearing i intend to set aside wy this conviction. that is a pretty weird way torec hide something before confirmation he said i'm going to do this and i need you to put

a motion to get there. why? it's the right thing to do.ngs it's routine. att walked around the forums in aanw siefcase and you know whatid? mr. wallace said he said the judge was known as a judge the to give someone a chance and he's always a second chance ande he went on to become a minister and is now a respected member of his community. now a lot of this turns on louiw marcotte who also widely at admitted at trial this is louis marcotte who said he explained , why he lied on one occasion andi simply said well i wouldn't have any reason to tell the truth. that's louis marcotte. to indeed, one of the witnesses told the committee that theim tt house staff told him the reason he was being called this because people wouldn't believe louis marcotte that he lacked

credibility.imately now, the marcottes ultimately said the lunches would occur sometimes once a month.iscussed car repairs that are discussed here last about six to eight months and consisted of a fewwet minor repairs. we can simply look of thete testimony. you have to look at they testimony because there's notwh any documents. there's no documents of exactlyl what repairs were done.al it's all testimonial. so this isn't a debate over the standard of proof, there is no proof. finally, the house has continually refer to other stato gedges who were convicted ofmesd crimes. judge greene, judge bodenheimer. and i just simply want to note that judge porteous, of course, never accepted cash or campaign. contributions from thell marcottes.

from legacy. they gave as much as ten grandee to the judge's including judges still on the bench. they never gave the judge anywh? cash. why?orrupt, if he was a corrupt and was a he be, why didn't he take the cash and run whacks judge porteous ot course is never accused of the t crime let alone convicted, andea those men, judge greene andd t judge bodenheimer was you just heard the house say we get thes. people, a judge by the conduct they were convicted of maildencn fraud, planting evidence on the business rifle. article ii is an attempt to remove a judge for conduct article 2i submit to you isnhat nothing more than what mcmath te described as a tale full of sound and fury signifyingarti i

nothing. oy article three's the only article that doesn't rely on thet relie conduct, what it relies on are series of errors made in the bankruptcy filing if the judge made that his wife.t goi i am not to dwell on the intricacies of the bank code which may be a relief to many. i but the record establishes is m .ot some criminal mastermind manipulating the bankruptcy peoe code. it basically shows people that had that records, little understanding of bankruptcy which by theal way, is usually e type of people that go bankrupt. they sought a bankruptcy attorney wollman reputation, leg mr. claude, and they've given that the blood types.mention dad but with the house doesn't membs mention today and did not mention to the members when they got the unanimous vote, -- >> clearly from earlier today taking you back live to the u.s. senate. the members returning from a

closed session with a deliberate the articles of impeachment against u.s. district judge thomas porteous who has been under investigation for corruption life on c-span2.