>> the leader of the proposed islamic center near ground zero talk about the proposal today and about religious tolerance. his remarks are next on c-span. after that, the impeachment trial for judge thomas porteous of louisiana. then president obama on the economy. later, an update on the russian nuclear arms reduction treaty. >> with the house and senate back in session, follow congress using the c-span 2 libraries -- using the c-span video library.

it is a great resource for anyone who uses the library. >> the imam leading the effort to build a summit center near ground zero says he is surprised by the controversy surrounding the plan. from the scalp -- from the council on foreign plans in new york city, this is one hour. >> good morning. people, please take your seats. welcome to the council on foreign relations. my name is richard hoss and i am the president of this organization. today, as you all know, we are hosting feisal abdul rauf, who

is the founder and ceo for the american society for muslim advancement. he is also the imam, which i expect you all know, for the mosque here in new york city. that is, however, only part of who we is. he is the founder and chair of the cordova initiative dedicated to building bridges between the muslim and non-muslim world. he is also essential to plans for the building to the new islamic community center to be built adjacent to ground zero. imam faisal is also the writer of several books, including "what is right with islam, a new vision for muslims and the west." what the scenario will be this morning is that imam faisal will speak for 50 minutes to 20 minutes from this podium. afterwards, he and i will have a relatively brief conversation, after which we will open it up to you, our members, for

questions. i will give the ground rules there. in the meantime, if anyone has something like a cell phone or anything approximating its cellphone, if you would turn it off, not just put it on vibrate, which will interfere with our phone system, we will be forever grateful. this meeting this morning is on the record. with that, welcome back to the council on foreign relations. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is customary for muslims to begin by first invoking the name of the all merciful and all

compassionate creature, the creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in between them, the god of abraham, the god of israel and isaac, the god of moses and aaron, the god of jesus christ and his mother mary, and the got muhammed. peace and blessings among all these noble profits and messengers. good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you. i am blessed to be here today at to this distinguished organization. and i think the council for foreign relations for giving me this opportunity to speak this morning. we come together at a time of great crisis and danger. what began as a dispute over a community center in lower manhattan has spawned an grown into a much larger controversy over a relationship between my beloved religion and my beloved country, between islam and america. the events of the past few

weeks have really send me to my very core. -- have really saddens me to my very core. i regret that some have misunderstood our intention. i am deeply distressed that, in this heated political season, some have exploded this issue for their own agendas. and i am really disappointed that so many of the arguments have been based on deliver it misinformation and harmful stereotypes. but despite the disappointment, there is much that i am thankful for. first, i am grateful to our mayor michael bloomberg and to so many others who have spoken out in favor of our project. that province -- that positive response has filled my heart and i think the mall. to mr. president barack obama, i think you for your support, for speaking out so forcefully and repeatedly on behalf of

religious tolerance and the values that make our country great. and i am deeply grateful for your robust assistant efforts in making peace in the middle east a priority in your first term. and for all of those who have voiced their objections to our plans, the civility with respect and open-minded hearts, i am also grateful. you affirm my belief in the decency and morality of the american people. i do recognize that, among the critics, there are some who have lost loved ones in 9/11. to all of them, i offer my heartfelt sympathy and my prayers upon their departed souls. every year, we mark the anniversary with great sadness, but with even greater resolve to fight begins radical philosophies that have been used to justify these acts. my goal here today is twofold.

first, to reach out to my brothers and sisters of different faiths in america to explain and to share my love of my religion. and second, to reach out to my muslim brothers and sisters all over the world to explain and share my love of america. this is my personal mission and it is anchored in my own experience. allow me, please, by allowing me to tell you my story. like many of your ancestors, i came to america by boat when i was only 17 years old. we sailed into new york harbor on a sunny and cold winter day in december 1965, three days before christmas. i remember seeing the statue of liberty for the first time, that beacon of freedom rising and looming majestically in the harbor. and i remember admiring her strength and beauty and colors in the morning crisp sunlight.

i had no idea what life would be like in america and i looked forward to it. i was born in kuwait to egyptian parents. my father was a religious scholar who studied and graduated at a university in cairo, an islamic institution of great distinction and learning. he was sent to this country to head a growing muslim community. he was active in what was called the ecumenical movement, working on understanding between different religions. today, we call it interfaith dialogue. for me, coming from a country where the mother did -- for the majority was muslim, i found this place largely non-religion. in the 1960's, religion was considered to be passe, a crutch for the feeble-minded.

i remember the cover-up "time magazine" that scream out "is god dead?" this was shocking to me, extraordinary. and i thought to myself, this place is sure different. i got my bachelor's in physics at columbia university. i married, raised my children here, and i had a number of occupations, a high-school teacher, a salesman of industrial products, and a struggling writer. i am a typical new yorker, ladies and gentlemen. i am an american. in 1979, i became a naturalized u.s. citizen. i believe it and still believe and pledged allegiance to the valleys of the united states constitution and i know that these sacred rights were won by the blood of brave american soldiers. my arm meese currently serves in

the net -- my own niece currently serves in the united states army. i know that this country was founded by individuals who left their countries of origin because they were unhappy with their government and with the restrictions imposed on religious life and liberties. they wanted something better. freedom of speech, separation of church and state, these were among my earliest lessons in american civic life. in america, we do protect these differences. we protect different expressions of faith. we assembled in our various houses of worship to pray, to chant, to recycle our sacred scriptures or simply to come together in communion and grow together and a draw strength as a community. but religion in america is not imposed on us. we can be as devout or as an agnostic as we like.

that choice, to be or not to be religious, or anything else for that matter, forced me to think about who i was, who i am, what i truly wanted and chose to be. and it has given me a profound appreciation for the country that provides these freedoms. in that sense, you could say that i found my faith in this country. so, for me, islam and america are organically bound together. but it is not my story alone. the american way of life has helped many muslims make a conscious decision to embrace their faith. and that choice, ladies and gentlemen, is precious. and that is why america is precious. i discovered that the country that i had heard -- that i had

first seen so anti-religious as a profoundly spiritual base and a religious purpose. the founding fathers of this nation, who were men of faith, within the governing documents they created, the declaration of independence and the constitution, they affirmed their most sacred spiritual values. these documents are legal expressions, in fact, of a religious ideal, not parochial, but substantially religious that is rooted in the commandments and principles of the free space practiced by the people of the book, jews, christians, and muslims. to remind us, even when we are in the market, they are printed in our currency "in god we trust." since 1983, i have served as imam or prayer leader at a

mosque in tribeca. the twin towers defined our skyline and our neighborhood and were part of our daily lives. our congregants come from all over the world and from every walk of life, from congressman to taxi drivers. on september 11, and number of them tragically lost their lives. our community grieved alongside our neighbors and, together, we helped rebuild, slowly, manhattan. i belong to this neighborhood, ladies and gentlemen. i am a devout muslim. i pray five times a day, sometimes more if i can. and that observe the rituals required by my faith. and i am also a proud american citizen. let no one forget that. i vote in elections. i pay taxes. i pledge allegiance to the flag.

and i am a giants fan. [laughter] i am glad they won yesterday. both this country and the teach- ins' of my faith have nourished me -- and the teachings of my faith have nursed me and made up my core identity as a human being. but, ladies and gentlemen, as i intimated earlier, it is not just my story. it is the american immigrant story. it is your story and that of your parents and grandparents. as president obama made clear in his remarks in cairo last year, immigrants have enriched this country throughout its history. since the 1800's, american history has been intertwined with the history of muslims. many thousands of african muslims were brought here as slaves. this became their home.

1960's,950's and the from the music of the blues and jazz, they took up the cause of freedom in the civil rights movement and we witnessed the emergence of islam in the african-american community. their struggle and their story is central to the story and narrative of islam in america. from them to the more recently emigrated sudanese in minnesota to the syrians in north dakota to the egyptians and north africans in queens, they are americans. we are americans. it is not about them. it is about us and who we are and who we want to be as americans. when we fast, pray, donate to charities, observe our

commandments, we exemplify not only the ideals of the founding fathers, but also the deepest values of our faiths traditions. as immigrants, we absorbed american culture from generation to generation. but the challenge of sitting in is often made more difficult by rejection. other groups and faiths have found themselves targets of such prejudice. jews and catholics, irish and italians, blacks and hispanics -- in time coming each group has overcome these challenges and our core values have been affirmed. we must overcome. we shall overcome. now it is our turn as muslims to drink from this cup. let me now address the subject of extremism. every religion in the world has

extremists. sadly, islam is among them. all faiths have among the members, those who distort and twisted the core values for their own agendas. they advocate positions that we, here, and that decent people all over the world -- and i assure you that 99% of the muslims in the world find this abhorrent. but there be no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. islam categorically rejects the killing of innocent people. terrorists violate the sanctity of human life and corrupt the meaning of our faith. in no way do they represent our religion and we must not let them define us. radical extremists would have us believe in a theory of a worldwide battle among muslims

and non-muslims. and some intellectuals and thinkers have furthered that idea. that idea, ladies and gentlemen, is false. the real battle front, the real battle that we must wage together today is not between moslems and non-moslems. it is between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of full faith traditions. we must not let the extremists, whatever their face or particular persuasion, hijack the discourse and hijacked the medium -- and hijack of the medium. it is a destructive cycle and we must break it. how? by creating a coalition of moderates from all of the faith traditions to combat the extremists. and i seek your help.

when he irresponsible individuals or some in the media equate muslims with anti- americanism or extremism and when they say that islamic values are fundamentally violent or domineering, all of us are obliged to reviewed it and to refute it loudly, clearly, and unequivocally. for 35 years, i have been explaining the faith of islam at schools and universities, at churches and synagogues, and, yes, in mosques, too. in recent years, i have traveled abroad, explaining the values and institutions of america to other people and nationalities. skeptics asked, "why spend time in dialogue?" from experience, i can tell you. talking can be powerful.

as churchill said, "better to jaw walk than to war talk." when issues are politicized or used as fodder for commentators on the right or on the left, it just pours fuel on to the flames of misunderstanding. the need to clear up the many misconceptions of islam and america is greater now than ever. had we not seen in these last few weeks how hurtful and how destructive the power of extremist acts and language can be? that is why i remind you that the story is not yet over. what happens right here, right now, in this city, in our city matters. it matters more than ever. the way we confront our

problems, the way we speak about them, the way we seek to reconcile our differences is watched and is resonating all over the world. i recently returned from a trip abroad on a mission by the state department. i went to bahraini, catarrh, and the united arab emirates. it was my fourth trip representing the u.s. government and the american people. on two occasions, i was asked to go on this mission by the bush administration and twice by the obama administration. i am bipartisan. [laughter] these trips are important, ladies and gentlemen. people all over the world admire and look up to our freedoms and our institutions and they really want them for themselves within their own cultural expression. as an american and as a muslim, i believe and i have been told

that i can have -- that i can make and have made an important conferenccontribution as a messenger and helping clear up the misconceptions and false ideas. and i hope and then committed to continue in this work. in recent days, people have asked, "is there really in need for an islamic community center in lower manhattan? is it really worth all of this firestorm?" the answer, ladies and gentlemen, is a categorical yes. why? because of this center will be a place for all faiths to come together as partners, as stakeholders, in mutual respect. it will bring honor to the city of new york, to american muslims across the country, and to

americans all over the world. the world will be watching what we do here. and i offer you my pledge. we will live up to our ideals. that is why, eight years ago, i also founded a multi-faith organization, named for the time in court of the, spain where jews and muslims live together and built together the most tolerant and enlightened society on earth. the goal of the court of the initiative is to repair the damage made to muslim-american relations in recent years and use the partnership between faith relations to build a new cordoba. inspiring the initiative and our project are the two commandments, the two most important amendments at the heart of the jewish, the christian, and the moslem faiths -- to love the lord our

god with all of our hearts, all of our minds, all of our souls, and with all of our strength. and the second, as jesus said, equal to the first, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. let us, therefore, reject those who would abuse this crisis and this sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends. let us especially not distract the memory of the victims and the family and friends by allowing them to use political religious symbols for political gain. lettuce assert coexistence -- let's assert coexistence and peace and happiness everywhere. i call upon each of you to think

of what you can do to make a difference. to the heads of government, some of whom have already reached out to me, make the spirit of court of the multinational. let's share it with the world -- of cordova multinational. let's share it with the world. to the media, remember that, while the campaign against terrorism is fought with troops and armament, the campaign against radical ideologies is about winning hearts and minds. you, the media, can fuel the radicals or you can limit their air time. to the business community, do i need to remind you that, in supporting moderation and peace, there is greater profit and prosperity?

to my fellow faith leaders, many of whom i see here, let's continue the extraordinary dialogue that has emerged from this crisis. to my fellow americans, non-muslims, i ask you to open your hearts to your communities, break bread together, and extend your spirit of friendship and good hope. in closing, i want to remind you of an incident from the presidential campaign of 2008 involving general colin powell, a man deeply respect. in october 2008, general powell talked about seeing a photo essay on american troops serving abroad. one picture was of a mother grieving in arlington national cemetery. she had her weeping head on the headstone of her son's grave.

you could see the writing on the headstone. it gave his awards, the purple heart, the bronze star. it showed that he had died in iraq. he was only 20 years old. and then on the top of the headstone, it did not have a cross. it did not have the star of david. it had the crescent and the start of islam. his name was kareem rashad sultan haram. he was 14 years old when iraq happened and he could not wait until he was old enough to serve his country. the photo came out at the same time that a controversy had come out about president obama's fayed, an issue that still has not gone away today. thatama's faith, an issue

still has not gone away. he is a christian, general powell said, he has always been a christian. but the really right question is, so what if he is a christian? is there something wrong with being a muslim in this country? our answer as a nation then and now is no. there is nothing wrong with being a muslim in america. our answer as a nation, then and now, is that there is everything right with being an american muslim. i pray to the old buddy mott, creator of us all, to bless you, to bless -- to the almighty god, creator of us all, to bless you, to bless america, and to

bless the peace on earth. as he said, blessed are the peacemakers. amen and thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> for an extremely thoughtful statement. i will ask one or two questions about the media issue and then take a step back and ask warner to about the larger and then open it up to you all. the other day, when you were asked about this, sir, you said, if i knew this would happen, that this would cause this kind of pain, i would not have done it. given that, why do you not do it differently from this point on?

>> we are exploring all options as we speak right now. we are looking for what would be a solution and to diffuse it and to avoid the unforeseen circumstances that we do not want to see happen. >> if you were to go ahead with it in its current form or something like it and given a larger mission that you have dedicated so many years to to build bridges, what sorts of things could you do to heal the risks that you yourself referred to? what sort of options do you see for yourself to build bridges, to deal with some of the problems that have clearly manifested themselves? >> the large question in which

all of this is contextualized is that the challenge that has been turned to me after 9/11 is how do we improve muslim-west relations? all of my work since then, all of my projects since then are based in doing that. for many years, people have always asked, where is the voice of the moderate muslims? where are they? where are they? where are they? and they couldn't get attention. ow that we have gontten attention as the voice of moderation, i am not considered a moderate. [laughter] the work we have together as faith leaders, as opinion leaders, as think tanks, is how

do we deploy ourselves together in a formula that would capitalize in these opportunities within the window of time that we have to do it so that we can leverage the voice of the moderates and address not only the calls let have fuelled extremism but also to wage the war against the extremists? if you look at of the trees and look at the shape of the forest for a minute, you can see that these are happening and this is the calculus that we are undergoing right now. >> let me ask one more question about the ground review. sometimes, in order to achieve the larger goals, one has to deal with immediate challenges. >> yes. >> you can call it a crisis or a challenge, but it can conceivably be an opportunity.

can you turn this crisis over the community center into an opportunity to serve the purpose of building bridges rather than not? >> yes. there has been a tidal wave of friends and new friends and people who have said, look, we're here to help you. the problem i have is like starting a football franchise and 100,000 people want to join the team. >> i will ask the question one last time. is compromise one of the tools you are prepared to deploy? >> everything is on the table. >> ok. i will let others see if they can -- [laughter] something tells me you are not prepared -- and i think, to be fair, there are times where you

do not necessarily want to get in great detail about what is potentially on the table because that does not necessarily advance the cause of trying to reach a compromise. you have to know how much to be specific about and how much not to be. that is your call. >> we really are focused on solving it in a way that will create the best possible outcome for all. i give you my pledge. >> one-two return to one of the larger issues. -- i want to return to one of the larger issues. you said that the battle is not against islam. it is about extremists in all great religions. i think that skirts a real issue. 99%+ of muslims are not terrorists.

but, looking at the world, 99% of the world's worst terrorists are muslims. there's something wrong in contemporary islam. you wrote this book about what is right with islam. what about the question what is wrong with this one? why is that there is such a high percentage of today's terrorists who are muslim? >> that is unimportant question. there are a number of things, political, socio-economic, religious, perceptions shift by the media, they have all together created a witch's brew which has let us look at the issue in this way. we have looked at the causes, and pack them, -- at the underlying causes, unpacked them, and look to address these core issues.

-- and looked to address the core issues. the arab-israeli crisis has gone on for so long. the presence of our troops in iraq and afghanistan have expanded the amount of terrorist acts. by the way, muslims are the biggest victims of terrorism conducted by muslims, etc. then you have the religious issues. how do we go about the separation of church and state? the history of the last century, we have had secular regimes pushing religious voices away from the board room. these are among the issues that have fueled this crisis, the central alienation among muslim minorities also in europe, mostly in europe than in this country.

we muslims have to help each other, just like, during the communist regime, american jews assisted in the plight. there is a commonality. to understand -- we understood to the signs on how to go to the 3 decades ago. we need to figure out solutions and deploy them in order to address this issue. >> "solutions" is a word that i tend to shy away from. what is it that muslims can do within the muslim world so that radicals do not continue to have the upper hand. -- hand? what can people who are dedicated to moderation due to

help fellow muslims? >> there is the issue of separating religion and politics. that is an important issue. because we are in a globalized world today, what happens in the west has an impact upon what happens in the muslim world. look at the danish crisis. it was a purely media-related prices. there are -- media-related crisis. there are always people who have agendas. they use it. they jump on the train because it helps them go to their destination. we know that the dinners cartoon crisis was taken advantage of by certain people with certain agendas to push their agendas.

so we have to understand, as i said, the political forces behind it, the religious forces behind it, the social forces behind it, and manage it. it is not about fixing. it is about managing. >> there will always be people who take advantage. there were people who took advantage of the danish cartoon. there is the pastor in florida with the terrible threat to burn the quran and there are those who would exploit that. this is not a justification for a license for committing acts of violence against innocent people. what do we do to strengthen that to? >> we have to be strategic rather than reactive. it is important to have

conferences and talk about the issue. but that is like talking about what players on the field should do to win a game. in oveorder to win the game, you have to be players in the field and have a strategy together and deploy those strategies. what is absent right now is strategic planning to actually come back that -- actually combat that that is sufficient. radical extremists from the muslim world are not only a threat to western governments. people in pakistan are sick and tired of suicide bombers. people in iraq are sick and tired of it. i remember going back to egypt after a terrorist attack against some swiss tourists. people were mad and angry

because tourism drives up -- tourism dries up and people start. muslims are not happy about these things. they are miserable. they want something better. we do not know how to give it to them. radical extremists have hijacked our discourse. imagine what would happen, richard, if, every time there was a suicide bombing, there was a news blackout? what would happen to these extremists? they love that the media gives them this coverage. i do not know how to do it. i am not saying that is a solution. but the fact of the matter is, the way things are happening right now, we have a situation or status quo where extremists can hijack the agenda. for all of our intelligence and

smarts, we have not figured out how to quiet them down. >> i could go on, but i will show uncharacteristic restraint. raise your hand and wait for a microphone and introduce yourself. keep it extraordinarily short. >> i am associated with ethan allen. i have had the pleasure of knowing the imam for many years. i have made the suggestion that perhaps the time has come to take what i would call a freeze on the situation, perhaps to call or take a timeout, to say that we will hold it up until you have these kinds of

discussions. you are doing a good job here. these kinds of discussions are needed and an opportunity could take place -- in my 45 years, i have never seen the kind of discourse that is taking place in this country. it is just amazing. and is bad for america and it is certainly bad for muslims. there is an opportunity to take a breather and to explain. then i think there is the opportunity for you to perhaps proceed in a better alignment. >> what about the idea of the so-called time out? >> thank you. our advisers have been looking at every option, including that. [laughter] >> i see a hand. yes, ma'am.

>> i do not hear you. >> their rigo. -- there we go. i am one of the first students that persuaded you to go on to the pages of "the new york times" last year. you mentioned building a team to build a: it -- a coalition of moderates. -- to build a coalition of moderates. what does that team look like? >> i wrote about this in my book. it needs to be a concerted coordinated plan of action from many fronts. we need opinion leaders. we need journalists. we need educators. we need faith leaders. we need academics and universities and schools and think tanks. we need them to create plays,

like the football analogy. we know the agenda that others have. we need to run blockage. football is a terrific analogy for this. we have to create a first down. everyone knows the hail mary pass. it will not happen in this situation. it needs understanding the game and playing the game and the opportunity that many people have seen is that, like a football game and where everybody is losing, all of a sudden a touchdown is caught and people are brought back into the stadium. i think we do have some opportunities here and we are feverishly thinking about how to put together a structure that will enable us to of deployed -- to deploy more people in the discourse and manage the crisis in a much better way. >> i like football as much as the next guy. but the hail mary pass is a metaphor too far.

[laughter] >> and good morning, sir. you speak much of strategy. it means future planning. in the early days of your planning for this mosque in downtown new york, did you and your colleagues anticipate the crisis that it might create? >> no, we did not. we were surprised. when the news became public, the front page of "the new york times" last december, no one objected. >> what would you have done differently? >> for starters, we would have tried to do it differently. we would have had different stakeholders, maybe not even do it at all. >> mr. sorenson.

you have a microphone right there. >> sir, i am ted sorensen, a retired lawyer. [laughter] by coincidence, 50 years ago last night, a candidate for president of the united states who would later become the first catholic president of united states was speaking, sitting up on a platform much as you are, to a group of protestant ministers pleading for religious tolerance and trying to explain the position of the catholic church. like you, he had to face a hostile -- face hostile questions and a wealth of misinformation and he found himself forced to explain or defend so-called extremist

statements he said in other countries and in other centuries which did not apply at all whether the words work in fallibility or obedience or whatever. words are part of the problem. i do not think that the misinformation to which he referred and to which you refer is necessarily deliver it. people in this country know very little about this long, just as they knew fairly little about catholicism. people do not know the difference between this lomb or even to hottest between islam or even -- between islam and jihadists. >> and do you have a question?

>> can you explain to them why a muslim center is not the same as a jihadist center. >> unfortunately, i cannot run for u.s. president since i was not born in this country. that is a good question. i am not suggesting that all people who are against the center are in fact radicals and extremists. that is a gross misrepresentation of what i have meant. there is a lot of unawareness in this country. that is why i urge people to understand it and to seek to understand what we are all about. but is also important for people to understand one of the causes of something. many people, for example, believed falsely that the problems between protestants and

catholics were a religious issue. if you study catholic theology or protestant theology, you will not find the sources of the problems in ireland. the problems were due to an imbalance between the protestants and the catholics in power and economics. what happens in such discourses that religion gets sucks in because identity becomes part of the different groups for combating were competing for the same asset. it is important for us, in our discourse, to not predictable not only to explain that, but to find ways -- to not only be able to explain that, but to find ways to do so. people think it does about religion and, therefore, push religion away. if we do not identify the

problem correctly, we can create false solutions. in many respects, that is part of the discourse right now on this issue and on islam and the relationship between the west and the muslim world. those are the perceptions and the understanding that we need to correct. >> yes, ma'am, in the second row. >> i have a question for richard. you asked the among what the muslims should do to stop extremists. here in new york, we have people across the political spectrum, from sarah palin to harry reid, basically asking a religious group to move their place of worship to avoid hurting the feelings of other people. it seems like, when we go down that slippery slope, we are setting up an environment that helps to breed extremists. it is one of the preeminent foreign policy institutions in

the country. what does the council on foreign relations plan to do? >> the council on foreign relations does not take a stand on this issue or any others. speaking personally, i believe that this is not a question about rights. i think the right is clear. the question is, given the larger agenda that he has and the cordova initiative has, the exercise of rights, building bridges between muslims and non- muslims without creating risk for the united states and the rest of the world. we cannot undo how we got here.

but the policy question is really for you and not for me. how do we manage this in a way that serves all those interests? i think we are past the point where this is about rights and the existence of rights. it is about the exercise them and one does not always have to exercise rights 100%. one always has the option of exercising rights in different ways in order to pursue a further and larger agenda. you do not have to respond. >> what i would like to point out is that the lady asked a very important question. the discourse is shaped only by what muslims say by -- only by what non-moslems say and do. many americans do not realize it, but our example speaks loudly to the whole world. what happens here speaks loudly

to the whole world. what non-muslims do here and say here matters to the muslim world. we cannot delink. they will have ripple effects. that is part of what makes the calculus so complicated. >> marty grosz. >> thank you. you are a teacher. i am also a teacher. the relationship between teacher and student is a preface to one. in fact, you are a religious teacher. i'm dealing with the asymmetry whereby the act of putting your center where you are, at the moment, it appears as a form of desecration to those people who think it is hallowed ground. how does the process of teaching takewhen the students

this perception of the teacher to the teaching process that the teacher wants to bring to the students? >> that is a very good question. first of all, it is absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground. many people have tried to teach the public that it is a strip joint around the corner with betting parlors. it is hallowed ground in one sense, but it does not add. let's clarify that misperception. the important part of what i am trying to do and my worked is that i need a space, i want a space where the voice of the moderates can be amplified. it is not good enough to teach

where no students will hear you. we need to create a platform where the voice of moderate muslims will be amplified. everybody wants this. non-muslims want moderate muslims to be amplified. in a paradoxical cents or even in a poignant sense, this is an opportunity that we must capitalize on so that those who teach moderation will have a mega horn to teach and to preach the voices of moderation. i have been successful and i have proven it with people in my community. i know which was to court from the choir. i know how muslims think. i know how to speak to them. i know how to shoot holes in their arguments as to what is

and what is not the teachings of and our faith. if we are at it -- if we are not ever see two nations, we're not following in the footsteps of the profit. that is one of the highest ideals -- of the prophet. this is one of the highest ideals among muslims. >> at a recent demonstration near ground zero opposing the islamic center, there was a banner that said "stock sharia law before it stops you." many of -- "stop sharia law before it stops you." there were many issues, such as

women refusing to reveal their faces for identification pictures, stonings, and the like -- what is the compatibility of a sharia law with american constitutional law. >> absolutely confident. first of all, i have written about it and lectured about it. the fundamental right, the declaratione of the documen of independence, we hold these rights to be evident, the creator gave these rights to was, not a government agency, this is a religious sentiment. these words were penned by thomas jefferson.

all of islamic law is intended to uphold six fundamental objectives, the protection of life, of human dignity -- which either relate to liberty -- to religion, to family, to property, and to intellect. and what do we do after we -- in order to pursue our happiness? we marry our loved ones. prosperity. and we pursue our religion. we've practiced sharia already when we adhered to our battery laws. when we bequeath to our states to our children in accordance to the dictates of sharia, we are consistent with american law and consistent with islamic law.

when we pray, these are all commandments of sharia law. 90% of sri lanka is fully compatible -- of sharia law is fully compatible with constitutional law and american laws. the differences are minor. they said that whenever muslims are minorities they are required to follow the lun lun of the land. -- follow the law of the land. there is much more i can say about this but this comes down to the time being. >> we will not settle all matters of jurisprudence. let me thank you all for coming. let me apologize for those whose

questions were not answered. let me thank feisal abdul rauf for answering our questions. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, the senate impeachment trial of new orleans federal judge thomas porteous. this is the first trial since the proceedings of president clinton in 1999. after that, president obama talks about the u.s. economy. then an update on the u.s.- russian nuclear arms reduction treaty. on tomorrow morning's

"washington journal," a look at a tax package with small businesses. the u.s.-mexico border security, the texas congressman will take your calls. then a conversation on math and science education in the u.s. tom lluce is our guest -- tom luce is our guest. later, a conference on civil rights in the 21st century examining aspects of civil rights history. that is why at 11:00 a.m. eastern. next come at the senate's impeachment trial of thomas porteous. he is accused of corruption and engaging in a kickback scheme with a louisiana law firm. the full senate voting sometime this fall. here is the opening portion of today's trial.

>> good morning. the evidentiary proceedings of the impeachment trial committee against judge thomas porteous of the eastern district of louisiana will come to order. this committee was appointed to perform the duties and exercise powers provided for role 11 of the procedure and practice. role of 11 requires this committee to take evidence on the four articles of impeachment presented by the house of representatives. we are here to begin receiving evidence. at the conclusion the committee shall report to the full senate

in writing a certified copy of the transcript and testimony given before this committee. a statement of facts uncontested and a summary of the evidence the parties have introduced. these proceedings may be viewed live on television or on the committee's website. the proceedings are also being recorded so each senator and not on the committee may have an opportunity to view the testimony of the witnesses as well as read transcripts. under rule 11 the full senate retains the power to consider the relevancy of the evidence the committee will report. the senate also retains the power to testify in open senate or to order that the entire

trial be conducted in open senate. regarding the house request to raise its role 22 and allow -- waive rule 22. rule 19 requires questions to be put in writing and was previously waived. members will be permitted to ask questions directly of the witnesses once the witness has been cross-examined. i would defer to both sides to begin their opening statements. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] thank you, much better. i am joined by my colleague bob goodlatte from virginia. i will be joined by our colleagues who are also assisted by a very able counsel. at the outset the house recognizes what an extraordinary proceeding this is and how seldom an impeachment is undertaken. this is a reflection of several things, that the men and women nominated for the federal bench. they have not given cause for their removal from office. emoval from office. i think it's also a tribute to the confirmation process that does a good job in vetting out those who are not suitable for the bench.

and i also think it's a reflection of how infrequently the house believes this extraordinary remedy is required. i won't spend much time this morning in discussing the standard for impeachment, the content of high crimes and misdemeanors. there'll be time for that later. more than that, i think the members of this committee understand that standard probably better than i or anyone else could articulate. but i will share at least in my view one of the formulations i think house and senate have arrived on in considering judicial impeachments, and that is that a judge has committed a serious violation of the public trust. that in the phraseology of governor morris, one of the framers, that the judge has so misdemeaned himself by violating the public trust that it necessitates his removal from the bench. and i also say that in the unanimous view of the house of representatives, the conduct of judge porteous was so unethical, so deplorable and inimical to

the public trust that it cannot be allowed to remain on the bench. now, what was that conduct? i'd like to give you a brief overview of the facts of the case before i turn it over to my colleague to go through the evidence in more detail. but before i do, it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of the facts, the underlying conduct in this case is not disputed. the central conduct in this case is simply not contested. and that conduct involves four areas. it involves the judge's relationship with two attorneys, jake and bob creeley, his relationship with a bail bonds company run by louis marcott, the concealment of the corrupt nature of these attorneys with this bail bonds company during his senate confirmation, and it involves his numerous false statements and representations and violations of the bankruptcy court order during his bankruptcy case. let me start, first, with the lawyers, imado and creley.

he had, in fact, been a partner of theirs in their law practice. at some point while he was on the state bench whether because of his expenses in the course of his family occasions, weddings or what not, whether it was because of his gambling, drinking or taste for expensive lunches, he started asking for cash from one of the attorneys, creeley. in the beginning it was small amounts, $50, $100, whatever bob had on him. but over time he came to ask for more cash, $500, a thousand dollars. and at some point bob creeley got tired of being hit on by the judge for cash, and he told the judge it had to stop. the cash had to stop. and after they had this conversation, the judge started sending curatorships to the law firm of creeley and imado.

essentially small administrative cases, unwhen there's an absent -- often when there's an absent party. these cases weren't very much, $175 or $200. the attorneys will testify they didn't even want these cases, they didn't ask for them. but once the judge started sending these to the firm, he started again to hit them up for cash. he would call, and he would want some of the curator money. and the evidence will show that they started to give him, basically, 50% of the curator money. the evidence will also show that they continued to give him curator money, and they would both take a draw from the firm. they would each, basically, get a thousand dollars as a draw from the firm. they would then turn that into cash and give the cash to judge

porteous. this went on for a period of time until judge porteous was nominated for the federal bench. once he was appointed to the federal bench, he was no longer in a position to send curators to the firm. when the curatorships stopped, the the cash also stopped. now, that cash stopped and the request for catch stopped with the end of the curators when he was appointed to the federal bench, the requests for cash stopped until a certain point. and that point came when judge porteous was assigned a millionty million dollar -- multimillion dollar case involving a fight over a pharmacy/hospital, a complex case that it's not necessary to go into great detail about. but this case had been going on for years. six weeks before the trial,

lilegeburg brings in two new lawyers. opposing counsel, a gentleman p named joe mole, became concerned with the late addition six weeks before trial on this multiyear, very complex multimillion dollar -- perhaps as much the evidence will show worth $200 million. he did some due diligence. contacted people that he knew that understood the bar in new orleans. and what he was told really alarmed him, that basically, the thing that these two attorneys had in common, amato and levinson was they were close friends, basically cronies of the judge. they were told in no uncertain terms by people who would not speak publicly that the fix was in. they'd better make a good record for themselves on appeal because they were going to lose this case. now, this put mr. mole in a difficult position because the

case was a bench trial. there was going to be no jury. judge porteous was going to decide the facts, he was going to decide the law, he was going to write the order, and mr. mole didn't have hard evidence that he could cite to. most of what he was told, basically, he was told in a way that he could not use in the court. but he did know that they had lunch together, although he did not know how frequently, and he was able to find through court records that he believed that mr. amato or levinson had given a contribution to judge porteous' campaign. and these were the only facts he really could cite to, their friendship, they had this campaign contribution, having lunch together in the his motion to recuse. but he felt he had no choice, he had to try to ask the judge to remove himself from the case. so he files the motion. the judge makes it quite clear during the recusal hearing --

and we will share with you the transcript because it's one of the most illuminating pieces of evidence in the case -- he makes it clear he understands the ethical standards, he understands when he has to take himself off a case. he goes through that with counsel, and then he chides mr. mole for suggesting he got a campaign contribution. he says, i never had a campaign. the contribution you're talking about was a contribution to all the judges for all their campaigns, a program that was called justice for all. contributed to all the judges' re-election. that was the only money he got from these lawyers. now, this, of course, we know was a quite deliberate conceit. and misrepresentation. because, in fact, he'd gotten thousands and thousands of dollars for these cure curatorss from mr. amato and mr. creely. none of which he discloses. all he does is chide the

attorney for not doing his homework. of course, if he'd find out about all this cash the judge had received, the recusal motion on the appeal -- because he later appeals -- the appeal would have been successful, the judge would have been forced to recuse himself. but the judge doesn't. he rules against the motion. the appeal is denied. the case goes to trial. after the case goes to trial, judge porteous takes the case under submission. this is worth an enormous amount to the law firm of amato and creely. they have a contingency case. they don't make a penny unless they win this case, and if they do win, mr. amato will testify they stand to earn somewhere between half a million to a million dollars. he's taken no other case in two years as mr. amato's worked on this case. it was worth an awful lot to his firm. case is under submission for three years. while it's under submission,

they continue having their lunches together. the evidence will show that creely, amato or levinson had lunch with the judge probably 100 times over several years. expensive restaurants, lots of liquor. they continue having the lunches and the wining and dining, but more than that, they pay for parties for the judge, they pay for other expenses for the judge, and on one very perfectbe pivotal -- pivot bal weekend, mr. amato goes fishing with the judge. and they're on the fishing boat, and the judge says -- he breaks down, says, i need money for my son's wedding. you've got to help me, i need money for my son's wedding. can you give me 2,000, $3,000? can you get me that cash? can you give it to me, can you find somebody to give it to e -- me? i need the money. and mr. amato will testify he made the worst decision of his life.

mindful of the fact that he had this very important litigation in his courtroom, he gives him the money. can't remember whether he gave it to him personally or had his, or the judge sent his secretary over to pick it up, but gives him 2,000, $2500 in an envelope. during the recusal hearing the judge made the point of saying i know the standard i'm to be held to. it's my responsibility as judge to disclose if there's something the attorneys should ask me to remove myself from the case. does the judge disclose that he has solicited cash from one of the lawyers, does he tell other counsel about it? of course not. ultimately, the judge rules and rules in favor of mr. amato's client. it's a huge victory for the client. writes a lengthy opinion. mr. mole, as he knew he would have to, appeals the opinion and in large part the court of appeals reverses.

and not only reverses, but in one of the more scathing opinions you'll ever read, accuses judge porteous of making up remedies and arguments out of whole cloth. baseless, a baseless decision is, essentially, what the court of appeals views of what judge porteous has written. the evidence will also show that at the same time that this illicit relationship is going on with amat toe and creely, it's not o technology relationship of its -- not the only relationship going on. judge porteous also has a relationship with a bail bonds company run by louis marcott. and with respect to the marcotts, louis and his sister lori, it shows a similar pattern. the marcot ts taking the judge out to probably over the years dozens if not hundreds of peel

meals at expensive places. buying him liquor, doing repairs on the judge's car, on his home, and for his part the evidence will show that judge porteous sent bonds in a manner that would maximize the profits to louis and his company. and one would hope that a judge's priority in setting bond would be to insure the defendant's appearance in court. but the evidence will show here that the marcottes asked for bonds set at amounts that would benefit him, mr. marcotte, and that judge porteous was more than willing to comply. on two separate occasions he was asked to expunge the convictions of employees of the bail bonds business be who could no longer work, could no longer be licensed to work in the business because of their convictions. so louis marcotte says, will you expunge the conviction first of a guy named jeff, and the judge does it. and later of another bail bonds

employee, aubrey wallace, and the judge expunges that conviction too. these were two of the employees doing the work for the judge, doing the car repairs and doing the home repairs. and when the judge takes the federal bench and can no longer set bonds to advantage louis marcotte, judge porteous helps to recruit a new judge to take his place with the marcottes. a new state judge who would later go to jail after pleading guilty to a charge almost identical to the conduct here. with respect to the confirmation process, the evidence will show that judge porteous knowingly failed to disclose the corrupt nature of these relationships to the fbi and to the senate. how do we know that the failure to disclose was knowing? how apart from the obvious fact that he was certainly aware of the cash he got from c rex ely -- creely and amato.

he was aware of the lunches and the parties they paid for, he was aware of the drinking and the gambling. how apart from the obvious do we know that judge porteous quite deliberately kept this from the senate? well, he tells us so. he tells us, and he shows us so. and let me give just one example of how he does that. louis marcotte when he asks him to expunge one of these convictions, the second, aubrey wallace, he will testify that when he asked judge porteous to expunge this conviction, judge porteous says, i will do it, but not right now. i won't do this until after my senate confirmation. i'm not blowing a lifetime appointment to the bench to do this for you. and that's exactly what happens. he waits until after his senate

confirmation, and just before be he's sworn in to expunge the conviction of aubrey wallace, now, why does he do it precisely then? obviously, he doesn't want to do it before the confirmation because he knows this would materially affect his confirmation. but why just before he's sworn in? well, he also knows the moment he's sworn into the federal bench, he's no longer in a position to expunge a conviction. it has to be exactly when and, in fact, the evidence will show that's exactly when he expunges the conviction. during the confirmation judge porteous is asked by the senate is he aware of any unfavorable information that would affect his nomination, and he answers, to the best of my knowledge, i do not know of any unfavorable information that may affect my nomination. the judge might object, how could he disclose the expudging

of aubrey wallace until after, the answer is he'd already done it with jeff. this was only the second time he did it. but, of course, he also knew about all the cash, knew about the expenses and failed to disclose that, and i think there's no question that would have materially not only affected his confirmation, but ended his confirmation. with respect to the bankruptcy, the evidence will show a similar effort to conceal the truth. he begins the bankruptcy process by filing the petition in a phony name. not porteous, but he picks a name, ortis. he opens a post office box so that this first e decision won't be associated with him publicly. why does he do this? why file in a phony name? well, perhaps it's to avoid certain creditors or perhaps it's to avoid having the casinos

read about his bankruptcy and decline to extend credit markers to him in the future, or perhaps as the defense will suggest, it's simply o to -- to avoid public embarrassment. but if a man will go to the extreme length of filing a bankruptcy petition under a false name and certify that that name is, in fact, his real name, if he'll go to the further length of taking a post office box to conceal it is his true identity, will he not conceal other information from the senate in order to obtain a lifetime appointment to the bench? the evidence will show that he would and, in fact, did. there are other numerous false statements which we will chronicle later, but judge porteous repeatedly violates the order not to incur new debt when he goes to casinos again and again filling out credit applications, taking out markers and borrowing from the casino to gamble. now, as i mentioned at the

outset, none of these facts are seriously contested. in fact, judge porteous admits to most of them in the fifth circuit. he is asked about the your ray to have -- curator monies, and he admits sending them and calling and getting cash back. he will not call it a kickback, but judge porteous does not deny getting the cash after sending the curatorships. when he is asked how much money did he get during the fifth circuit proceedings, his answer? i have no earthly idea. i have no idea. not, i didn't get the money, not i don't know what you're talking about, but in terms of how much, i have no idea. he got cash so often after such a prolonged period of time, he that has no idea exactly how much he got for them. does he admit getting the 2-3,000 in cash after soliciting it during the the pen nancy of this case in an envelope? yes, he admits that, too, in the fifth circuit. he takes issue, strangely

enough, he can't remember whether it was a bank envelope or a regular envelope, but he doesn't deny getting an envelope with cash. he doesn't remember whether he got it personally or whether he sent his federal secretary to pick up the cash for him, but he didn't deny it. -- he doesn't deny it. he admits not paying taxes on the cash income that he got from amato and creely. he admits filing federal disclosure forms and claiming that he had about $30,000 in credit card debt when, in fact, he had over $180,000 worth of credit card debt. he admits filing bankruptcy under a false name saying only it was his lawyer's idea. he admits filling out credit applications with casinos and incurring more debt in the form of markers with those casinos when the bankruptcy order prohibited him from doing so. none of this he denies. not the lunches, not the parties, shot the favors, not

the cash, not the false statements, not the expunge pudgements, not the false name, none of this do we expect he has or will deny. so if the facts are largely uncontested, what is the issue here? as i will discuss briefly after mr. goodlatte goes through the evidence of these facts in more detail, the issue in this case is largely this: judge porteous doesn't believe any of this conduct is wrong. he doesn't believe any of it is unethical or immoral. in his view it is, at best, the appearance of impropriety. as the defense states in its statement of the case, the conduct alleged here is, quote, a variety of acts that constitute at most the appearance of impropriety. it is the unanimous be view of the house of representatives that judge porteous' conduct was not only wrong, but so violative of the public trust that he cannot be allowed to remain on

the bench without making a mockery of the court system. i would now like to turn it over to my colleague, bob goodlatte, to go through the evidence in more detail. >> thank you. now let me turn to the exacts that we -- facts that we shall prove in the case in more detail. judge porteous was born in december 1946, and he will be 64 this december. in 1971 he graduated from lsu law school, and he was a partner with jacob amato with whom you will hear later today between 1973 and 1974. robert creely, who you will also hear from later today, also practiced at that law firm. from october 1973 to august 1984, judge porteous also served as an assistant district

attorney in jefferson parish, louisiana. in august 1984, judge porteous was elected and served as a state district court judge on the 24th judicial district court for jefferson parish, louisiana, where he served as a state judge from august 1984 to october 28, 1994. while a state judge, amato and creely regularly and frequently took him to lunch and provided and paid for other entertainment for judge porteous. judge porteous virtually never paid for any lunches he attended with creely or amato. let me first start off by talking about judge porteous' curatorship scheme with attorneys creely and amato. as mr. schiff stated, at some point after he became a state judge, judge porteous began to request money from robert creely. the evidence will show that judge porteous claimed he needed money for personal reasons such as tuition, car repairs or home repairs. creely would give him the monies

as requested. over time as judge porteous' requests for money persisted and the amounts he sought increased, creely came to resent and he cyst them to the point that creely would avoid judge porteous' phone calls. creely went so far as to say he felt he was being taken advantage of. this committee has ruled that the transcripts from the fifth circuit and the house hearings are admissible, so i will quote here from what creely previously testified. quote, i don't recall if i specifically told him that it was because of his lifestyle, but i told him that i, we could not continue giving him money. i couldn't continue giving him money. in light of creely's resistance, judge porteous came up with the following scheme. judge porteous used his judicial power to assign cree liqueur ray to haveships. these are appointments whereby creely would represent a messing party in a -- missing party in a case for which creely would receive a set fee of approximately $200 from the

court. and after creely was paid for those curatorships, judge porteous requested from creely money constituting some portion of the curatorship fees. again, creely testified in the fifth circuit. question, did judge porteous make a request of you after sending you curatorships for a portion of the fees that you were being paid by the court? answer, yes, sir. question, and how did that -- how did he do that? answer, i don't recall how it came about, but it came ability, and he got, and i can't -- i can't tell you he got all of the curator fees that we general rated, but he got a good portion of the fees we generated from the curators. creely told his partner, amato, that judge porteous was asking for money from the curatorships. here's how amato described this in his deposition in response to questioning by judge porteous' attorney. question, was it your understanding that there was a connection between the money

that was the cash given to judge porteous and the curatorships? answer, at some point in time, yes. question, and how did you reach that understanding? answer, bob creely came in my office one day, told me that porteous was sending curatorships, and he wanted us to, you know, give him some money back. and i told him, this is going to wind up bad. and as you can see, mr. amato could not have been more fresh credibility. now -- prescient. now, let me pause here. the evidence is not simply the testimony of creely and amato. judge porteous himself has admitted essential aspects of this sequence of events leading to and including his actions regarding the curatorships. for example, in his testimony under oath to the fifth circuit, judge porteous confirmed that mr. creely refused to pay him money before the curatorships started. answer, he may have said i needed to get my finances under control, yeah. similarly, judge porteous confirmed that during the time he sent curatorships over to the

amato and creely firm, he would receive money back from them. question, after receiving curatorships, mr.s creely or amato and/or their law firm would give you money, correct? answer, occasionally. question, during the time you were giving creely and amato and the law firm curatorships and you were getting cash back, was that cash you received a kickback for the curatorship in your mind? answer, no, sir. though judge porteous disputes whether the arrangement should be characterized as a kickback, he does not dispute the fundamental premise of the arrangement that was then in place, that there was a time that he was giving, quote, creely and amato and their law firm curatorships and was getting cash back. thus, creely and amato exceeded to judge porteous' requests and gave him cash that was funded by the cure ray to haveships. creely and amato took equal draws from the firm to come up

with the cash to give judge porteous in response to his demands. here are examples of orders that judge porteous assigned assigning a curatorship to creely, orders that judge porteous signed in his judicial capacity in order to enrich himself. during the 1988-1994 time periods, the house has identified approximately 200 curatorships that judge porteous assigned creely amounting to fees of close to $40,000 to the firm. creely and amato have each estimated that they collectively gave judge porteous approximately $20,000 or $10,000 each from the curatorship proceeds. and as to money amounts he received, judge porteous had testified, question, judge porteous, over the years how much cash have you received from jake amato and bob creely or their law firm? answer, i have no earthly idea. question, it could have been $10,000 or more, isn't that right?

answer, again, you're asking me to speculate. i have no idea is all i can tell you. though the money came directly from creely, the evidence will show that judge porteous well understood that the money was 50/50 from amato as well. the evidence will be clear that judge porteous spent time with both men and understood they had a classic partnership relationship. however, after judge porteous became a federal judge in 1994, his ability to assign creely the curatorships came to an end and, thus, his cash requests came to an end for the time being. we believe you will conclude that the fact that judge porteous stopped making cash requests at the same time he stopped assigning curatorships is powerful evidence that judge porteous understood that those two events would be inextricably interwoven. now let me turn to judge porteous' handling of the liljeberg case. in early 1996 judge porteous,

now a federal judge, was assigned a complicated civil case involving the dispute between a hospital, lifemark, and a company that was running a pharmacy at the hospital known collectively as the liljeberg. trial was set for early november 1996, and just six weeks prior to the date for trial in late september 1996, the liljeberg hired mr. amato and the law firm of amato and creely and another of porteous' close friends, leonard levinson, to represent them at trial. as mr. schiff noted, lifemark's counsel filed a motion to recuse judge porteous. the timing of known, close friends of judge porteous entering this complex case raised suspicions about the integrity of the process. lifemark's attorney, joseph mole, had no idea that amato had, in fact, in partnership with creely given judge porteous close to $20,000 in cash. in october 1996, judge porteous

conducted a hearing on lifemark's recusal motion. it is worth going through what happens at that recusal hear anything a little bit of detail. at the recusal hearing, judge porteous describes his relationship with amato and levinson as follows: quote, if anyone wants to decide whether i'm a friend with mr. amato or levinson, i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative, yes. mr. amato and i practiced law together. judge porteous further stated, quote, yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have i been to either one of them's house? the answer is a definitive no. have i gone to lunch with them? the answer is a defendtive yes. -- definitive yes. in short, at the hearing judge porteous portrayed his relationship with amato as simply the same sort of unexceptional relationship that he would have had with any member of the bar limited to

having, quote, gone to lunch with him. even that is misleading because the evidence will show that judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato without reciprocating. more significantly, in describing his relationship with amato, judge porteous makes no mention whatsoever of what really is the issue, that is, that he has received thousands of dollars in cash from amato's law firm, money that he knows comes from amato as well as creely. mr. mole at a great disadvantage says, quote, the public perception is that they do dine with you, travel with you. they have contributed to your campaigns, end quote. and judge porteous pounces on this. quote, well, luckily i didn't have any campaigns, so i'm interested to find out how did you know that? i never had any campaigns, counsel. i have never had an opponent. the first time i ran, 1984, i

think is the only time they gave me money. end quote. judge porteous goes on to challenge mole about the suggestion that amato and levinson had given him campaign contributions saying that mole, quote, should have done his homework better, end quote. he makes the self-serving comment in which he promises to notify counsel if he has any question that he should recuse himself and concludes, i don't think a well-informed individual can question my impartiality in this case. well, in effect what you have here is judge porteous and amato, who know the facts, just not disclosing it, completely misleading and disguising the nature of the actual relationship. amato knows this is not right. here's what amato described the deception in the courtroom in response to questioning by mr. schiff at his senate deposition. question, and he, in fact, told the other attorneys they should have done their homework better

because this was a contribution to a general judge's fund. answer, that's correct. that's the short story. question, and while he was making this show for the other counsel, that they should have done their homework better, he didn't tell them anything about the approximately $20,000 in curator fees that you and your partner kicked back to him, did he? answer, no, he didn't tell them anything about the curatorships. question, do you think that was misleading, mr. amato, for him to pound his chest and say i never got any campaign contributions but fail to tell them he got about $20,000 in cash under the table? answer, yes. question, so you don't feel he was being honest during that hearing, do you? answer, i don't think he was being honest. in the summer of 1997, judge porteous presided over the liljeberg trial and took the case under advisement. he did not issue his opinion until april 2000.

the evidence will show that in may of 1999 while judge porteous had the case under advisement, judge porteous invited creely, amato's partner, to las vegas for judge porteous' son's bachelor party prior to his wedding. on that trip creely paid for judge porteous' hotel room and other entertainment for judge porteous. indeed, judge porteous admitted in his fifth circuit testimony that creely made those payments for him. in june of 1999, also while still having the case under advisement, judge porteous went on a fishing trip with amato and told him that his son's wedding expenses were more than anticipated and requested that amato give can him cash. in response to that request, amato and creely gave porteous approximately $2,000. just pause for a moment. here we have a federal judge while having a non-jury case under advisement asking one of the attorneys for cash.

like much of the other evidence that we shall introduce, the fact that judge porteous solicited and received money from amato in many 1999 -- in 1999 in connection with his son's wedding and while the liljeberg case is pending is not really contested. here's how judge porteous testified. question, do you recall in 1999 in the summer, may, june receiving $2,000 from them? answer -- judge porteous -- i've read mr. amato's grand jury testimony. it says we were fishing, and i made some representation i was having difficulties and that he loaned me some money or gave me some money. question, whether or not you recall asking mr. amato for money during this fishing trip, do you recall getting an envelope with $2,000 shortly thereafter? answer, yeah. something seems to suggest there may have been an envelope. i don't remember the size, how i got the envelope or anything about it. question, wait a second.

is it the nature of the envelope you're disputing? answer, no. money was received in an envelope. question, and had cash in it? answer, yes, sir. question, and it was from creely and/or -- >> answer, amato. >> question, amato? answer, yes. question, and it it was used toy for your son's wedding? answer, to help defray the cost, yeah. question, and would you dispute the amount was $2,000? answer, i don't have any basis to dispute it. in addition, in the fall of 1999 while judge porteous still had the case under advisement, creely and amato paid over $1,000 for a party in honor of porteous' fifth year on the bench. in april 2000 hish i shooed -- he issued his opinion on the case ruling for the liljebergs. lifemark appealed and the court

described it as, quote, inexplicable, a chimera bordering on the nonsense -- nonsensical and absurd. thus, article one charges a course of conduct in connection with judge porteous' handling of the liljeberg case including his making false and misleading statements at the recusal hearing, his solicitation of $2,000 from amato, and his receipt of other things of value from creely including creely's payments for certain of judge porteous' expenses at the 1999 trip to las vegas. now, let me turn to article two. judge porteous' relationship with bail bondsman louis marcotte and his sister lori that mr. schiff discussed. for that it is necessary to return to judge porteous' roots as a state court judge. first, let me take a second to describe how the bail bonds business worked in new orleans and why judge porteous' actions

in setting bonds was so financially significant to the marcottes. this is somewhat detailed, and i have tried to distill it to its essentials. a bail bond is basically an insurance policy. the prisoner pays the premium -- typically 10% of the amount of the bail bond -- to the bail bondsman, and the bail bondsman promises the court that the prisoner will show up when he is required. so if a bond is set at $50,000, a prisoner would pay the bail bondsman $5,000. louis marcotte, the bail bondsman, will testify that he would make no money if the bond was set so high that the prisoner could not afford the premium or too low so that the premium would be an insignificant sum. what marcotte really wanted was for a bond to be set at the maximum amount for which the prisoner could afford to pay marcotte the premium. it is against this background that judge porteous' relationship can thus be

understood. prior to taking the federal bench starting in the early 1990s, judge porteous developed a relationship with the marcottes where he solicited and accepted things of value from them and, at the same time, took numerous acts as a state judge for their financial benefit. the marcottes took judge porteous to high-end restaurants for lunch paying both for meals and drinks. the marcottes also paid for numerous car repairs and routine car maintenance for the judge, home repairs when a fence of judge porteous' had to be fixed. they also paid for a trip to las vegas for judge porteous. in the return, judge porteous willingly became marcotte's go-to judge for setting bonds. he went directly to judge porteous with recommended bond amounts that would maximize their income. judge porteous was receptive to them and signed countless bonds at their request, judicial acts

which he knew top of financial benefit to them. now, at a prior hearing it has been argued that the house cannot identify any corrupt bonds set by judge porteous. that is not the point or what the articles of impeachment allege. rather, the evidence will demonstrate that judge porteous eagerly solicited and willingly accepted things which he knew to be inducements and rewards in exchange for making acts to the financial benefits of the marcottes. they were not social friends, they knew each other solely through work, and they formed a corrupt, mutually-beneficial relationship. in addition to setting bonds as requested, judge porteous took other judicial acts of significance for the marcotte marcottes. in 1993 the judge expunged

duhont's conviction. in 1994 at marcotte's request, judge porteous also set aside the conviction of another employee, aubrey wallace. again, this was worked out between louis marcotte and judge porteous. it took place during judge porteous' last days on the state bench, a final judicial act by judge porteous for the marrcottes' benefit. now let me turn to judge porteous' confirmation as a federal judge. at some point in 1994, excuse me, at some point in 1994, judge porteous came under consideration to be appointed as a federal judge. judge porteous knew that if the white house and the senate had found out about his relationships with either creely or the marcottes, he would never

be nominated, let alone confirmed. in the course of the background investigation and during the confirmation process, judge porteous was asked questions on no less than four or occasions that would have logically called for his disclosure of his relationships with creely and amato and the marcottes had he been truthful and forthcoming. first, at some time prior to 1994, judge porteous filled out a form referred to as the supplement to the sf-86. on that form is a question that goes to the very heart of the issue associated with the background process. i want to show you that question and answer to the -- i want to show that question and answer to the committee. in that form judge porteous was asked, question, is there anything in your personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail you? is there anything in your life that could cause an embarrassment to you or to the president if be publicly known? if so, please provide full

details. to which judge porteous answered, no. judge porteous signed that document under the penalties of false statements. of course, the evidence will show that he knew of the facts i have described, and thus, knew that answer was false. the evidence will show that thereafter on july 6th and july 8th judge porteous was interviewed by an fbi agent as part of the background check process. judge porteous was asked by the agent the same sort of questions, and his answers were incorporated in this a memorandum of the agent that summarized the interview. let me again show you the exhibit. in the fbi write-up of that interview, judge porteous was recorded as saying that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on the candidate's character, reputation, judgment or discretion. after that interview the fbi in

new orleans sent the background check to fbi headquarters in washington which reviewed the background check. upon that review they directed the agents to interview judge porteous a second time about a very particular allegation that the fbi had received in 1993 that judge porteous had taken a bribe from an attorney to reduce the bond for an individual who had been arrested. this allegation did not implicate the marcottes, so on august 18, the fbi returned and conducted a second in-person interview with judge porteous probing possible illegal conduct on his part in connection with bond setting. once again judge porteous stated, quote, that he was unaware of anything in his background that might be the basis of attempted influence, pressure, coercion or compromise and would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment or discretion. finally, on the united states senate committee on the

judiciary -- the united states senate committee on the judiciary sent judge porteous a questionnaire for judicial nominees. again, i am showing you the document on the screen. in that questionnaire judge porteous was asked the following question and gave the following answer: please advise the committee of any unfavorable information that may affect your nomination. answer, to the best of my knowledge, i do not know of any unfavorable information that may affect my nomination. the signature block is in the form of an affidavit that the information provided in the document is true and correct. thus, on four occasions judge porteous concealed the truth as to his relationships with creely and amato and the marcottes from the fbi and the senate. in addition, the two men who judge porteous had been receiving things from, creely and marcotte, were each interviewed by the fwi. each made misleading or false statements designed to protect judge porteous.

let me turn to an act undertaken during the time of the confirmation process that evidences, first, that judge porteous well knew that his relationship with marcotte was corrupt and, second, that he wanted to conceal it from the senate. as i mentioned, marcotte had an employee named aubrey wallace. wallace had two convictions for which he was on parole. in the summer of 1994, at around the time period of the confirmation, marcotte went to judge porteous and asked him to set aside wallace's burglary conviction so that wallace would ultimately be allowed to obtain a bail bonds license. the evidence will show that judge porteous told marcotte that he would set wallace's conviction aside but only after the senate had confirmed him. i would like to read an exermtd from mr. marcotte's testimony which has been ruled admissible

that illuminates judge porteous' intent. mr. sympathy: you egg mentioned that with respect to mr. wallace that judge porteous expressed a reservation about setting aside the conviction until his confirmation took place. can you tell us a little bit about that conversation? you said you had to press him. did he tell you why he was concerned? mr. louis marcotte: because if anyone, if the newspaper grabbed hold of it, then he would be worried that it would interfere with him being his confirmation. mr. schiff: and can you tell us what his words were how he expressed to you his concern that things might become public? ..

judge porteous did, in fact, wait until after he was confirmed by the >> he concern he expressed that if he set aside were discovered it might derail his nomination appeared to have been justified. the media reported that the judge had engaged in an unlawful act. at this time they judge secured his federal judgeship. after he became a federal judge the relationship did not continue precisely as when he

was a state judge. judge porteous did not continue precisely as when he was a state judge. judge porteous could not do as much for the marcottes. and they accordingly did less for him. they stopped taking care of his cars. they took him to lunch less frequently. however, even if the relationship slowed down, it did not come to an end. you will hear that judge porteous was influential with other state judges from the 24th jdc where he had previously presided. moreover, the marcottes knew that it was useful to have a federal judge in their corner so even when judge porteous was a federal judge, the marcottes continued to take him to expensive lunches. especially where persons they sought to express, state judges and businessmen would be present. as but one example, the evidence will show that judge porteous vouched for the marcottes with newly elected state judge ronald bodenheimer in or about 1999. bodenheimer, who prior to judge porteous' intervention held the

marcottes in low regard ended up forming the same sort of corrupt relationship with the marcottes that judge porteous previously had with them accepting meals, home repairs, and hospitality on various trips and on various return setting bonds as they requested. ultimately bodenheimer and another state judge alan green went to jail for conduct that was substantially similar to that as judge porteous, vis-a-vis, the marcottes. both louis marcotte and lori marcotte were convicted of felony offenses for having given numerous state officials including judges and law enforcement personnel things of value. thus, article 2 alleges that while he was a state court judge in the 24th judicial district court in the state of louisiana, and continuing while he was a federal judge in the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana, judge porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bonds louis marcotte iii and his sister lori marcotte.

as part of this corrupt relationship, judge porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value including meals, trips, home repairs and car repairs for his personal use and benefit while at the same time taking official actions that benefited the marcottes. in article 4 charges that judge porteous, quote, knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the united states senate and to the federal bureau of investigation in order to obtain the office of united states district court judge. the last aspect of our case relates to judge porteous' bankruptcy while a federal judge set forth in article 3. throughout the 1990s and into 2001, judge porteous' financial condition deteriorated largely due to gambling at casinos to the point that by 2001, when he filed for bankruptcy, he had over $190,000 in credit card debt. there are different ways that the evidence will describe his

financial activities but perhaps the most compelling is that his credit card statements from 1995 through 2000 reflect over $130,000 in gambling charges. and his bank statements from 1997 through 2000 reflect over $27,000 in cash withdrawals at casinos. in 2000, judge porteous met with bankruptcy attorney claude lightfoot about his financial predicament. the evidence will show that judge porteous did not tell lightfoot at that time or indeed at any time that he gambled. they decided that lightfoot would attempt to work out judge porteous' debts owed to his creditors and then if that failed, judge porteous would consider filing for bankruptcy. lightfoot's attempts at a workout failed and in or about february of 2001, lightfoot and judge porteous commenced for bankruptcy. in the weeks and days immediately prior to filing for

bankruptcy, the evidence will show that judge porteous undertook numerous actions to conceal assets to conceal certain unsecured debts and to structure his financial affairs so that he would be able to continue to gamble and obtain credit from casinos while in bankruptcy. first, as part of these efforts, judge porteous in consultation with his attorney agreed that he would file his bankruptcy petition under a false name. to further this plan, judge porteous obtained a post office box so that his initial petition would have neither his correct name or a readily identifiable address. he secured that post office box five days before he filed bankruptcy. on marcotte -- march 28th he filed under gdorius. and on march 23, 2001 listed as his address. judge porteous signed his

petition twice once under the representation, i declare under the penalty of perjury information provided is true and correct. the other over the time g.t. ortous. on april 92001, judge porteous submitted a statement of financial affairs and numerous bankruptcy schedules. this time they were filed under his true name. however, the evidence will show that they were false in numerous other ways. all reflecting his desire to conceal assets and gambling activities from the bankruptcy court and his creditors. i'm not going through all his false statements during the bankruptcy at this time. but i thought i would at least point out some to you. he knowingly failed to disclose that he had filed for a tax refund claiming a $4,400 refund even the bankruptcy forms specifically inquire as to whether he filed for a tax refund. he checked that box no.

he failed to disclose he had gambling losses within the prior year even though the form specifically asks that question. in those, he has admitted before the fifth circuit that he had gambling losses. he deliberately concealed casino debts he had incurred in the weeks prior to filing even though the forms in various places would have required those to be disclosed. he reported his account balance and his checking account as $100 when the day prior he deposited $2,000 into his account. he concealed a money market account that he regularly used in the past to pay gambling debts. and there are others we will establish during the trial. the single organizing principle that arranges this pattern of false statements is judge porteous's desire to conceal assets and to conceal his gambling so that he could gamble while in bankruptcy without interference from the court or the creditors or even his lawyer. at a hearing of creditors on may

9, 2001, judge porteous was asked under oath to vouch for the accuracy of his schedules to which he testified falsely as follows. bankruptcy trustee, everything here in -- in here true and correct? judge porteous, yes. that statement and like so many of judge porteous' statements under oath that you will hear about during this proceeding was false. that bankruptcy trustee also informed judge porteous that he was on a cash basis going forward. at the end of june, 2001, bankruptcy judge william greendike issued an order approving the plan and specifically ordered judge porteous not incur new debt without permission of the court. notwithstanding the judge's order judge porteous did incur debt. he applied for a credit card. more particularly, judge porteous continued to borrow from casinos without the court's permission. in some instances he paid those casino debts back through the bank account that he concealed.

in short, the evidence will show that he engaged in a pattern of deceiveful activity decent to frustrate and confound the bankruptcy process. i know i've taken some time here and i appreciate your attention. now let me turn the podium back to mr. schiff. >> senators, as i mentioned at the outset, the vast majority of what you have now heard of the evidence is uncontested. so what are the issues here? there really are two arguments the defense will make and the central one is this. judge porteous may have done all of these things but there's nothing wrong with any of it. none of it was unethical or improper and wrong it's nothing more than an appearance problem. he's being impeached essentially for having lunch. that is the gist of the defense. now, there will be a suggestion that judge porteous may have done all these things but the house chose not to charge him with the violation of the

kickback statute 18 usc code whatever. this is not a criminal case. and the house has no obligation to charge or approve the elements of a particular statute. there will be a similar suggestion that the house has not charged a violations of the service statute although he's not charged with that statute nor is the house required to make a charge of a particular code section. there will even be a suggestion that after all, senators, we're talking about new orleans. it's new orleans. they all do it. and if you're going to impeach judges in new orleans for this kind of stuff, you're going to have to impeach all of them. there will be a hint of that. but the real argument is he did nothing wrong. and on this the house could not disagree more. we believe that the evidence in this case fully supports the view of the house of representatives that sending court cases to a law firm and taking cash back is wrong. dead wrong.

the evidence will show that allowing yourself to be wined and dined by lawyers who have a case before you is wrong. the evidence will show that allowing those lawyers to pay for parties, to pay for your lunches, your liquor, a hotel room to have a stripper dance in your lap, all of that is wrong. to falsely represent your financial relationship with lawyers in the courtroom is unethical and wrong. the evidence will show that so solicit cash from lawyers with a multimillion dollar case under submission in your courtroom is wrong. to set bail based on how much it will benefit a bail bondsman is wrong. to accept car repairs and home repairs and lunches and liquor from that same bail bondsman is wrong. the evidence will show that to expunge the convictions of their employees, to recruit other judges to form the same corrupt relationship is wrong. to file a false petition in bankruptcy is wrong. and we believe that when you hear the evidence, the uncontested evidence, you will agree it is wrong. and that he must be removed from the bench. there's a second argument the

defense will make that i want to comment on very briefly. the senate cannot consider the evidence of any of judge porteous' conduct before he was sworn in to federal office. as representative goodlatte's evidentiary presentation made clear, some of the conduct in articles 1 and 2 took place before the judge's appointment to the federal bench, during the confirmation proceeding and after his appointment to the federal bunch. -- bench. article 3 it involves conduct only while he was on the federal bench and the final article, article 4, involves conduct during the confirmation process itself. in judge porteous' view the constitution prohibits the senate from considering an impeachment proceeding anything that took place before his swearing-in. the senate confirmation process in this view is a high stakes game of hide the ball. if you can get confirmed, no matter what you concealed, no matter what false representation you make, you're home free for life.

nothing in the constitution compels this view. in fact, the constitution is silent on when the high crimes or misdemeanors must take place. but judge porteous would have you read into that silence an intent to make any prior conduct unreachable. this would lead to an absurd result. let us say the evidence showed that a judge had committed murder prior to his appointment, could he not be removed? let's say that the evidence showed that a judge were convicted and sentenced to jail after the appointment to the federal bench but based on conduct that was committed before they were appointed to the federal bench. can we imagine a situation where that judge might serve the rest of their life in jail? and the senate would be powerless to withdraw them or sentence them. the defense makes much of the sense that judge porteous was not prosecuted by the department of justice. but let's say that he had. let's say that he had been prosecuted for the curatorship scheme. it would be the defense's position because the conduct

took place before notwithstanding that he goes to jail now he cannot be impeached or removed from the bench. as professor amir one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars testified before the house, if a judge bribed his way onto the bench, would he be beyond the reach of impeachment? of course not. the standard we believe for impeachment is whether the judge dismeaned himself and cannot remain on the bench. viewed from this perspective matters not when the conduct took place but whether the public can have confidence that the judge will honestly and honorably undertake his public responsibilities and in accordance with the law. in this case, we believe the evidence will show that the public cannot have that confidence. let me conclude where i began with one final observation on the standard to be applied as you hear the evidence. what does it mean to betray the public trust? i can only give you my view.

and that is if i remember the public and i had to appear in judge porteous' courtroom in the future, could i have the requisite confidence that he would undertake his responsibilities in accordance with the law? if i had a case in his courtroom that was very important to me, and opposing counsel was a friend of the judge, can i be confident that he was not taking cash from them and disclose his full relationship with them. that he would not ask for more cash while that case was under submission. that i would not to hire another crony of the judge to protect myself? i simply could not have that confidence. if i were a creditor in a bankruptcy case, could i expect a fair result when the bankruptcy party -- when the bankrupt party lied on bankruptcy petitions, used an alias, concealed debts or violated the court order by incurring new gambling debts, how could i have that confidence? when the party in question can say, judge, how can you criticize me for filing under a false name?

doesn't the name ortus ring a bell. with that, senators, i would conclude my remarks. >> thank you. judge porteous' counsel now has an opportunity for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman mccaskill. advice chair hatch, distinguished members of the senate impeachment trial committee, good morning. my name is jonathan turley and i have the honor of representing united states district court judge g. thomas poteous and joining me with daniel schwartz, keith arzata, john walsh, pj, dan o'connor from the law firm of brian cave. senators, if the parties agree on one thing, it is this.

by any measure this is a historic moment. it's not simply because the constitutional proceeding has only occurred 14 times in our history. it's a proceeding that the framers crafted with the likes of james madison to guide your actions today, this week, and in this case. in the history of this republic, in over two centuries, there's only been seven federal judges of thousands that have been removed under this standard. now, for past senators and frankly current senators it would be an easy thing to simply convict a judge and yield to the passions of controversy. yet, this is an occasion where the senate has given a specific duty to adjudicate, not just legislate or deliberate.

impeachments are not about one judge. they're about all judges. and the constitutional guarantees under which they serve. james madison stated it best when he warned that removal must be based on a high showing, a high standard to avoid interpretations, quote, so vague as to be the equivalent of tenure at the pleasure of the senate. for that reason, the framers adopted the standard of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. it is the obligation of every senator -- and i know you take these obligations seriously, to make two distinct determinations before voting to remove a federal judge. first, you must conclude the underlining facts have proven to be occurred. in a case facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

a standard should be no lower for an impeachment particularly in a case where the accused was never afforded the protections and due process of a criminal trial. second, if the acts were proven to have occurred, you must determine that the acts constitute treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in most past cases, the second determination was the focus of your deliberations, the focus of the senate. however, in this case, your fact-finding has far greater impact in the absence of a prior trial record than all of these prior modern judicial impeachments. as i mentioned, the house opted to bring this impeachment despite the fact that judge porteous has never been indicted let alone convicted of any crime. that is unlike any modern judicial impeachment.

judge porteous signed three tolling agreements to allow the government to prosecute him regardless of the running of the statute of limitations. he waived that protection. as will be shown, the justice department investigated these very claims and found that they did not warrant criminal charges. as a result, there was no trial. where evidence and witnesses were subject to judicial review or a full adversarial process. a trial of this kind in federal court would take weeks or months. in an actual court of law, you would have months simply spent on going through the evidence. indeed, even with a prior trial, former judge elsie hastings had a trial that lasted 18 days. in the 19 hours allowed to the defense after opening arguments we will not be able to present a full panoply of witnesses or testimony as if this were a criminal trial.

indeed, we've reduced our witnesses to try to stay within the allotted time. however, you will hear testimony that core allegations in this case either did not factually occur or had been contradicted by core witnesses including the house's own star witnesses. you will be hearing new evidence never disclosed previously fwhaik. -- in this case. including facts that were never disclosed to the members of the house before their impeachment vote. indeed, i expect many house members may be surprised to learn that the articles were based on alleged acts that we now know could not have occurred. as well as alleged acts uses the basis for removal that were entirely lawful under either judicial ethics or bankruptcy rules. indeed, this is the first impeachment that i know of where

the house impeached on some factual allegations that didn't actually occur. i know of no other impeachment where facts were found and we will demonstrate clearly that the acts didn't happen, simply did not happen. this impeachment reads like a scene in sherlock holmes in the silver blaze case which holmes solves the mystery by quote by the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime. the scotland yard detective, however, objects saying the dog didn't do anything in the nighttime to which holmes responds that was the curious incident. it was the absence of the dog barking that holmes found so suspicious. the curious incident in this case is that while the house continually refers to a massive investigation of various judges called wrinkled robe and despite the fact that judge porteous waived the statute of limitations on crimes, no indictment was ever brought against him.

after years of inquiry. there was a reason the dog did not bark in this case. judge porteous' actions, while in some cases showing poor judgment, were, in fact, entirely legal. now, there's been an effort to portray the defense's past inquiries in this case as to cast blame on the judges of louisiana or suggesting that misconduct is generally accepted. mr. schiff attempted to make that argument saying we were going to argue, oh, it's just new orleans. that's not what we're arguing. we've refrained from answering those types of ill-informed attacks in the times picayune. we waited to present the evidence to you. the purpose of this evidence is to show how small courthouses work, not just in gretna but around the country. sitting here in d.c. can warp your view of legal practice.

on any corner of this city, you can throw a stick and hit two lawyers. in most towns, small communities carry out the daily business of the law. in a civil and close knit environment lawyers and judges grow up together. they socialize with one another. what may seem sinister about a judge knowing a bail bondsman identification in washington is not surprising in a town like gretna where there's basically one bail bondsman handling all the bonds going through the judges' chambers. while we will present new evidence to you, however, we will ask you to keep in mind two legal truths. first, while we feel obligated to address the allegations about judge porteous when he was a state judge, a federal judge cannot be removed on the basis of prefederal conduct including in this case conduct going back 25 years before taking office.

i will not argue the motions to dismiss that we have filed on these threshold issues. as you are probably aware, constitutional scholars have criticized these articles as unprecedented and dangerous. dangerous to our system. the house did not invite a single scholar to testify, to offer substantive evidence on why these articles are so out of line with the constitutional standard. now, mr. schiff refers to mr mr. amir -- professor amir testifying that this is not a problem. i found that rather surprising since what professor amir said the state court stuff, well, that's arguably just state court stuff. he dismissed the idea of prefederal conduct. now, we've not been allowed to argue these threshold issues before you.

i understand the procedural difficulties of presenting that evidence to the committee and i'm not questioning that decision. but we only ask the individual senators to support our request to be able to present these issues to the full senate before closing arguments. the defense side of these issues has never been heard in oral arguments since they didn't call any witnesses that would support this view in the house. we are only asking for the same time allowed to the house and the defense that were given to the earlier motions. to present to the senate why this is unprecedented and why it is dangerous. and then we are prepared to go forward with closing arguments. we are not the only ones asking the members to hear such arguments. in the fifth circuit judge dennis and his colleagues stressed that, quote, congress lacks jurisdiction to impeach judge porteous for any misconduct as a federal judge. you heard the house managers, they want to change that.

i think you should seriously consider whether you want to change that. and we would like to be heard in full senate to that effect. second, whether it is a lunch or a gift, none of these acts actually violated state ethic rules in louisiana and in many other states. what the congress has impeached this judge for is an appearance of improprietary. they expressly objected that the circuit had only found and submitted appearance violences and not impeachable conduct. i commend that decision to you. it's one of the best written opinions i have read in a long time. judge porteous has already accepted punishment for any lapse in judgment despite what the house manager has just told you. he has been sanctioned by the

fifth circuit for those appearances of improprietary and he will retire next year from the federal judge. such appearance controversies are routine and they are used as the basis for removal would wipe away centuries of precedent by this body in defining what are removable offenses? perhaps for that reason, the house managers that were quoted in the media last week stating that they want the senators to adopt a new standard to treat the impeachment process as merely an employment termination case. they would literally have this body adopt the very standard that madison rejected, for judges to serve at the pleasure of the senate, like at-will employees. senators, federal judges are not at-will employees. you will hear from all four of the major house witnesses.

mr. creely, mr. amato and the two marcottes that they never bribed this judge and they did not and do not believe this judge could be bribed. they will all tell you that judge porteous was viewed as a brilliant jurist who would not be influenced by any friendship or gifts. in observing our witnesses and the new evidence that we have gathered, we ask you to demand the same burden in showing from the house that you would want for yourself if you were accused of wrongdoing and threatened with removal from federal office. without the due process of a trial. you may not approve of the state rules. or even the choices made by judge porteous. however, impeachment as you know are not popularity contests. the framers left it to 100 senators who they believe had the institutional integrity to

demand a showing of proof and not simply passion from the house. in two centuries senators have shouldered that duty brilliantly. they have refused to remove judges when there is more proof -- there is more passion than proof. now, unfortunately, this case proves one thing and that old military adage that when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. faced with witnesses who denied criminal acts including denials of bribes and other crimes by judge porteous the house substituted ethical claims for the missing crimes and evidence in this case. it was not enough that judge porteous accepted sanctions from his court or announced his resignation next year, the staff and resources for impeachment had been committed. ...

>> that was later found unconstitutional by the supreme court in the case of scaling versus the united states. that is also in one of those pending motions that we are asking to be heard on. putting aside the fact the

supreme court rejected the theory, and by the way, the house managers knew that case was pending when they crafted that article. this article seeks to remove a judge over his response to and failure to grant a recusal motion for a single case in decades of judgment. you will hear testimony about hundreds of judges who faced recusal motions around the country every year. and they are occasionally reversed due to personal conflicts in the case with counsel for parties. you will here from new orleans professor who is a widely cited expert. you will see dozens of cases of personal conflicts with the judges including financial conflicts and recusal controversy. to remove a judge for his decision not to recuse himself

would create an absurdly low standard, and could be used against literally dozens of currently sitting federal judges. the use of such an instance amounts to removing a judge because it is his judicial decisions, not because of his conduct. what is fascinating is that the lawyers in the life mark case testified that judge porteous gave them a fair trial, even the lawyers that lost the case testified that judge porteous gave them a fair trial. the house brings up this business about $2000 alleges that judge porteous' failure to recuse himself was due to a wedding gift that he received, i gift that was split by his two long-term friends, longtime friends and former partners, bob creely, jake amato. the gift was made in conjunction with the wedding of judge porteous his son, and did not

occur until three years after the recusal hearing. now, i know that in impeachments, facts become fluid. and friends suddenly become cronies. suddenly, mr. ahmad is a crony, according to the house manager. suddenly mr. greeley is a crony, not friend. you will hear from them. whatever disagreement we may have with their testimony, we don't believe their cronies. indeed, judge porteous has never challenged their integrity or their credibility, even though some evidence they gave was painful against them. you will hear from both mister creely and mr. amato, the two witnesses on this allegation, that they have stated unequivocally that they did not give this money to porteous as a bride or to influence him. indeed, indeed that they were

and continue to that they were and continue to be absolutely certain that the wedding gift had no influence on porteous as a federal judge. it was a gift, a wedding gift from long-standing friends. this is not to say, senators, that there is not a conspiracy in this case. there is. however the real conspiracy involve judge porteous not as the subject -- sorry, involve judge porteous not as the beneficiary, but the subject of a conspiracy. you will hear testimony that a large hospital corporation had hired an army of lawyers that succeeded in delaying a lawsuit brought against the corporation i a family of pharmacists. at issue was the control of the saint jude hospital, potentially worth hundreds of millions of

dollars. win this case came to judge porteous, the case had been bounced from judge to judge four years. in a three year time span, the parties had gone through 13 judges. that's over four judges per year. for its part, lifemark seemed eager to keep the case bouncing from court to court, and actually demanded a 14 the judge. judge porteous was assigned to the scores randomly. and look at this record and said in open court i'm going to be your last judge in this case. that did not sit well with lifemark or its lead counsel, mr. joe mole. while judge porteous confirmed his close relationship with plaintiffs counsel in the

subsequent recusal hearing, he stated that he did not view that relationship as a barrier to his ruling fairly. and by the way, i also would like you to read that hearing transcript. i didn't see him pounding on people. what i did see at the end of the transcript was his working with mr. malta make sure that mr. moore had everything he needed to appeal him to the fifth circuit. i commend you, that transcript you to read. and you can decide who is presenting it more fairly. indeed, you will hear from witnesses that judge porteous is -- judge porteous' response was consistent with this practice, and those of his colleagues of his former state courthouse, he had been a judge for 10 years, it was common for judges to hear cases argued by friends. and recusals rarely occurred since most judges and lawyers in that small legal community grew up with each other, or knew each

other. it would shut down small town courts if judges recuse themselves from every case with a friend or an acquaintance. we just wouldn't get anything done. after judge porteous refused to pass the case to another judge, that 14th judge in three years, more took in extraordinaire step. the magistrate and the case, j. wilkinson, was a friend of mole. mole wanted to porteous gone. and he ultimately went to judge wilkinson's brother, tom wilkinson, the jefferson parish attorney, someone who could help with a problem with a judge. tom wilkinson is reportedly under criminal investigation in louisiana for corruption, and his brother, magistrate wilkinson, recently recuse himself from all criminal cases. tom wilkinson arranged with mole to have one of porteous' closest friends, don gardner, into the

case. gardner, as you will hear, was far closer to porteous and his family than either of the plaintiffs attorneys, mr. amato or mr. levinson. mole not only promised gardner $100,000 for just appearing in the courtroom any case, he promised him an additional $100,000 if he could get porteous to recuse himself or otherwise leave the case. under this effective bounty agreement on a federal judge, mole had just promised another lawyer a total of $200,000 for just appearing in the case and getting this judge to remove himself. what is remarkable, senators, is that this unethical promise was put into a written contract. and we have that contract.

in return, gardner gave the magistrate's brother, tom wilkinson, $30,000. the problem is that porteous wasn't going anywhere. while the mole conspiracy should have been the subject of an investigation, the house decided to call mole, as they just told you, as their witness on the alleged unethical act of judge porteous. now, ultimately judge porteous ruled against his closest friend, gardner, and caused him that hundred thousand dollars bounty and other possible peace. with only a gift made years after the recusal hearing, the house try to rely on money given to judge porteous over a 25 year friendship. before he became a federal judge. this is what led those judges in

the fifth circuit to write that opinion that i just refer to. the house argued that judge porteous, as a state judge, granted curatorships to bob creely in order to get occasional loans and gifts from his friend. mr. goodlatte has told you that the judge conceded the relationship between the money and a curatorships. that's news to me, and it is certain is to the judge. we have never conceded that. however, let's look at the actual witnesses. mr. creely recently testified in a deposition conducted by the defense that the senate allowed us to hold. this was his first exposure to the full examination of defense council. in that examination, mr. creely expressly and repeatedly denied

that there was any connection between his loans and gifts over decades of his relationship. that is why you didn't see any quotes from the recent deposition being thrown up on these screens by the house. instead, they went back years to find better testimony. not that long ago, mr. creely, just a matter of a few weeks, said that he gave money to the judge because they were close friends. he testified that he never expected any benefit from such small loans or gifts, and it judge porteous would never give him any benefit. and he stated repeatedly, these gifts had nothing to do with curatorships. in fact, mr. creeley noted in the few times he appeared before judge porteous, porteous ruled against him.

including one case where judge porteous cost him a 400,000-dollar judgment. the house continues to advance its location on the basis of the statement from amato about what he remembers creely telling him. we have creely. creely just testified and said that he did not give money in relation to the curatorships. he himself has no expressly denied that any sworn testimony. we can disagree with judge porteous' decision to remain in lifemark. but judge porteous had good reason to refuse to kick this case down the road to a 14th judge. when you look at that docket, most doctors, most judges would do that docket as a mockery. someone is gaming the system. you cannot burn through 14 judges in three years. you will hear that judge

porteous had a reputation for stopping this type of thing. for moving dockets along and resolving cases. and by the way, if you look at that docket, you can tell a lot of the judges were more than eager to get rid of this case. it was highly complex. perhaps one of the most complex cases i've ever seen. ultimately, this spellbinding the complex case was decided by the judge. and by the way, the fifth circuit reversed it in part and they upheld it in part. but they disagreed with the judges ruling. this was a texas panel. they disagreed with judge porteous on a rather arcane aspect of louisiana law. now, i'm not going to explain that arcane louisiana law any more than mr. schiff did here for one simple reason. i'm not sure i understand it. reviewing this case only served to reaffirm my decision to be a constitutional law professor.

in the end, however, a disagreement over his judicial decision is woefully insufficient as a basis for removal and would create -- would elevate a routine conflicts issue to a constitutional class, clash between two equal branches of government. moreover, the house would have you remove a judge, not only on the basis of pre-federal conduct, but conflicted pre-federal conflict evidence. you have to former partners who have now disagreed on the underlying facts, and evidentiary status that would not even meet the lower preponderance of the evidence standards in a court. once you strip away all the rhetoric, and what you look at all the evidence, you will find that the houses solution to this

problem was not to increase the evidence to meet the standard, but as you just saw to try to lower the standard to meet the evidence. let's turn to article ii. in article ii, the house impeach judge porteous purely on the basis of pre-federal conduct that goes back decades before he became a federal judge. this is precisely by the way what the houses on experts said they could not do. article to a ledge is that while a state judge, judge porteous received quote things of value from bail bondsman. louis marcotte and lori marcotte, a brother and sister. and took action that benefited the marcotte's. notably, not going to the federal government rejected this as the basis of a criminal charge, but the fifth circuit expressly ruled out relying on such acts on the state level as relevant to his position as a federal judge. the allegations in article ii were not part of the fifth

circuit inquiry. the marcotte's didn't testify because those judges, as with passengers, treat pre-federal conduct as immaterial. to whether he abused his office as a federal judge. the house position on the bond allegations with the marcotte has continued to revolve as conflicting evidence has mounted in recent weeks. as you will see, roughly a week ago the house dated in its pretrial statement that, quote, the house does not allege that judge porteous set any particular bond too high or too low. so despite months discussing bond amounts and splitting bonds, the house is now conceding that judge porteous did not manipulate bond amounts to assist the marcotte. what is left is the fact that he signed bonds as a state judge with the marcottes who, by the way, handled 95% or more of the

bonds going through that state court. what is left is that judge porteous had lunches and received gifts from the marcottes, as did other judges in the district. yet the government does not claim a single bond, not one, was ever sent, was ever set by judge porteous is too high or too low to assist the marcottes. moreover, the house can see that judge porteous did not sign a single bond, not one, for the marcottes as a federal judge. not high, not low, not ever. as a federal judge. putting aside the fact that judge porteous' conduct as a state judge is irrelevant to his conduct as a federal judge, article ii ignores that judges are not barred from receiving meals and gifts from lawyers or others. while the house cannot produce any receipts for the gifts or meals, they just told you there could be hundreds of meals, by that, if that's evidentiary

standard it could be millions of meals that he could have never stopped eating. the fact is, we don't have the receipts in the record but we don't deny that judge porteous and all of the judges often had lunches bought for them. but they are suggesting that this is quote corruption, even if they didn't violate judicial ethics. you will hear from all four of the house star witnesses, creely, amato and the marcottes, that all judges were regularly bought meals and given gifts by lawyers, bail bondsman and others. we are not saying that this was a den of corruption. we are saying it was lawful. that you go to a small towns, you will see the same thing. and if you want to restrict the rules you can change the rules. but by the way, we put into the record opinions by courts that say they believe this is a good thing to have judges and lawyers

who have social relationships. we've already put that in the record. this is something that is not new. you're going to see it comes up a lot when people alleged these recusals. and uniformly the courts have said they'll come to us and just say that this guy is a close friend. that's not enough to force a judge to recuse himself, let alone to remove them in a constitutional trial. the house does its best to take a small number of launches as a federal judge and make it look sinister. the problem is that the house could only come up with six lunches and a place called the beef connection. in gretna, louisiana when he was a federal judge. six. now, what the house did is they presented these lunches passionate and basically portrayed the total value of the lunches that went to judge porteous, it looks like he

received a considerable amount of money in these lunches. however, as this display shows the house actually was dealing with a total of meals for large parties where judge porteous was just one of many lunch gatherers. they just charge the whole bunch against him. in reality, even if he was present at these lunches it would amount to less than $250 in five years that i would like to repeat that. $250 in five years. these meals included meals as low as $29. now, by the way, i said if porteous was at these lunches. the reason i say if is because the house included a couple of meals where there's no specific record of judge porteous being actually at the lunch. however, what their position has been, since someone had absolute

vodka, and judge porteous is no to drink absolut vodka, must have been him. so they added those to to the six and they just counted those against him. now i can tell you in our visit to the beef connection, we're able to confirm that judge porteous was not the only person in louisiana who drinks absolutely do. but as you can see -- absolute vodka. but as you can see the key facts they rely on his annotation that somebody at this table had two absolutes. and they submitted that to you so you can do in the mix for the removal of a federal judge. the house suggest that such an meals from the marcottes were intended to influence the judge porteous and get him to help them with bonds. a type of beef for bonds there. that by giving him beef, they give him bonds.

of course, now the house concedes that they are not saying he set the bonds too high or too low to the marcottes. you actually didn't hit insight any bonds that were invalid. with this guy didn't even deserve a bond. after our deposition with the marcottes the house had to concede this point. you hear from both of the marcottes, if their testimony is consistent, that they did not believe that judge porteous was influenced in his decisions on bonds by meals or gifts. there was no beef for bonds. indeed, they both testified that judge porteous regularly rejected bonds from them and could not be bought. you will hear from gretna criminal clerk darcy griffith that porteous insisted that any representations made by the marcottes be checked out with the district attorney, the

police or the jail before the granting of a bond. indeed, you her testament that judge porteous himself often picked up a phone, called the prosecutors are called the jail to personally make sure that the underlying facts were correct. perhaps the most serious misrepresentation to the house was the portrayal of judge porteous is granting bonds in splitting bonds. now, a split bond is well known to criminal defense attorneys. it is simply split between a commercial component and a property or third party component. in this way a person who might not be able to afford the full our entire bond could still secure the bond by getting a family member to come in and put her property up as a surety. that's quite, judge porteous did not invent split bonds.

most judges, you'll her testimony, most judges in gretna split bonds with the support of the state prosecutors. split bonds reviewed as a way to guarantee the return of prisoners who would otherwise be released under mandatory court orders. if you have a bond on the guy, someone will find him because they have a financial interest to find him. you will hear from former district attorney john mamoulides, and petalas on how and why split bonds were widely used and accepted in gretna. likewise, the house has alleged judge porteous dramatically increase the number of bonds as he was leaving to take the bench. this is a big part of what the house was told before the impeachment. there was this, it's called the floodgate theory. and your part of it today but you will notice that they stopped talking about the bond sunday. another talking about expungement, one or two expungement or set aside. the floodgate theory that the

house numbers were told about was that in the last month, in the last day, judge porteous issued an unusually high number of the bonds in repayment for the beef and other benefits from the marcottes. the only problem with the floodgates allegation, that happens to be completely and demonstrably untrue. it turns out that there was only one bond signed by judge porteous on his last day come and only 29 signed in the last month. it actually falls to 27 if you look at from the time he was confirmed. this is described by the marcottes in their testimony as the average number of bonds for any period. there's no floodgate. however, to dispel any doubt we asked the gretna clerk to send us a random year from judge porteous the tenure as a state judge. we selected 1986. we had no information on that

year come other than the fact that it was before the marcottes established themselves in the bond business. one of the best ways to look at whether the floodgates theory is true, take a year before the marcottes controlled the business. those bonds had been submitted into the record and show that various months of that year exceeded the number of bonds signed by judge porteous during the so-called floodgate month in 1994. even though the marcottes were not involved. indeed, one month september 1986, shows 51 bonds signed by judge porteous, far greater than 19 bonds that was presented in his sinister way as this must've been a rush to try to pay back for those -- for the beef. moreover, the 1986 records show a total of approximately 3200 bonds signed by all judges in

the district. now, if we extended over 10 years, and by the way, the number should be high because gretna over 10 years expanded and the court system actually expanded, but let's just take that lower figure and forget about expansion. that would mean at least 32000 bonds passed through gretna while judge porteous served on the bench. the house was never told what the total pool of bonds were. they've never told that judge porteous signed more bonds in some months before the marcottes established themselves. now, mr. goodlatte switched rails and suddenly the floodgate theory is not about bonds, which was the subject of so much discussion of the house neighbors. now it's about to set aside or expungement cases. and what congressman good lie said is that judge porteous said that he was not going to set aside or expunge audrey walls

his case because he didn't want to do that before he was confirmed. the only problem with that idea is that it is also untrue. waltzes burglary conviction was set aside on september 21, 1994 before judge porteous was confirmed. not only that, in hearing judge porteous said that he intended to expunge the record before he was confirmed. that was in open court. all that remains in this case is the fact that judge porteous signed bonds for the marcottes. you will hear testimony of virtually all of the judges signed for the marcottes for one simple reason, the marcottes reportedly did 95% or more of the bonds in gretna. virtually no one else is doing bonds in gretna. if you take any judge, you will find roughly 95% of the bonds came from the marcottes for the

obvious reason. moreover, you will her testimony that judge porteous was a national advocate for the use of bonds as a vital part of the criminal process. jefferson parish, during this entire period, was under a court order for overcrowding. it was a case where virtually any president in may and one prisoner out. it was one of the most stringent port orders in the nation. and so people, thousands of felons were being released under court order and were just banished. and these judges in gretna would causally call these people and they would just be told they are gone. judge porteous, and we heard the house is house is on what is his admit this, often spoke publicly and encouraged other judges to use bonds because the chance that a person will return if they have a bond on them is

much, much higher because you've got a bail jumper agent who will find them. otherwise, the only way these people will be found is if they get pulled over by a police officer and happen to run the record and say all right, you're a bond jumper. but if you put a bond on them, someone has a clear financial interest to locate that guy. and infect judge porteous hua spoken nationally on this -- was correct. study show that by getting a bond on any prisoner, the chances that they will end up in court and not flee, or at least not fully and not be found, are much, much higher. in the end, when you take all this evidence, strip away the false claims, article ii is nothing more than what mcbeth described, a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. he signed bonds as a state judge. like the other judges in gretna. let's turn to article iii.

we ask agree without house managers when he said this is the one based on pre-federal condit. we actually agree with that. article iii is, in fact, a non-pre-federal conduct article. what basically what they're arguing come instead of pre-federal conduct is that he made a series of errors and mistakes in connection with a personal bankruptcy that he and his late wife filed in 2001. what is most striking about article iii is that the house is trying to use common problems that literally occurred in hundreds of thousands of bankruptcy cases, which you here in testimony. they are trying to take something that occurs in hundreds of thousands of cases and say it's the akin to things like treason and bribery. to do this, the house adjusted was part of a nefarious plan to defraud the bankruptcy court, or

his creditors. the problem with this theory is that judge porteous, and i want to emphasize this, paid more than he was scheduled to pay in bankruptcy. he paid more than what originally he was scheduled today to his creditors. that was never explained to house members that they just talk about this bankruptcy and errors in the bankruptcy. as if that's something new in bankruptcy. it's thousands of citizens each year, judge porteous made mistakes in a personal bankruptcy case. but those mistakes had nothing to do with his office. they have nothing to do with the basis of removing him as a federal judge. the porteous has filed chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2001. this case was process like every other bankruptcy case, with one exception. but ultimately, it resulted in

the successful discharge of a portion of their debts in 2004 after they paid more than $57,000 to the trustee of which 52000 went to the creditors. the exception i was referring to was that this case was scrutinized far more heavily than a normal bankruptcy case. he had to bankruptcy judges preside over it. a chapter 13 trustee, you will be hearing from, administered. the federal bureau of investigation and the department of justice investigated it. in fact, the doj and the fbi specifically met with the bankruptcy trustee while the porteous is bankruptcy case was still pending. this wasn't after they met with the trustee while it was pending. and discuss with them all of these allegations. nevertheless, not one of the