these exhibits for the senators to examine if that is appropriate with the senate. as you see here, an order signed by judge porteous, assigning robert creely to be the curator for a missing party in a civil case. creely and his law firm received a fixed fee, $200, for handling each of these matters and it was from those fees that judge porteous sought the cash from creely and amato. this corrupt scheme went on for years. the proof of this series of events is evidenced by the interwoven and consistent testimony of creely, amato and judge porteous himself in his testimony under oath before a special committee of the fifth circuit. it is also corroborated by the court records. first creely testified that after judge porteous started assigning the curatorships, judge porteous then started calling over to his office and saying, look, i've been sending you curators. you know, can you give me the

money for the curators? creely testified that even though he previously had resisted giving judge porteous cash, he would now -- he now would give him cash in response to judge porteous' demand because it -- quote -- "wasn't costing him anything." it did not cost creely anything because the money creely gave judge porteous came from the curatorship fees. amato, who split the payments to judge porteous with creely 50-50 corroborated the events. amato testified that creely informed him -- quote -- "that the judge was sending curator cases to him and that he would in turn give money to the judge. amato agreed to go along with the arrangement but told creely that it was -- quote -- "going to turn out bad," which it clearly has. amato testified he knew the curatorship scheme was wrong, but he was not strong enough to say no to what he understood to be a classic kickback

arrangement. creely and amato provided judge porteous cash every few months in response to judge porteous' requests. they gave him cash as opposed to checks drawn on the firm's accounts. according to amato's testimony, this was -- quote -- "to avoid any kind of paper trail." as creely testified, they gave him cash because that's what judge porteous wanted. in most instances creely gave the cash to judge porteous. however, both amato and creely testified that on occasion amato personally gave judge porteous the cash as well. judge porteous confirmed in his testimony under oath before the fifth circuit the essential aspects of this scheme. judge porteous admitted that, one, he received cash from creely. two, at some point in time creely expressed his displeasure with giving judge porteous cash. three, thereafter judge porteous started assigning creely curatorships. and four, that judge porteous

receipt of cash from creely and amato followed his assigning creely curatorships. first judge porteous admitted that he received cash from creely and amato. question: when did you first start getting cash from messrs. amato, creely or their law firm? answer: probably when i was on the state bench. question: and that practice continued into 1994 when you became a federal judge, did it not? i believe the -- answer:i believe that's correct. judge porteous confirmed that there came a time when creely expressed resistance to giving judge porteous money before the curatorship started. question: do you recall, mr. creely refusing to pay you money before the curatorship started? answer: he may have said i needed to get my finances under control. yeah. judge porteous admitted that his receipt of cash from creely and

amato occasionally found his assignment of curatorships to creely. although judge porteous refused to label the arrangement as a kickback, he accepted the description of the arrangement that he had with creely and amato as one where he gave -- quote -- "creely and amato curatorships and was getting cash back." what about the court reports? during its investigation, the house located close to 200 orders signed by judge porteous assigning creely curatorships between approximately 1988 and 1994. all of these orders are in evidence. these curatorships generated fees of nearly $40,000 to the firm. both creely and amato have testified consistently that they gave judge porteous about 50% of the proceeds of the curatorship fees or approximately $20,000 in total. for his part, judge porteous testified at the fifth circuit that he had -- quote -- "no earthly idea" how much creely

and amato gave him, though he did not deny the total could have been more than $10,000. judge porteous testified as follows: 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. on october 28, 1994, judge porteous was sworn in as a federal district judge. judge porteous was no longer in a position to assign curatorships to creely and amato and he stopped asking them for cash at least for the time being. the fact that judge porteous' requests for cash from creely and amato temporarily came to an end at the same time he stopped assigning them curatorships constitutes additional powerful evidence that those two actions

were inextricably connected and that the cash payments from amato and creely to judge porteous were not merely gifts from the two men separate and apart from the curatorships. let me provide you with a little bit more flavor as to judge porteous' relationship with amato and creely. though i have focused on the cash and curatorships, i should stress that judge porteous depended on the two men to provide for his entertainment and support his lifestyle in other major respects. for example, while judge porteous was a state judge, both amato and creely frequently took judge porteous to lunch at expensive restaurants. amato testified that he took judge porteous to lunch a couple of times a month, amounting to potentially hundreds of lunches, and that judge porteous paid only two or three times out of 100. at these lunches, amato testified that he typically paid for at least two vodka drinks for judge porteous. similarly, creely also took judge porteous to lunch

approximately twice a month. creely testified that when he and judge porteous went to lunch, either creely paid or someone else paid, but not judge porteous. in addition, amato and creely hosted judge porteous on a variety of hunting and fishing trips and arranged those trips, some of which involved air travel to mexico, so that judge porteous never paid. and they gave him cash on at least one other occasion at his request. in the summer of 1994, when judge porteous' son timothy was in washington, d.c. for an externship, judge porteous had his secretary, rhonda danos solicit and receive money from creely and amato to -- quote -- "sponsor timothy's position and pay for his expenses." this is all in the record. now let me turn to judge porteous' relationship with amato and creely after he became a federal judge. on january 16, 1996, judge porteous, now a federal judge,

was assigned a complicated civil action. lifemark hospitals vs. hreupblg enterprises. the case -- involved bankruptcy law, real estate law and contract law. the matter was particularly contentious. t -- in early november 1996, he was to be the trier of law and fact in mid-september six weeks prior to the scheduled trial date, the liljebergs filed a motion to enter the appearances of amato and leonard levinson, another of judge porteous's prendz as their attorneys -- friends. his law firm would receive a percentage of any award. amato estimated in the liljebergs preveiled in the case, he and his firm would

receive between $500,000 and $1 million. if the liljebergs lost, he would receive nothing. lifemark's lead counsel was alarmed when amato was hired by the liljebergs on the eve of trial. even amato testified -- quote -- "i'm sure my relationship with judge porteous had something to do with it." mole was concerned that judge porteous would figure out a way to give an award to liljeberg to benefit amato. mole feared with amato on the other side he would not receive a fair trial. mole did the only thing he could do under the circumstances, he filed a motion asking judge porteous to recuse himself which essentially requested that judge porteous had the case assigned to another judge. mole drafted the motion based on his limited understanding of the facts alleging in substance only -- quote -- "that there was a close relationship between judge porteous and mr. amato and

mr. levinson." that they were known to socialize together. that amato and the judge had been law partiers and the timing of amato's entry into the case just a few weeks prior to trial created suspicion. mole had no idea that amato, along with his partner creely had actually given judge porteous approximately $20,000 pursuant to the curatorship kickback arrangement. nor did he know the other things of value that amato and creely provided to judge porteous. judge porteous held a hearing on mole's motion. judge porteous's statement at the recusal hearing are set forth in detail in our brief and the hearing transcript is in evidence. so i'm not going to repeat all of them here. in sum, judge porteous made a series of deceptive, misleading and lulling statements in which he minimized his relationship of amato, and criticized mole for filing an unfounded motion.

in essence, 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. for example, judge porteous stated -- quote -- "yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have i ever been to either of their house -- have i ever been to either one of them's house? the answer is a defensive no. have i gone to lunch with them? the answer is a definitive yes. the question -- have i been going to lunch with all members of the bar? the answer is yes. even that is misleading because judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato and his partner creely. but most significantly judge porteous made no mention whatsoever of what he knew was really the issue, that is, that he had received approximately $20,000 in cash from amato's law firm, money that he knew came from amato as

well as creely. when mole at great disadvantage made a reference to the fact that amato and levinson had contributed to judge porteous's campaigns, judge porteous went on the offense. "well, luckily i didn't have any campaigns, so i'm interested to find out how you know that. i never had any campaigns, counsel. i have never had an opponent." he went on to say the first time i ran, 1984, i think is the only time they gave me money. that blanket statement was, of course, a deliberate falsehood because amato and his firm had given judge porteous approximately $20,000 in cash pursuant to the kickback scheme. judge porteous concluded with the self-serving comment in which he promises to notify counsel if he has any question that he should recuse himself and concluded, "i don't think a

well-informed individual can question my impartiality in this case." so, in effect, what you have is judge porteous, who knows the facts, just not disclosing it, completely deseefing lifemark with his relationship with amato and judge porteous. announcing to the world how honest he was complete with a mock indignation. judge porteous denied the recusal motion after the argument in open court on october 16, 1996. lifemark appealed to the fifth circuit seeking to overturn judge porteous's order. however, because of the false record created by judge porteous at the recusal hearing, that appeal was denied. trial was held without a jury in the summer of 1997 and judge porteous took the case under advisement. while the case was pending, his -- was pending his decision, judge porteous continued to solicit and accept cash and things of value from amato and

creely. in may, 19199 -- 1999 while judge porteous had not yet ruled on the case, he went to las vegas, nevada with several friends, including creely for his son's bachelor party. creely paid for judg judge ports hotel room and $500 for a portion of timothy porteous' bachelor party dinner. these payments amounted to more than $4,000. after the dinner creely accompanied judge porteous and others to a strip club where creely gave a club employee $200 to pay for a lap dance for judge porteous and a courthouse employee. judge porteous admitted in his fifth circuit testimony that creely paid for his hotel room and a portion of the dinner. in june of 1999 while judge porteous still had the liljeberg case under consideration, the two men took a nighttime fishing

trip together. on the fishing trip judge porteous told amato he need cash for his son's wedding and requested that amato give him approximately $2,000. excuse me. in response to that request amato agreed to give porteous the money he solicited. amato supplied $1,000 and obtained $1,000 from creely and gave porteous $2,000 in cash in an envelope. as amato later testified, it was -- quote -- "a decision i'll regret until the day i die." as a senate impeachment committee report found, the $2,000 was picked up by porteous' secretary. when she was asked what was in the envelope, the secretary rolled her eyes. in response dano said, never mind, i don't want to know. like much of the other evidence, the fact that judge porteous

solicited and received money from amato in 1999 while the liljeberg case was pending is not contested. here's how judge porteous testified under oath before the fifth circuit. question: whether or not you recall asking mr. amato for money during the fishing trip, do you recall getting an envelope with $2,000 shortly thereafter? answer: yeah, something seems to suggest that there may have been an envelope. i don't remember the size of the envelope, 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 a cash in it? answer: yes it was from keel wily. answer, yes. question: and would you dispute that amount was $2,000? answer: i don't have any basis to dispute it. at the time he made the request,

judge porteous had significant financial lerchl over amat yoavment and his solicitation of cash had a shackdown quality to it. amato bluntly acknowledged one of the factors that impacted his decision to give judge porteous the cash is that amato stood to make a lot of money in connection with the liljeberg case then pending in front of the judge and that amato was not going to -- quote -- "take the risk of not giving judge porteous the cash the judge solicited." judge porteous solicitation of cash from amato demonstrates judge porteous egregious misuse of his judicial power to enrich himself. a judge who engages in such conduct is unfit to continue to hold the office of united states district judge. in addition, amato and creely continued to take judge porteous out to expensive lunches on a regular basis and paid over $1,000 for a party in honor of his fifth year on the bench.

mole knew nothing of judge porteous's relationship with amato and creely while the case was pending. specifically judge porteous did not inform mole of the meals, the payments of expenses in las vegas or the $2,000 cash payment. on april 26, 2000, judge porteous issued a written opinion in the liljeberg case. at that time his financial situation was desperate and he was just weeks away from meeting with a bankruptcy attorney. judge porteous who had take judicial actions in the past with amato and creely to enrich himself had powerful financial moat toifs curry their favor and reward them and encourage in the future. thus it is not surprising that judge porteous ruled in all major aspects in favor of amato's clients, the liljebergs. counsel for lifemark testified that this was a -- quote -- "resounding loss for lifemark." and lifemark appealed judge porteous's decision to the fifth

circuit court of appeals. in august of 2002, the fifth circuit reversed judge porteous's decision in most significant aspects. in doing so the fifth circuit characterized various aspects of judge porteous's ruling as inexplicable. constructed entirely out of whole cloth, absurd, close to being nonsensical, and not supported by law. after the case was reversed, the fifth circuit by the fifth circuit and sent back to judge porteous, the parties settled because lifemark understandably did not want to go back before judge porteous. article ii, judge porteous' relationship with bail monthman louis -- bondsman marcotte. first, let me briefly describe how the bail bonds business worked in jefferson parish. from the financial perspective of bail bondsman louis marcotte,

he would make no money if the judge set bond so high that the prisoner or family do not afford to pay the premium or if a judge set bond so low that the premium was 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 which was typically 10% of the bond amount. and that's how he maximized profits. he would interview the prisoner, know what the prisoner could afford, and attempt to have bonds set at that profit maximizing amount. if a prisoner or his family could scrape together $5,000, marcotte would want a judge to set bail at 10 times that amount or $50,000 even if a lower amount would have been appropriate. now in the gretna, louisiana courthouse, where judge porteous sat, bail bondsman like marcotte

dealt directly with the judges and magistrates to have them set bonds. prosecutors and defense attorneys were virtually never involved. it is against this background that judge porteous's relationship with the marcottes can be understood. marcotte needed a judge to be receptive to his bond request to reduce bonds when they were too high and set them at higher amounts if they were going to be set too low. as we know from judge porteous's relationship with amato and creely, judge porteous needed and welcomed financial support from whomever would provide it and was more than willing to use his judicial power to obtain it. judge porteous and marcotte each understood what the other could do for him and they formed a mutually beneficial corrupt relationship. first, as to what the marcottes gave judge porteous. the evidence established that the marcottes frequently took judge porteous to high-end restaurants for lunch, paying for meals and drinks, over time these lunches may have occurred

as much as twice per week. these lunches seem to have started in or about 1992 and are up corroborated by several witnesses. the marcottes ledge judge porteous invite whoever he wanted, especially other judges. and judg judge porteous help the marcottes establish their legitimacy. the marcottes paid for car repairs and routine car maintenance. on occasion it was substantial and included buying new tires or engine and transmission repairs or installing a new radio in addition marcotte employee would pick up judge porteous's car to wash it and fill it with gas. he testified that he gave him his security code to go into the judge's parking lot at the courthouse. judge porteous would leave the key under the mat. wallace would pick up the car and return it wash, gas, and

kaishly with a ticket. that the car kots paid for judge porteous's car repairs. in addition, marcotte also paid for home repairs for judge porteous when an 0-foot section of fence had to be replaced. testimony at trial from marcotte employees duhan and wallace established the project took three days to complete. the marcottes also paid for a trip to las vegas for judge porteous. on this trip, judge porteous' secretary, rhonda danos, had paid for the judge's transportation up front. the evidence is clear that lori marcotte later paid for this trip by giving danos cash in judge porteous' chambers. both louis marcotte and lori marcotte testified that the payment was in cash to conceal the fact that the marcottes had paid for this trip. there is no pretense that this was some sort of legitimate act of generosity. it was obviously improper and hidden by the parties for that

reason. in turn, judge porteous willingly became marcotte's go-to judge for setting bonds. marcotte went directly to judge porteous with recommended bond amounts, bond amounts that would maximize their income. judge porteous was receptive to them and signed countless bonds at their request. they would go to his chambers and tell him how much the prisoner could afford as part of the discussions where they requested that he set bail. as senator risch observed during the trial, it was really the poorest families who were hurt by judge porteous' relationship with marcotte. an inhairnt aspect of their -- an inherent aspect of their corrupt dealings was that bond was set at a higher amount than might have been set by a neutral judge who was not on the take. and the opposite is also true. the public interest was potentially compromised when judge porteous reduced a bond at the marcottes' request which thereby led to the release of

someone who otherwise should have been confined. the marcotte-porteous relationship perverted what should have been a neutral, detached process. in addition to setting bonds as requested, judge porteous took other judicial acts of significance for the marcottes. in 1993 at louis marcotte's request, judge porteous expunged the felony conviction of a marcotte employee, jeff duhan so duhan could obtain his bail bondsman license. in 1994, again at marcotte's request, judge porteous set aside the conviction of another marcotte employee, aubrey wallace. this took place during judge porteous' last days on the state bench and evidences the extent to which judge porteous was beholden to the marcottes. as i will get into in a few moments, judge porteous timed this judicial action to occur after the senate's confirmation of him for the federal judgeship so as to conceal his corrupt relationship with the marcottes and thereby not jeopardize his

lifetime appointment. there was -- there was one more thing that marcotte did for judge porteous as a part of their corrupt relationship when judge porteous was a state judge. in the summer of 1994 when judge porteous was undergoing his background check, the f.b.i. interviewed marcotte. in that interview, marcotte lied for judge porteous on three specific points. first, he stated that judge porteous would -- quote -- "have a beer or two at lunch" when, in fact, marcotte knew that judge porteous was a heavy vodka drink we are an alcohol problem who would on occasion have five or six drinks. second, marcotte stated that he had no knowledge of judge porteous' financial circumstances when, in fact, he knew that judge porteous struggled financially. finally and most importantly, when interviewed by the f.b.i., marcotte denied that there was anything in judge porteous' background that could subject the judge to coercion, blackmail

or leverage. this was also not true because marcotte knew that he had a corrupt relationship with judge porteous and that he himself had leverage over judge porteous because of that relationship. in fact, marcotte testified bluntly in september before the senate impeachment trial committee that he could have, quote -- "destroyed judge porteous had he chosen to do so." marcotte told the f.b.i. that he believed judge porteous wanted him to -- told the f.b.i. what he believed judge porteous wanted him to say. in effect, marcotte acted as judge porteous' agent in lying to the f.b.i. marcotte then reported back to judge porteous as to the contents of the interviews and told judge porteous he gave him a clean bill of health. indeed, there can be little pretense that the judge porteous-louis marcotte relationship was anything other than a corrupt business relationship. they were brought together by their financial needs. marcotte was clear that the only

reason he took judge porteous to lunch, took him to las vegas, fixed his cars or fixed his house was because the judge was assisting them in setting bonds and using the prestige of his office to help them with other judges. marcotte testified -- quote -- "judge porteous would do more when we would do more for him." after judge porteous became a federal judge, he could no longer set bonds for the marcottes. nonetheless, the marcottes would continue to take judge porteous to lunch, particularly when they sought to recruit other state judicial officers to take his place in a similar corrupt scheme or to impress business executives. louis marcotte explained that judge porteous -- quote -- "brought strength to the table table" -- end quote -- by his strength and assistance. marcotte testified it would make people respect me because, you

know, i'm sitting with a federal judge, end quote. as lori marcotte described -- quote -- "state court judges would view us as trusted people because we were hanging around with a federal judge." thus judge porteous used the power and prestige of his office as a federal judge to help the marcottes expand their corrupt influence in the gretna courthouse by vouching for their honesty, vouching for their practices and helping to recruit a successor. our post trial brief details several instances of judge porteous providing assistance to the marcottes as a federal judge. let me talk about one of those instances in particular. in 1999 at louis marcotte's request, judge porteous spoke to newly elected state judge ronald bodenheimer. prior to that conversation, bodenheimer stayed away from louis marcotte because he had concerns about marcotte's character and believed that marcotte was doing drugs. during his conversation with bodenheimer, judge porteous, then a united states district court judge, vouched for louis

marcotte's integrity. bodenheimer took judge porteous' statements seriously, and as a result of that conversation, bodenheimer began to set bonds for the marcottes. the marcottes and bodenheimer developed a relationship that took on the characteristics of the relationship that had previously existed between judge porteous and the marcottes. the marcottes began providing bodenheimer meals, house repairs and a trip to the casino. boden himmer in return began to set bonds that would maximize profits for the marcottes. bodenheimer was eventually criminally prosecuted, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison on a federal corruption count arising from his corrupt relationship with the marcottes. let me now get to one final act of the marcotte-porteous relationship. in the early 2000's, the f.b.i. was investigating state court judges including bodenheimer for corrupt misconduct arising out of the relationship with the

marcottes. on april 17, 2003, louis marcotte signed an affidavit prepared by judge porteous' attorney in which he falsely denied that he and judge porteous had a corrupt relationship. i mention this 2003 affidavit for two reasons. first, this 2003 affidavit reflects that the corrupt relationship between the marcottes and judge porteous continued well into his tenure as a federal judge. second, just as marcotte's 1994 false statements to the f.b.i. helped obstruct the background check investigation, marcotte's 2003 false affidavit prepared by judge porteous' attorney was a part of an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation. in both instances, marcotte lied to the f.b.i. to assist judge porteous by concealing their corrupt relationship. it reflects how even in 2003, nine years after he took the federal bench, judge porteous

was compromised by his relationship with louis marcotte. in march, 2004, louis marcotte pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy charge involving his corrupt relationship with state judges. he was sentenced to 38 years in prison. his sister lori marcotte pleaded guilty at the same time as her brother and was sentenced to three years probation, including six months of home detention. in his house testimony, his deposition and at trial, louis marcotte repeatedly described judge porteous' overall impact on the marcottes' business as even more significant than two other state judges who were federally prosecuted and were sentenced to prison. question: mr. marcotte, you testified in response to mr. turley that you did things for lots of judges. answer, yes, i did. question: and some of those judges went to prison, did they not? answer: yes, they did. question: of all the judges that

you did things for, who was the most important judge to you, ever? answer: thomas porteous. now let me turn to article iii involving judge porteous' bankruptcy while he was on the federal bench. the evidence demonstrated that throughout the 1990's and into 2001, judge porteous' financial condition deteriorated, largely due to gambling at casinos to the point that by march, 2001, when he filed for bankruptcy, he had over $190,000 in credit card debt. his credit cards and bank statements in the years preceding his bankruptcy reflect tens of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals at casinos. before discussing how judge porteous deceived the bankruptcy court, i want to stress that for the years leading up to his bankruptcy, judge porteous had concealed his debts in the financial statements that he filed with the courts. let me show you an example. this is a little detailed, so let me walk you through it.

what you see here is the portion of judge porteous' 1999 financial disclosure report in which he was required to disclose his year-end liabilities. judge porteous reported two credit cards with the maximum liability being $15,000 each, code j, for a total maximum liability of $30,000. in fact, he had five credit cards with amounts -- with debts amounting to over $100,000. these should have been reported on the form in the liabilities box as code k, debts over over $15,000. this form was blatantly false. judge porteous filed false financial statements that failed to honestly disclose the extent of his credit card debts for each of the four years 1996-1999. those forms are in evidence. even though judge porteous has not been charged in any article of filing false financial reports, these reports constitute powerful evidence as to judge porteous' intent. these false financial reports

make it clear that the false statements in bankruptcy were part of a conscious chorus of conduct involving his concealment of financial activities and not some set of innocent mistakes or oversights as claimed by counsel. in 2000, judge porteous met with bankruptcy attorney claude lightfoot about his financial predicament. the evidence demonstrates that judge porteous did not tell lightfoot at that time or indeed at any time that he gambled. the two men decided that lightfoot would attempt to work out judge porteous' debts owed to his creditors, and then if that failed, then judge porteous would consider filing for bankruptcy. lightfoot's attempts at a workout failed and in february of 2001, lightfoot and judge porteous commenced preparing for a chapter 13 bankruptcy. prior to filing for bankruptcy, judge porteous, in consultation with lightfoot, agreed that he would file his bankruptcy petition under a false name. to further this plan, judge porteous personally obtained a

post office box so that his initial petition would have neither his correct name nor a readily identifiable address. if you look at this exhibit, you will see that ultimately on march 28, 2001, judge porteous, a sitting federal judge, filed for bankruptcy under the false name "g.t.ortous," and with a post office box that judge porteous had obtained on march 23, 2001, listed as his address. judge porteous signed his petition twice, once under the representation -- quote -- "i declare under the penalty of perjury that the information provided in this petition is true and correct." end quote. the other over the typed name, "g.t.ortous." on april 9, 2001, judge porteous submitted a statement of financial affairs and numerous bankruptcy schedules. this time, they were filed under his true name. however, they were false in numerous other ways, all

reflecting his desire to conceal assets and gambling activities from the bankruptcy court and his creditors. while i am not going to go through all his false statements during the bankruptcy, they are detailed in our post-trial brief, i want to at least point out some to you. he falsely failed to disclose that he had filed for a tax refund, claiming $4,143.72 refund even though the bankruptcy form specifically inquired as to whether he had filed for a tax refund. as you see, this chart sets forth his tax return, dated march 23, 2001, five days before he filed for bankruptcy. it also shows the place on the form where he was required to list any anticipated tax refund. the copy here is not as clear as we would like, but question 17 required judge porteous to disclose -- quote -- "other lick way indicted debts owing debtor, including tax refunds." as you see, the box "none" is

checked. judge porteous never disclosed the fact of this refund, not to his attorney, not to the creditors, and not to the bankruptcy court. instead, he kept it secret and the money went right into his pocket. he deliberately failed to disclose that he had gambling losses within the prior year, even though the form specifically asked that question. in fact, judge porteous has admitted before the fifth circuit that he had gambling losses. in the days immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy, paid casino debts that he owed them in order to avoid listing those casinos as unsecured creditors. additionally, he filed record those preferred payments to creditors in the bankruptcy forms, which required their disclosure, and failed to tell his attorney about them. thus, casinos, to which judge porteous owed money in march of 2001, received a hundred cents on the dollar while other creditors received but a fraction of that amount. judge porteous favored casinos over other creditors because he did not want to jeopardize his ability to take out credit and

gamble at the casinos while in bankruptcy. he had his secretary pay off one of his wife's credit cards five days prior to filing for bankruptcy. judge porteous then reimbursed his secretary and failed to disclose this preferred payment to the credit card company on his schedule as that he filed under oath with the court. he reported his account balance in his checking account as $100 when the day fryer filing for bankruptcy -- prior to filing for bankruptcy, had foftd $2,000 -- deposited $2,000 into the account. he deliberately failed to disclose a fidelity money market account that he regularly used in the past to pay gambling debts. this particular nondisclosure demonstrates judge porteous' determination to have a secret account available with which to pay gambling debts while in bankruptcy. this nondisclosure clearly was not inadvertent since the evidence is clear that he wrote a check on that account on march 27, 2001, the day prior to filing for bankruptcy.

the single organizing principle that arranges this pattern of false statements is judge porteous' desire to conceal assets and to conceal his gambling so that he could gamble while in bankruptcy without interference from the court or the creditors or even his lawyer. at a hearing of creditors on may 9, 2001, judge porteous under oath testified that the schedules were accurate. that statement, like so many of judge porteous' other statements under oath, was false. at that hearing, the bankruptcy trustee also informed judge porteous that he was on a cash basis going forward. at the end of june 2001, bankruptcy judge william greendyke issued an order approving the chapter 13 plan specifically directing judge porteous not to incur new debt without the permission of the court. notwithstanding judge greendyke's order, judge porteous did incur additional debt without the permission of the court. he applied for and used a credit card. here is a blowup that includes a

copy of judge porteous' application for a credit card and the statement showing its use in september of 2001, in violation of the order of the court. more particularly, judge porteous continued to borrow from the casinos without the court's permission. this chart, which was used at trial, lists 42 times that he took out debt at casinos to gamble in the first of the three years he was in bankruptcy. further, as judge porteous had planned, in some instances, he paid these casino debts through the fidelity money market account that he concealed. here at the top of this blowup is a check he wrote on the concealed fidelity money market in the amount of $1,800 to the treasure chest casino on november of 2001. below it is a check in the amount of $1,300 to grand casino gulfport, also drawn on the undisclosed money market account

in july of 2002. both of these checks repaid the outstanding debts to the casinos. in short, he engaged in a pattern of deceitful activity designed to frustrate and confound the bankruptcy process. the harm wrought by judge porteous' conduct in bankruptcy is really incalculable. the bankruptcy process depends totally on the honesty and candor of debtors. the trustee does not dispassion investigators to check on a debtor's sworn representations. judge porteous' display of contempt for the bankruptcy court is little more than a display of contempt for his own judicial office. a federal judge who, in fact, heard bankruptcy appeals in his court should be expected to uphold the highest standards of honesty. it is inexcusable that judge porteous manipulated this process for his own benefit. let me now discuss article iv, and for that i need to return to the summer of 1994. let me set the stage.

at that time, while judge porteous was being considered for a federal judgeship, he was engaging in two corrupt schemes. first, the curatorship kickback scheme with creely and amato that i previously described in connection with article i, and, second, the corrupt relationship with the marcottes that i described in connection with article ii. judge porteous knew that if the white house and the senate found out about his relationships with either creely and amato 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 four separate occasions that, if he were to answer the questions truthfully and candidly, required him to disclose his relationships with creely and amato and the marcottes. on each instance, judge porteous lied. because of those four -- because those four statements are at the heart of article iv, let me show you exactly what judge porteous was asked and exactly what he

answered. first, at sometime prior to july of 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. on that form, judge porteous was asked -- question -- "is there anything in your personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail you, is there anything in your life that could cause an embarrassment to you or to the president if publicly known? if so, please provide full details." so which judge porteous answered, "no." judge porteous signed that document under warnings of criminal penalties for making false statements. this statement was a lie. on july 6 and july 8, 1994, judge porteous was personally interviewed by an f.b.i. agent as a part of the background check process. judge porteous was asked by the agent the same sort of questions i discussed in connection with the sf-86.

his answers were incorporated in a memorandum of the f.b.i. agent that summarized the interview. let me show you the relevant portions of the memorandum. 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. these statements were also a l lie. after that interview, the f.b.i. in new orleans sent the background check to f.b.i. headquarters in washington, d.c., for their review. f.b.i. headquarters directed the agents to interview judge porteous a second time about a very particular allegation that the f.b.i. had received in 1993 that judge porteous had taken a bribe from an attorney to reduce the bond for an individual who'd been arrested. so on august 18, 1994, the

f.b.i. conducted a second in-person interview with judge porteous. this time probing possible illegal conduct on his part in connection with bond setting. again, the f.b.i. write-up of the interview records judge porteous as stating -- quote -- "that he was unaware of anything in his background that might be the basis of attempted influen influence, pressure, coercion, or compromise and/or would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment, or discretion." and again he lied. finally, after he was nominated, the united states senate committee on the judiciary sent judge porteous a questionnaire for judicial nominees. again, i'm showing you the document. judge porteous was asked the following question and gave the following answer. question -- "please advise the committee of any unfavorable information that may effect 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 accurate. judge porteous lied for a fourth time. the questions judge porteous asked are clear and unambiguous. in each of the four instances, the questions called for judge porteous to disclose his relationship with amato and creely and the marcottes. there is additional evidence that suggests judge porteous would well -- would have well understood the reach of those questions. first, the second of his two f.b.i. interviews addressed judge porteous' bond-setting practices. it's hard to imagine that he could have been put on more specific notice than that his relationship with marcotte and his conduct in setting bonds was relevant and should be disclosed. second, judge porteous' understanding of the materiality of his relationship with marcotte and his intent to conceal it is further evidenced by his statements and conduct associated with setting aside of

aubrey wallace's felony conviction, which i referenced earlier. as i mentioned, marcotte had an employee named aubrey wallace who had helped take care of judge porteous' cars and also fixed his house. at around the time of his confirmation, marcotte went to judge porteous and asked him to set aside wallace's burglary conviction, to take the first step in getting rid of his felony convictions so that wallace would ultimately be able to obtain a bail bonds license. judge porteous agreed to do it but informed marcotte that he would do so only after he was confirmed by the senate because he did not want to jeopardize his -- quote -- "lifetime appointment." when asked to describe judge porteous' response to his request, marcotte testified -- answer -- "he kind of put me off and put me off and he said, look, louis, i'm not going to let anything stand in the way of me being confirmed and my lifetime appointment. so after that's done, i will do

it." marcotte went on to explain the nature of judge porteous' concern -- quote -- "if the government would have found out some of the things that he was doing with me, it would probably keep him from getting his appointment." senator mccaskill specifically asked marcotte as to whether judge porteous used the lifetime appointment phrase. in response, marcotte's answer was clear. quote -- "that was the words of judge porteous." in substance, judge porteous said that he would set aside wallace's conviction but that he was going to hide it from the senate. it is hard to conceive of a clearer, more explicit expression of intent to deceive the senate. judge porteous' actions corroborate marcotte's recollection of the conversation. he was confirmed by the senate on october 7, 1994, and set aside wallace's conviction, as he said he would, after that, on october 14, 1994. the timing of the wallace

set-aside confirms that judge porteous calculated and plotted to conceal material facts concerning his relationship with louis marcotte from you, the united states senate. the procedural history of wallace's case is discussed in our post-trial brief, but the salient fact is that judge porteous could have set aside the conviction if he chose to do so weeks prior to his confirmation. absolutely nothing in wallace's case occurred that explains his delay in waiting until after the confirmation. the only event of significance that explains the timing is that judge porteous was confirmed in the interim. moreover, judge porteous' willingness to set aside wallace's conviction at marcotte's request constitutes proof positive that judge porteous was, in fact, subject to coercion, leverage, and compromise, the very fact as to which judge porteous was requested and which judge porteous denied. because of the fraud committed by judge porteous on the f.b.i.

and the senate, judge porteous was, in fact, confirmed and was sworn in on october 28, 1994. he has been a federal judge, enjoying the fruits of his deceit and the power of the position since that date. in conclusion, the house has proved each of the four articles of impeachment. the evidence demonstrates that judge porteous is dishonest and corrupt and does not belong on the federal bench. he has signed false financial forms, false questionnaires and even signed documents under a false name under penalty of perjury. he has engaged in corrupt schemes with attorneys and bail bondsmen. he has betrayed his oath in handling a case dishonestly and with partiality and favor, characterized by making false statements at a hearing concerning his financial relationship with one of the attorneys and then soliciting cash from that attorney while the case awaited judge porteous' decision. he has brought disgrace and disrebuke to the federal bench.

the evidence demonstrates he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and the house requests that you find him guilty on each of the four counts and remove him from an office he is not fit to occupy. thank you for your time and attention. we reserve the balance of our time. the president pro tempore: thank you very much. professor turley, you may proceed on behalf of the judge. mr. turley: thank you, mr. president. members of the senate, for those who are not present this morning, i am jonathan turley. i am the chicago professor of public interest law at george washington university and counsel to judge g. thomas porteous, a judge on the district court in the eastern district of louisiana. joining me again at counsel's table are my colleagues from the law firm of brian cave, daniel schwartz, p.j.meitl and dan o'connor. sitting here listening to my

esteemed opposing counsel, one is easily put in mind of another trial held almost 220 years ago almost t this very day. in a case that proved to be one of the turning points in american law, eight british soldiers were accused of murder in what americans called the boston massacre and what the english called the boston riot. columnists demanded that the soldiers be executed and everyone came to the trial expecting less of a trial as much as a hanging. adams himself saw the case differently. in fact john adams saw not just another case, but the very cause for which he was already fighting, the creation of a new nation based on due process and principles of justice. as in today's case, many of the

facts were not in dispute in 1770. it was clear that the british soldiers fired into the crowd, but adams stopped the jury and challenged them to consider two questions: one, whether the soldiers had acted with required intent and malice and, two, whether the requested punishment -- death -- fit the crime. it was also one of the earliest uses of the reasonable doubt standard ever recorded in our country. proof and proportionality became the touchstone of that case and later cases in the republic that adams helped bring into existence. in words that would echo through the ages, adams warned the jury -- quote -- "whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the

dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. the law will not bend to uncertain wishes, imagination, or wanton tempers of men." when the framers turned to the constitution, they sought to protect the judiciary from wanton tempers and imagined offenses. in cases of impeachment, the framers expressed fears that congress would yield to passions over proof in the removal of federal judges. james madison, george mason, and others carefully crafted the standard of impeachment to protect the independent judiciary, and madison said expressly that they wanted to avoid standards -- quote -- "so vague as to be the equivalent of tenure during the pleasure of the senate." that's what they wanted to avoid. they rejected corruption because

they knew the term "corruption" could be used to mean most anything, and for that reason, that term was adopted by the house in this case. it hasn't changed. framers explicitly debated and rejected this vague standard of maladministration and instead demanded that a federal judge could not be removed absent proof of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. applying that standard, this congress has refused to remove judges, not because they agreed with their action. every judge whose cases were brought before in esteemed body were worthy of condemnation. they had few friends. but this body drew a distinction between judges who've done wrong and judges who have committed removable offenses. i'd like to tell you about the

man that is on trial today, g. thomas porteous jr. he has spent virtually his entire life as a public servant. served as an assistant district attorney, a state judge, and then a federal judge. he served a total of 26 years. the past 16 as a federal judge. when asked, all the witnesses in this case, without exception, described him as one of the best judges in louisiana. as i will discuss later, however, his skills as a judge do not excuse his failings as a person. to the contrary, he is not condeash has not contested many of the facts this this case and ultimately accepted severe discipline for the poor decisions that he made. he's here for you to judge now, to judge him. but he is not the caricature that was described by the house. indeed, i don't know how the man described by the house avoided a

criminal charge. after all, the department of justice got waivers to look into all of these crimes. they investigated him and many other judges through wrinkled robes. when i was sitting here, i was thinking, my lord, how on earth could he avoid a criminal charge? and the reason is because the department of justice are professionals. they look for crimes, and the they didn't find a crime that could be proven at trial, any crime, great or smawcialtion against this -- great or small, against this judge. his son, thim thee, in the hearing expressed the toll this has really cost him and his family, ranging from the defnlg his wife, the loss of his home in katrina. one way or the other, this matter is going to come to closure now. he will either be convicted or he will retire in a matter of months, as he's already promised. what is clear is either way thomas porteous will not return

to the bench. he has, however, remained silent for many months, as newspapers and commentators have said grossly false things about his case and about his character. he waited for this moment for his defense to be presented, as had so many defenses in his courtroom, for impartial judgment and he gave impartial judgments. even the house's own core witnesses said that judge porteous gave them a fair hearing, gave everyone a fair hearing. you can disagree with actions that he took, but he don't have to turn him into a grotesque caricature. he's not. he may have been many things in the eyes of others, but he was never corrupt, and he loved being a federal judge, and despite his failings, he never compromised his court, and he never broke the oath he took as

a federal judge in october 1994. that may seem a precious distinction to some, but he's here to fight for that legacy. he has accepted his failings, but he will not accept that. this case is not, however, just about thomas porteous. all impeachments speak to all judges. this case presents articles of impeachment that are novel and they are dangerous. we discussed some of those issues this morning. and of course the constitution puts that incredible burden on you. it requires you to ignore the dictates of passion and wanton tempers described by john adassments you must decide when drg all the evidence whether the actions that were taken during this case rise to the level of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. i would like to turn to

something that senator durbin had asked about, which is the standard of proof. as we mentioned, in the past many have cited beyond a reasonable doubt as the most obvious standard for impeachments because impeachment has many criminal terms that are incorporated and also many impeachments are crafted on articles taken directly from prior criminal cases. we also noted and stressed that the members of this body really have two determinations to make. first, you must find that these facts occurred, and second you must find that those facts that did occur to your satisfaction rise to the level of a removable offense. it's the first part of that determination that's difficult in this case because as we noted, this is the first modern impeachment that has come to this body without a prior trial.

this judge has never been allowed review from a judge. he's never challenged athe things that have been said against him. indeed, most of the things that you just heard wouldn't be allowed in a federal court, and we challenge the factual accuracy, as you will see. but that's part of the value of having criminal charges brought, because when usually this body has looked at a case, it has then siphoned through that filter of process and fairness. each senator does have to establish what he or she will use a a standard of proof, but i have to say, i do not agree with mr. schiff when he says it's just up to you; whatever you decide is enough. where i disagree with mr. schiff from this morning is where we can distinguish between "could" and "should." there's no question. you can adopt any standard.

the question is whether you should. obviously the framers didn't want people just to take an arbitrary gut check on facts, particularly when there's been no criminal trial. they expected something more from you. and what is expected is that you have -- you apply some consistentcognizable standard, and we have talked about that standard applied in the harks which is clear and convincing. this body in the past has talked about a strict standard. indeed, senator allen specter, who was vice-chair at an earlier time, stated the following to his clerks and i would, as amended, it to you: "where autograph judge up for removal, the issue of judicial independence requires a very strict standard. this is not a question of whether you would confirm him if

he were before us today. it is not a question of whether we feel comfortable in going before him, but it is a question of whether we are going to oust him from office that comes into play." what i believe senator specter was saying is that you do have an obligation to apply some objective standards, because this is a legal proceeding. it might not be a criminal case, but you are signature as the world's most unique jury and judges. in this case, the fifth circuit itself did not consider the allegations in article ii and article iv. the reason is simple. as the five judges i mentioned earlier wrote, "congress lacks jurisdiction to impeach judge porteous for any misconduct prior to his appointment as a federal judge."

plain and simple. the federal judges in the fifth circuit wrote a detailed 49-page opinion on the evidence in this case. those judges declared the following: "this is not one of those rare and egregious cases presenting the possibility of an impeachable offense against the nation." they didn't approve of the decisions made, but they drew a line, and this fell far on the other side of an impeachable offense. those judges, which included appellate and district judges, said that the evidence here does not support a finding that judge porteous abused or violated the federal constitutional judicial power entruforted to him. instead, the evidence shows that in one case he allowed the appearance of serious embryo priorities but that he did not commit an actual abuse in violation of constitutional power entrusted to him.

these appearance controversies are routine in court. they are used here, however, as the basis for removal to iep h. wipe away centuries of precedent. perhaps for that reason, the house managers are quoted in the media as encourage the adoption of a new standard, to treat the impeachment process as merely an employment termination case. they would literally have this body adopt the standard that madison rejected for judges simply to serve at the pleasure of the senate, like at-will employees. unfortunately, this case proves one thing: irk the old military adage that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. it's not enough that judge porteous accepted sanctions from his court, unprecedented sanctions. it's not enough that he announced his resignation in a malt of months from the -- in a

matter of months from the bench. it is not enough that no one has ever been removed for pre-federal conduct. the house demanded removal. let's look at the base sees for removal and let's turn to article one. in on i, the house impeached judge porteous on the theory that he deprived the public and litigants of his honest services, as we discussed this morning. we discussed the unique problem of the fact that it was crafted around the theory that the supreme court rejected. it was a bad bet. now, you'll notice that in the opening statements again today, both mr. schiff and mr. goodlatte kept on bringing up again kickbacks. i actually counted up to 20, and then i stopped. i pose the question to you.

i don't know how many times you counted the word "kickbacks," but i ask you to look at the articles and see how many times it is actually mentioned in the articles of impeachment. and that number would be zero. they allege a corrupt conceal and then they came to you and said, you know what? this is going to be about kickbacks. the reason that the framers rejected corruption is precisely because what is occurring right now in front of you in the well of the senate. corruption can mean anything. mr. schiff could have just stood up and said you know what this is? this is mail fraud. or he could have said actually this is conspiracy. he could have said anything that constitutes corruption and rewrite the article here. not. not fulfilling the will of the house, but fulfilling what is the passing will of the managers of the house. that is a violation of the process that the framers created. in fact, we now hear five

references to the signing of financial statements that were inaccurate. i suggest the members look at the articles. how many times is that mentioned in the articles? zero. but when you use corruption as a term, you just go to the well of the senate and say that's what this is all about. and what that does for defense attorneys like myself and my colleagues is we just stand here and try to keep track of what it is the crime we're supposed to be defending against. it could be anything under the criminal code, anything under the criminal code could form corruption. and now it's financial records. that's why the house has the sole responsibility to articulate those articles. and when mr. schiff says they have a lot of discretion, they do. and when they use that discretion poorly, articles of impeachment get rejected. and that's what this body has said repeatedly in history. you can't bring to us articles

that present any possible crime, a crime du jour, and that's what you're seeing today. notably in article i there is one fact that literally all the house witnesses agreed on. judge porteous was never bribed. but more importantly, judge porteous was not bribeable. article i seeks to remove a judge based on a decision in a single case, and that decision was a single motion not to recuse himself in 16 years as a federal judge. the lifemark recusal motion was the first and only such motion judge porteous was faced with in three decades as a judge. allow me, please, to cut to the chase. we'll deal with one allegation in article i which deals with this single gift to judge porteous by his longtime friend

jake amato. that is in my view, the most serious allegation in article i. and it was a colossal mistake. but i need to correct the record. the house stood up and said, you know, nobody called this a wedding gift except defense counsel. that's news to me. in the hearing before the committee, jake amato described how he and the judge were on a boat on a fishing trip late at night drinking and the judge got very emotional and was talking about the fact that he could not cover the expenses for his son timothy's wedding. amato is very close to timothy. that was the context of this discussion. but more importantly, i asked amato, in fact, the only money you recall ever going to judge porteous was this wedding gift; right? amato's answer was "correct."

judge porteous never disputed that gift. what he disputes is the implications of the gift. judge porteous accepted responsibility because it created an appearance of impropriety, and it did. in accepting a very severe punishment by the fifth circuit he publicly apologized and expressed regret that his actions brought the court to address this matter. he also later said that he would in fact retire from the bench. before delving into that gift, let me be clear what we're discussing. i think it's important to call things for what they are, or in this case what they're not. this wasn't a bribe. all of the parties agree on that. this was not a bribe. and it wasn't a kickback. they don't even allege in article i that this was a kickback. so what was it? if it wasn't a bribe and it

wasn't a kickback, with it was a gift. was it a dumb gift? was it a gift he shouldn't have accepted? you bet. but the framers k*b in isn't a bribe. this the court of appeals will disagree with trial judges. witl hundreds of judges are faced with recusal motions. sometimes they make mistakes. recusals are usually based upon past relationships, the entire waterfront of conflicts. when a judge gets it wrong, usually that's it. it's just a reversal. sometimes you'll have a reprimand. very rarely will you have any

discipline at all. but consider the implications of accepting the appearance of impropriety as a standard for removal. that this could be so easily used to strip our courts. an appearance of impropriety, is that what we're going to substitute other high crimes and misdemeanors for, something that hundreds of judges are accused of. all of them would be capable to be brought before this body. we talk a lot about this lifemark case, and i must tell you it's exceedingly complex as a commercial case. it's between a subsidiary of a giant corporation called tenant health care, lifemark and pharmacists from louisiana i see no need to delve into these specifics, which i think you would be happy to know. it's sufficient to say this was a long-running dispute between

these two parties. lifemark was accused of delaying the case at any cost. it bounced from judge to judge and ultimately was assigned to over a dozen judges. one dozen in three years. that's the lifemark case. then in 1996 it was randomly assigned to judge porteous. defense witnesses stated, when asked, that judge porteous had a reputation for moving cases diverted. it was a judge from gretna. he was a state judge. he was a lawyers' judge. they tended to get cases done. and when he looked at this docket and saw a dozen judges in and out of this case and no trial, he promptly announced to the parties, "i'm the last judge you're going to see in this case, and we're going to try this case." i want to emphasize something. he said that to the parties

before any friends or lawyers in this case, before anyone that he had a friendship was counsel in the case. he said "i will be the last judge in this case and we are going to go to trial." so he was. seven district court judges, three magistrates, and he ended that, and they went to trial. now, when he said that, lead counsel for the, for lifemark, joe mull, wanted to have him recused and to go to yet another judge, and he filed a motion to recuse. and he cited the fact that judge porteous was close friends with jake amato and lenny levinson. and indeed he was. what we heard in testimony from witnesses is in gretna, a very

small town, like many small towns lawyers practice in and judges preside in, most judges know the attorneys in their courtroom. if judges had to recuse themselves because they knew a judge in their courtroom, there would be no cases in these courts. these are small communities. and in gretna, judges didn't recuse themselves. in fact, our witnesses -- actually not our witnesses. let me correct that. the house's witnesses said that they never heard of a judge recusing themselves in gretna because they couldn't. that was the tradition that judge porteous came from. and many judges agree with that, that as long as you acknowledge you have a relationship, a relationship that's not being hidden, you don't have to recuse yourself. and he was friends with amato and creely and don gardener. and i'll be returning to mr. gardener in a second. he was friends with amato and creely since the 1970's. both amato and creely said they

were best friends. they practiced law together, they hunted and fished together, they knew each other's families. timothy testified that they were known as uncle jake and uncle bob. creely taught him how to fish. amato taught him how to cook. they were close friends. so was don gardener. in fact, gardener was even closer. gardener asked porteous to be the godfather to one of his daughters. this uncontested background, i'd like to reexamine article i. first, the house asserts that judge porteous failed to disclose, while he was a state judge, that he engaged -- quote -- "in a corrupt scheme with these attorneys." this is of course predicated on the fact that there is a corrupt scheme. the problem with the house's case is the house's own witnesses who denied a scheme. both at trial and in a senate deposition, bob creely expressly disavowed -- expressly

disavowed -- that he had an agreement with judge porteous where he received curatorships in exchange for loans or gifts. instead creely was adamant that there was no relationship between the gifts and the curatorships. he said "i gave him gifts because we were friends." and he said "i gave him gifts before i ever got curatorships." not only that, but he said that he didn't like the curatorships. and he said he told porteous that. creely was a very successful lawyer. these curatorships were bringing in a few hundred dollars here or there and he said he hated them because they were more trouble than what they were worth. it's true, the house has portrayed judge porteous, frankly, as something of a moocher. i mean, that, i guess, was congressman goodlatte's point when he pointed out with great emotion to you judge porteous

went to a lot of lunches with these men and he didn't pay for his share of the lunches. he just paid for some of them. let me ask you: did you ever think that you would be sitting here on the floor of the senate trying to decide whether that's an impeachable offense, being a moocher? he paid for a few lunches; didn't pay for most of them. and the witnesses said that lunches in gretna routinely had lunches paid for them. the house's own witnesses said they couldn't remember -- that's not true. they could remember one judge on one occasion buying her own lunch. that is the record in this case. so creely is the guy in the house report that is the linchpin between this alleged scheme between curatorships and these gifts. only problem? creely came to the senate and said there was no agreement.

said he never gave any money to judge porteous as a bribe, never gave him a kickback, never expected to receive anything in return for the gifts. they were just friends. not only that, he said that he would have given those gifts without question, regardless of the curatorships. to drive the point further, he said that judge porteous never asked him for any percentage or return for the curatorships. not only that, but then the house's own witnesses said, by the way, all the judges in gretna give curatorships to friends and acquaintances. all of them. this has been discussed in louisiana, but the louisiana officials have decided that they would allow that. judges routinely would give curatorships to former partners,

friends, acquaintances. it has been reviewed, and we heard from the only expert in this case on louisiana ethics, and that was professor cealino. and he told the senate this is perfectly ethical under the rules. it is well known. it is a practice that has existed for a long time, and it still exists today. this doesn't mean that every judge in louisiana is corrupt. it's just that they don't view this as corruption. witnesses said that judge porteous gave curatorships to new attorneys and he gave curatorships to creely. the house never went and actually found the records of all the curatorships. you'll notice there's no discussion of any other curatorships. they had the ability, they could have come to you and said here's all the curatorships that were

issued during this period of time. here's the curatorships that went to creely or not. they didn't do that. but even if 100% of the curatorships went to his friends, it was perfectly ethical under the local rules. the only testimony that the house was able to present attempting to establish a connection between the curatorships and gifts was jake amato. and what they had -- what the problem was with creely saying there wasn't any relationship, that's a problem because the house report says creely said that. so they went and got amato and amato said on one occasion many years ago he remembers creely saying that there was a relationship. but the house wasn't deterred by the fact that amato was giving this testimony with creely here in washington denying he ever said that. but that didn't deter the house.

they had amato say what they wanted creely to say. and then amato said that these figures that are being thrown around by the house were not figures that he came up with. he said that they were what he referred to as guesstimates. guesstimates. -- guesstimates of the gift and the relationship to the curatorships. now, amato said that actually the number that you've heard here today didn't come from home, didn't come from creely. in fact, they denied they could recollect -- there's no records to establish this conclusively. they said that amat -- amato said that the number actually came from f.b.i. agent horner who came up with an estimate of total gifts and just assumed -- just assumed that porteous must have received half of it. and they started pressing them

to say, wouldn't that be accurate? so there's the nightmare for you. the -- madisonian nightmare. the government gets guesstimate from a witness based on a figure that was just extracted by one of the investigators without documentary proof. the second factual allegation in this article is that the judge -- should be removed for intentionally misleading statements of the recusal hearing. i think i can simply end this by encouraging you to read the recusal hearing. it's not very long. reach your own conclusions. don't listen to me. don't front house. you will see that judge porteous gives them hearings. a lot of judges don't. they just deny it. instead they gave him a full hearing,ed to him he understood why he was bringing this issue and acknowledged he had a relationship with these lawyers and then he went and said, tell me what i need to do to make

sure you can appeal me. you have a right to appeal me. he stayed a case to allow an appeal. most judges won't do that. he didn't say in detail what the relationship was. he understood that mole was going to apeople one thing he did want to correct is that mole said incorrectly that he had received campaign contributions from these individuals and he said that's just not true. and he corrected it on the record. he never denied the relationship. from his perspective having a relationship, a friendship, particularly from his time in get na was not a -- gretna was not a problem, not a recusable issue and so he left it at that. the third allegation is that judge porteous should be removed from office because he denied lifemark's recusal motion. that is the most dangerous allegation in article i. because that would remove a judge for the substance of his decision, in this case, a

recusal motion. can you imagine if you start to remove judges because you disagree with the recusal decisions. judges are constantly appealed on recusal decisions. if you start to remove judges because you disagree with their conclusion even though many judges shared this, then you open up the bench to unlimited manipulation. now, the evidentiary hearing in the senate, i do not want to tell you was a total bust. it was not. for those of you who were looking for a conspiracy, we found one, and it came out in live testimony, a scheme. a very corrupt -- scheme. in that judge porteous was the subject. it sought testimony from mr. mole who you have heard as a paragon of a witness. mr. mole brought the issue that he should recuse himself an

mr. mole was shocked that he didn't. in fact, i think mr. goodlatte said that mr. mole had no alternative. but the house members didn't mention how mole proceeded. of after he lost the recusal motion, mole dieded he had to get this judge off the -- decided that he had to get this judge off the case. he was not going have this west bank judge rule in this case of lifemark. he was going to be bounced to get another judge. a 14th reassignment of the house if mole had anything do about it. went and talked to a guy by the name of tom wilkinson. he was assigned to the lifemark case. he went to the brother of the magistrate and this is the former jefferson parish attorney. he was known as someone who could solve problems like this. he was known as the go-to guy to fix a problem with a judge who didn't want. wilkinson is now reportedly under investigation for corruption in louisiana.

so mole met with him and then wilkinson got mole to meet with one of judge porteous's closest friends, don gardner. and he went to gardner and offered him an extraordinary contract which we have put in the record. that contract promised mol mole $100,000 if he joined the case. and offered him another $100,000 if he could get porteous to recuse himself. $200,000. but that was not all. the contract actually said, by the way, once porteous is gone, you're gone. so if you get him to recuse yourself, i'll give him dz -- i'll give you $200,000 and you go away and we can go perly on bouncing this case through the court system. the problem with this scheme by mr. mole is that it didn't work

because don gardner said, you do not want to go to tom porteous. you don't want me to go to tom porteous and tell him to recuse himself because he will react very negatively. and he refused to go -- this is his own testimony -- refused to go to porteous to ask for his recusal. ultimately the judge's decision cost his closest friend $200,000. mole, himself, admitted that he had never seen a contract like the one he wrote and witnesses testifying said they were shocked to learn of a contract where someone actually put a bounty on a federal judge and offered $200,000 if you can get him off the case. nevertheless, when gardner lost that case, he said, the judge gave him a fair hearing. he said, look, this judge is just not bribeable, he gave us a

fair hearing. he disagreed with us and we lost. by the way, this isn't mentioned by the house. creely also practiced before the judge. he was not the counsel, by the way, he was not the counsel in lifemark, but creely actually did have a couple of cases in front of the judge and the judge ruled against him and cost him a huge amount of money. in one case where he lost a great deal of money, creely actually took his best friend on appeal and got it reversed. but his friendship didn't stop the judge and one of creely's biggest cases from ruling against him. dent feel a need to recuse in those occasions and it didn't influence his decision. now, the article also talks about things of value, another general term, and these are small common gifts that creely and amato agreed they gave to porteous and said were common in gretna, as in many small towns.

and, yes, they had lunch together. they had lunch together for their whole 30-year relationship. and a few of those lunches did continue while lifemark was pending in front of the judge. the judge paid for an occasional rule, but officer goodlatte is absolutely correct, he he didn't pay for enough meals. and the house did not contest the only ethics expert in this case who said those lunches are permitted under state law. and they still are permitted today. back then they had the same rule the united states senate had. back then the senate allowed senators to be bought lunches. not because it invited corruption. senators didn't view it as a source of corruption. neither did the people of louisiana when it came to lunches being bought for judges. it was just a courtesy. now, there's been talk about

creely attending tom porteous' bachelor party in may 1999. i'm going to note if you look at the testimony, creely said he was friends with timothy. timothy's a lawyer. he was very close to timothy. and he had great love for timothy. he expressed that in a hearing. he went to a friend's wedding. when he bought the lunch at his table, porteous was not at the table. and he threw in with the other attorneys at that time. now, as i mentioned earlier, the wedding gift is, frankly, the most serious problem. it occurred three years after the recusal hearing. so i'm not trying to excuse it. but i do wish you would keep in mind because these dates get blurred. it was three years after the recusal hearing when this wedding gift was handed over. and, yes, he went on this fishing trip. it was a very emotional thing.

he was having trouble paying for his son's wedding. and it was a huge mistake. and the judge admitted it. it was not a bribe. not a kickback. it was a gift and it was dumb to be offered, dumb to be accepted. but both creely and amato made it clear that it was not a bribe or a kickback. in fact, jake amato testified that he felt that judge porteous was always -- this is a -- quote -- "was always going to do the right thing." in the case. he didn't see any connection to in terms of influencing the outcome of the case. now, one question the house has never been able to answer and one which the senate might be able to put to the house, and that is, if judge porteous could be influenced for $2,000 or some other -- quote -- "small things of value" as the house alleges, why didn't he recuse himself so his close friend could collect $200,000? why didn't he rule for creely in

those other cases? he had two friends in the case of lifemark. he cost one $200,000. why didn't he accept money like those other judges that were nailed in wrinkle robe. the appearance of inappropriatey is a dangerous -- for this body to purport in the impeachment standards. state bars have continued to move away from impropriety because it is ruled as basically meaningless. it is basically, don't be bad. he said state bars are moving away from it at the time the house is asking you to adopt it. -- adopt it for the impeachment standard. let's turn to article ii. article ii we've already discussed is the article that is the prefederal -- pre-federal conduct allegation. i will leave that tower

discretion since -- to your discretion since we have not ruled on or you have not ruled on the motion i will try to aaddress a few of the facts in this case. if the senate agrees with the defense that a judge cannot be removed for pre-federal conduct, then most of article ii is gone. the -- there's virtually nothing there in terms of federal conduct. the evidence that is supported in article ii in terms of federal conduct are six lunches. six lunches that took place over 16 years. so let me make sure we understand that. the evidence in article 2 in federal conduct that you're going to remove a judge for is six lunches. i should note that judge porteous attended several of these lunches, but there is no record that he attended all of the lunches. so the six might be a high number.

you see, the house had no record that he actually attended some of these lunches, but somebody at the lunch had absolut vodka, i kid you not. so what the house is saying that because judge porteous drank absolut vodka, you should just assume he was at those lunches and -- and use that as part of the evidence to remove a federal judge. i'm not overstating that. we hope -- we ask the committee to take judicial notice that judge porteous is not the only human being in louisiana that drinks vodka or even absolut vodka. what they're inviting you to do again is remove a judge on pure speculation. and, by the way, the value of these lunches over 16 years was also not mentioned. they're less than $250. over 16 years. the individual meals benefited

judge porteous, the average wa . and as i mentioned, experts testified in this case and were not contradicted that judges were allowed and are still allowed to have lunches purchased for them in this respect. the most that the house can come up with is that by attending these lunches, judge porteous, quote, "brought strength to the table." that is one of the statements of the witnesses, louis marcotte, that he brought strength to the table, and that's -- that's enough. imagine if that was enough. if you're permitted to have lunches bought for you but someone at the lunch benefited from your being present, a third party, because you -- quote -- "brought strength to the table," that would be enough for a charge of impeachment under this approach. the record shows that senator john breaux went to some of

these lunches with the marcottes. does the house suggest that because senator breaux went to a lunch that he should be expelled from this body? that would be ridiculous. virtually every witness called by the house and the defense testified that judges dealt exclusively with the marcottes as bail bondsmen. you heard the house say bail bondsmen would often deal individually with the -- with the judges. i just need to correct there. there weren't bail bondsmen, plural, on any practical level. this is a small town, and the marcottes were it. the witnesses testified that the marcottes controlled over 90% of the bonds. they were the bail bondsmen for gretna. it's not a huge town. by the way, if you think about that, it means that every judge that signed a bond was almost certainly signing it for the marcottes because they were the only bail bondsmen on a

practical level. now, here's the thing that you might find confusing. at the evidentiary hearing, the house conceded not only that they could not prove a linkage on these bonds but that they did not specifically allege a relationship between the size of the bonds and this relationship with the marcottes. the house stated, and i am quoting -- quote -- "the house does not allege that judge porteous set any particular bond too high or too low." close quote. so all of the references just now about setting things too high, too low, how they would have benefited a bail bondsman, the house stated it was not alleging that they set these things too high or too low, and once again, we find that the articles are being redesigned here in the well of the senate, irrespective of what was previously said by the house.

the house does little beyond noting that judge porteous often approved bond amounts by the marcottes, and as detailed in our brief, the house's own witnesses demolished that allegation. the amount of a bond is -- is set to reflect the assets of the defendant. the senate staff summed this up in its own report in front of you on page 18 and said -- quote -- "in many cases, the highest bond a defendant can afford may also be the socially optimal level, so as to eliminate unnecessary detention while providing maximum incentive for the defendant to appear." that's the point of a bond. you set it high enough that they're going to come back to court. and it was very good reason. the witnesses in this case testified that judge porteous was a national advocate for the use of bonds, and he connected the use of bonds to overcrowded systems. gretna was subject to a series of federal court orders that were releasing people, dangerous people from their jails, and

judge porteous spoke nationally on the need for judges to use bonds, and he was correct. as we submitted in the record, studies have proven him correct, that if you get a bond on an individual, the chances they will return and not resid v-8 are much, -- recidivate are much, much higher. judge porteous said start issuing bonds because people are not showing up. get them under a bond and they will. now, you also saw that the house suggested that somehow the marcottes got special treatment from the judge. the fact is they were the only bail bondsman on a practical basis. so if you wanted to give bonds, you gave bonds with the marcottes. by the way, his secretary rhonda danos testified that the judge also often told her not to let the marcottes into his office. on occasion, she would say, he would say not to let them in.

she said they were not given any special treatment in access to the judge. she said that judge porteous was a very popular judge and lawyers would gather in his office. now, let's turn very quickly to these two cases. i'm afraid i'm running short on time so i will have to ask you or your staff to look at our position in our filing, but i want to note that on the duhan expungement that has suddenly resurrected like a phoenix on the floor of the senate, we thought it was dead, and the reason we thought it was dead is because it had been downgraded in the trial because of the testimony of the witnesses where the house simply referred to it as noteworthy. by the end of the trial, it had gone from a matter for removal to a noteworthy case. the reason is that witnesses testified that this was a routine administrative process. the witnesses showed -- and there were no witnesses called by the house that were experts

in this area. we called witnesses to talk about these types of setasides and expungements, and those witnesses said this was perfectly ethical and appropriate. not only that, in the duhan matter, judge porteous was following the lead of another judge that was never revealed to the house. we revealed it in the hearing. it turns out that a prior judge had already taken steps in the case. louis marcotte testified that he wasn't even sure he asked judge porteous for his assistance on the duhan matter. nevertheless, the managers included the allegation in the article. as for the wallace setaside, the house could not call any expert to testify that it was improper, and we did call people who said it was perfectly proper. it was both legal and appropriate under louisiana law. now, i want to address one thing about the wallace setaside.

the government once again is coming here, the house is coming here and saying, you know, he did this so you wouldn't know about it. he waited to take actions in the wallace case after he was confirmed. and what do you think of that? well, i suggest what you think of that is it's not true. as we said in the hearings, this is why we were surprised to find it being mentioned in the floor of the senate today. it turns out it's not true, that the judge held a hearing before confirmation and stated in the hearing i intend to set aside this conviction. that's a pretty weird way to hide something. before confirmation, he said i'm going to do this, and i need you to put emotion together. why? it was the right thing to do. it's routine in this area. these types of things are very routine. one of the attorneys said they just -- that he just walked around with these forms in his briefcase. and do you know what mr. wallace said? he said that judge porteous was known as a judge who would given

someone a second chance, and he gave wallace a second chance and wallace went on to become a minister, and he is now a respected member of his community. now, a lot of this turns, of course, on louis marcotte who also, by the way, admitted at trial -- this is louis marcotte who said -- he explained why he lied on one occasion, and he simply said well, i wouldn't have any reason to tell the truth. that's louis marcotte. indeed, one of the witnesses told the committee that the house staff told him that the reason he was being called is because people wouldn't believe louis marcotte, that he lacked credibility. now, the marcottes ultimately said that lunches would occur sometimes once a month. car repairs that were discussed here lasted about six to eight

months and consisted of a few minor repairs. we suggest you simply look at the testimony. you have to look at the testimony because there is not any documents. there's no documents of exactly what repairs were done. it's all testimonial. so this isn't a debate over the standard of proof. there is no proof. finally, the house has continually referred to other state judges who were convicted of crimes, judge greene, judge bodenheimer. and i just simply want to note that judge porteous, of course, never accepted cash or campaign contributions from the marcottes. that put him in a small group, from what i could see. he -- they gave as much as ten grand to judges, including judges who were still on the bench. they never gave judge porteous any cash. why? handing out cash to other judges. if he was so corrupt, if he was

this caricature that the house makes him out to be, why didn't he take the cash and run? judge porteous, of course, was never accused of a crime let alone convicted. and those men, judge greene and judge bodenheimer, you just heard the house say look at the -- look at these people. judge judge porteous by their conduct. they were convicted of mail fraud and planting evidence on a business rival. article ii is a raw attempt to remove a judge for conduct before he was a judge. article ii, i submit to you, is nothing more than what mcbeth described as a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. article iii is the only article that does not rely on pre-federal conduct. what it relies on are a series of errors made in a bankruptcy filing that the judge made with his wife camilla. i'm not going to dwell on the

intricacies of the bankruptcy code, which may be a relief to many. what the record establishes is not some criminal mastermind manipulating the bankruptcy code. it basically shows people that had bad records, little understanding of bankruptcy, which, by the way, is usually the type of people that go bankrupt. they sought a bankruptcy attorney of well known reputation, mr. claude lightfoot, and he was -- they were given bad legal advice. but one thing the house doesn't mention today and did not mention to the house members when they got that unanimous vote, judge porteous paid more in bankruptcy than the average person in this country. he succeeded in bankruptcy. they filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2001. they paid $57,000 to the

trustee. $52,000 repaid to their creditors. the only difference is that he was scrutinized a lot more. he had two bankruptcy judges, a chapter 13 trustee, and the federal bureau of investigation and the department of justice. by the way, i mention the f.b.i. and d.o.j. because the f.b.i. and d.o.j. raised these issues that you just heard about while the case was pending. they didn't come into this case after it was done. they actually went to see the trustee and raised these issues with the trustee, and the trustee said that he didn't feel that any action would be appropriate, necessary. so he found that these actions actually wouldn't warrant an administrative action by a bankruptcy trustee, but the house managers would say that that's still enough to remove a federal judge under the impeachment standard. and by the way, after the d.o.j. and the f.b.i. went to the bankruptcy trustee and said look

at all these things and the trustee said i don't think this really warrants any action on my part, the d.o.j. and f.b.i. didn't take action either. all this sinister stuff about how they found this, it was found before the case was closed. none of judge porteous' creditors ever filed a complaint or an objection. that was also not mentioned in the case. now, when they retained mr. lightfoot, they had never met him before, and it's true that mr. lightfoot did suggest that they file with a fake name, orteus instead of porteous. that was a dumb mistake. to his credit, mr. lightfoot said this was my idea. he said i was trying to protect them, particularly judge porteous' wife who was upset about the embarrassment of the

bankruptcy and the fact that at that time, the "times" picuyne published everyone's names for bankruptcy in the paper. he thought he could help that by using orteus, and then -- that was just for the first filing, correcting it, so that no creditor would actually get that document or get that false name. and he did roughly 10 or 12 days later, he corrected it, and no creditor did, did get the misleading information. and by the way, in that first filing, he used the information, including the social security number, which is the primary way you track people, so he didn't falsify that. but it was a dumb mistake but it was a mistake done by mr. mr. lightfoot at his suggestion because he thought he could avoid embarrassment. he says he regrets it but it was his idea. in the fifth circuit, you are allowed to follow the advice of counsel. should judge porteous have followed this advice?

no. he should have known better. this is one of those things where yielding to temptation at a time like this was a colossal mistake. but when the trustee was presented with this, with the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. coming to his office, he said he felt that this was no harm, no foul. why? because nobody was misled because they changed it. no creditors were misled. he finished his bankruptcy filing. dewhat mosfiling. he did what most people don't do, he succeeded. he actually paid his creditors. henry heldenbrand, who's a standing chapter 13 trustee in tennessee, said that he has seen bankruptcy petitions filed with incorrect names. he's seen it.

he says that what you do is you require them to correct it and you give notice to the parties. in this case, they didn't have to do that because the parties, the creditors, had already gotten the correct information. former united states bankruptcy judge ronald barliant said on the basis of the facts of that use of orteus, he would not find any intent to commit fraud or otherwise impair the bankruptcy system. he just didn't see it. neither did the trustee and neither did the f.b.i. or the d.o.j., to the extent that they didn't charge it. he further -- the house further alleged other errors and inaccuracies in the bankruptcy schedule as part of this dark and sinister plan to co-opt the bankruptcy system. two empirical studies that were -- that were introduced at trial shows that 95% to 99% of bankruptcy cases contain errors and inaccuracies. in fact, we had testimony fro from -- from mr. hildenbrand who

said he actually didn't believe that he'd ever mean? his 28 years as a -- seen in his 28 years as a chapter 13 trustee, that he'd ever seen a perfect filing. bankruptcy law professor rafael pardo also said that it's never been the standard to be perfect, that these things are -- that that's unrealistic and unworkable, people make errors. the people who are filing bankruptcy are people who couldn't handle their records before. it's not surprising that when they file bankruptcy, they have errors. now, i would like to talk quickly about these errors where the judge is alleged in summer of 2000, he gave mr. lightfoot his may 2000 pay stub but did not later supply an updated pay stub. what they left out was the difference between those two pay stubs was $173.99.

a month. trustee boleo said that it was such a small amount, it wouldn't have affected really the payments considerably to the creditors. the record shows that mr. lightfoot -- i'm sorry, it shows that judge porteous actually told his bankruptcy counsel that his income was higher than listed on the pay stub but mr. lightfoot elected to use the information on the stale pay stub. mr. lightfoot testified at trial he failed to ask the porteouses for the updated pay stub prior to preparing their bankruptcy filings. but now that's going to be part of a basis for the removal of a federal judge. let's talk about that bank one account. on that one, mr. lightfoot testified that he simply asked the porteouses to approximate

how much money they had in their account. their bankruptcy lawyer said, just give me a ballpark figure, and they did. there was no sinister plan here. how about the fidelity homestead association account that was just referred to? that account was omitted inadvertently. judge porteous testified before the fifth circuit he thought he told mr. lightfoot that there was this fidelity account. however, it's undisputed that the value of that account was $283.42. that was the account that was mentioned to you. now, there's also a reference to the fact that debt was incurred during the bankruptcy. there's no bar on incurring debt under statute during bankruptcy. there's no bar to do it. and, yes, the house made a great deal out of the fact that the porteouses gambled. gambling's legal, and it was a

problem for judge porteous it was an addiction. and he dealt with it in a public way that few of us would want to deal with it. he dealt with it. he dealt with his drinking and his addiction problems by going to seek professional help. and like many of us, he didn't do that until his life exploded on him. and he went and he got treatment for depression. should he have done it before? yeah. but gambling is not unlawful. and more importantly, what was just described to you about these markers is what the judges, judge dennis and his colleague, specifically objected to when they said, under louisiana -- this is a quote -- "under louisiana commercial law, markers are considered checks as defined by louisiana statute." markers are uncashed checks, not debts, for the purposes of bankruptcy. at trial, an f.b.i. agent called by the house confirmed this interpretation, that a marker

was a temporary check. in other words, these judges, who are not part of a sinister plan to undermine the bankruptcy laws of our country, these judges all said they actually agree with the interpretation that this is not debt. some people might disagree with their interpretation. but at most, it's an equipoise. they don't -- they did not believe it constitutes that, period. should they have gambled in their bankruptcy? of course not. that's a -- but that's not a failure as a judge. that was a personal problem that the judge overcame. let's move on to the last article. the fourth article of impeachment is a deliberate attempt by the house to resuscitate the pre-federal charges by recycling them through the confirmation proce process. and, by the way, senator leahy had asked about perjury in the

confirmation process and i said i do believe that perjury is a removable offense. and then mr. schiff stood up and said, ah-ha, then you do believe in pre-federal basis for removal. the answer is, no. the confirmation process is part of the federal process. it's part of your service as a judge. it's not pre-federal in the terms of what we are discussing. it's directly related to your being put on to the federal bench. obviously, if you acquit judge porteous on articles i and ii, you have to acquit on iv because iv is basically article i and article ii just basically recycle as an issue. there are three questions that the article refers to and i'd like to read you that question from the sf-86. here it goes. "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 you an embarrassment -- sorry, cause an

embarrassment to you or the president if publicly known?" by the way, that's one question. those aren't two questions. it's a compound question. now, i'd like you to put yourself in the shoes of judge porteous. he just answered 200 questions, a hundred of his closest friends been interviewed -- family, neighbors, colleagues -- this was the final question. i'd like you to ask yourself how you would answer that question. is there anything in your life that someone could say would -- could be used to coerce or blackmail you? would you answer that yes? or would you answer it no, because you know you wouldn't be coerced and blackmailed? sure, all of us have stuff we're not proud of or things that we might not want to be made publ public. that wasn't the case with porteous, which i'll explain in a second. but we heard uncontradicted testimony that if you just now said i'd answer no to that question, you wouldn't be alone. the f.b.i. agent who testified said in his 25 years in the

f.b.i., he had never seen anyone answer yes to that question. we brought in the leading expert on the confirmation process. he said that he was unaware of a single person ever saying yes to that question. it is so ambiguous that most people just say no. people have to sit there and wonder, what would be embarrassing to president clinton? and you're supposed to say, well, i can think of this or that, maybe that would embarrass president clinton. they don't do that. they say, look, i don't think my life is embarrassing to people. these lunches that they keep on citing? they were in public places. they weren't held underneath a car. they were held in open restaurants. he never tried to hide them. they were legal. they happen all the time. there was actually a table that the restaurant set aside for lawyers and judges. and the witnesses testified they had never seen any judge but one ever pay for one of those meals.

now, by the way, this was raised about porteous's 2000 tax refund check. that was raised with regard to things that he was trying to hide, and i believe the expression was, you know, that 2000 refund check went right into his pocket. well, you know what? it's supposed to. refund checks are not part of the bankruptcy filings in cases like this. they always go into your pocket. what they're asking you to do is to assume that judge porteous was embarrassed and then remove him for that. let me state that again. he was asked a question if anything would embarrass himself or the president. they want you to say, i think he was embarrassed, and then remove a federal judge on that basis. even though he didn't hide these things. they keep on talking about these relationships. they were public relationships.

does that track with the constitutional standard, in your view? it's now down to embarrassment? he didn't hide the creely relationship because creely said there was no relationship of gifts to curatorships. why would he hide that? creely said it never happened. and so once again they're asking you to assume facts and then say those assumed facts must have embarrassed him and, therefore, his answer to a compound question of "no" must be enough to remove him. this is not new. all of you have been involved in the confirmation process. there have been plenty of circumstances where facts have come forward that were embarrassing to a nominee that were not revealed. we saw with bernard karick, who was nominated to be a member of the cabinet, that he was actually criminally charged for saying that there was nothing that would be embarrassing, said

said, "not to my knowledge." ask prosecutors said, that's a lie because we found something to be embarrassing. that went to the federal court, and the federal court said -- and i quote -- "where a question is so vague as to be fundamentally ambiguous, it cannot be the predicate of a false statement, regardless of the answer given." the court went on to say, "plainly, the meaning of the word 'embarrassing' is open to interpretation and is hard to believe a federal prosecution would follow." so here's my question: if it's hard to believe that a federal prosecution would follow, how about an impeachment based on embarrassment? you can't even use this in that federal court. the judge said you can't even base a charge on it. and they are arguing that you should now base the removal of a federal judge o on it. a judge in the third circumstance ultimate who was found to have lied in his confirm -- circuit who was found to have lied in his confirmation hearing, but the judge in the third circuit said discipline

was only warranted with the showing of intent. the house didn't attempt to make that showing. united states district court james wear told people that his brother had been shot and killed in a racially motivated incident in alabama in 1963. 1997, wher waer was nominated te ninth circuit and he listed family members, including virgil waer, who actually existed, just wasn't his brother. and yeah, he been killed but it wasn't his brother. it was a lie. he was severely reprimanded by the court. and he should have been. but it's not an impeachable offense. he still sits on the district court in california. i mentioned to you goal black. we have plenty of those examples in the record. the fact is that if you start to remove judges for embarrassment, there will be no end to it. you will have house members lining up through that open door to bring forth things that

should have been mentioned in confirmation by judges that they dislike. anyone. not just judges -- presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members. that's the standard. if you read the newspapers this month, you'll see what i mean. you know, there are articles in the newspaper, "the washington post," where you have members of congress starting to make their case for the impeachment of supreme court justices thomas, roberts, kagan, and sotomayor. in fact, congressman peter defazio said -- quote -- "they've opened the floodgates and personally i'm investigating articles of impeachment against certain justices." if that's the standard, a president would have to raise nominees hydrophonically in the white house base fment they had any hopes of surviving on the bench. you cannot -- base fment they hapossibly hope toraise the impd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

impeachment lightly, and we in the house certainly do not, and we know in the senate you don't take that responsibility lightly either. we've set out the facts about why this judge needs to be removed from the bench. i would like to take this opportunity to rebut some of the points that my colleague has made. i think when you go through the evidence and when you discuss it with the senators who sat through the trial, you will find on each of the articles as charge youd that -- as charged that g. thomas porteous must be removed from office. counsel began by stating that the judge wasn't prohibited from being prosecuted for many of these crimes, that he signed tolling agreements with the department of justice. but this is what the department of justice said in its letter transmitting the case. "although the investigation developed evidence that might warrant charging judge porteous with violations of criminal law relating to judicial corruption, many of those instances took place in the 1990's and would be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

list your address. and the judge does this. this is not advice of counsel. this is collusion. what is the judge's explanation for why he is entitled to file under a fake name? he doesn't want to embarrass himself. i guess now he doesn't want to embarrass his wife. what does this mean, that if you're a federal judge you have a right to file under false name under penalty of perjury because you don't want to be kpwarsd. but -- embarrassed. but if you're an ordinary citizen you don't have that right. is it only a judge embarrassed by bankruptcy? you don't think a teacher who files bankruptcy is embarrassed or a banker who files bankruptcy or a baker or anyone else would be embarrassed if their neighbors or employer or someone else finds out they had to file bankruptcy? it is a painful and embarrassing process for everyone. a federal judge doesn't have a right more than anyone else to use a fake name. counsel says no harm, no fall

because he finished his bankruptcy proceeding and creditors got paid. he didn't want the notice in the paper, but the creditors found out about it anyway. the creditors found out about it because it went public. the hope was it never would. and what the judge also wanted, in addition to avoiding the embarrassment, he didn't want the casinos to know. he didn't want the casinos to know. because if the casinos knew and they weren't listed as creditors, even though he continued taking out his gambling chips and gambling, if they knew, they would deny him credit and they wouldn't let him keep gambling which is exactly what he did during the rest of the bankruptcy. on article iv, counsel concedes that prior conduct can't be impeached as long as it's during the confirmation process. i guess they have waived any

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> he became acting president of poland this is the first visit to washington as president. it has already been a success. this has become a positive meeting. i want to give the stage to him. thank you for coming to gmf and deliver the first address. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen. it is always so nice to be welcomed in such a way we believe many times, we have been able to achieve the post popular goals the generation of our

fathers.

we have been able to achieve that that's also due to the polish question. we were not able. we have this great chance in the provisions of safety. for several dozens of years at the time when the rest of europe was destroyed and could be reconstructed.

we were becoming a part of the world of the people many years went by. we did not only wait, we struggled. finally we achieved that goal jo

my again operation always knew about such a plan. we dremed this baz we were on the wrong side of the curtain. it was always better late that never i would like to issue the

special request perhaps smaller money and different ideas have made its way that is a source of great satisfaction. i can speak about poland and transatlantic situations. we have always known freedom had

to be ensured but we have this great idea of a very soft march toward the western european structure they regained others. it was not able to fight

anymore. with the doubts of the western world we did not know it was worthwhile listing to the free nations getting out of the warsaw pact it was not easy to

become a member of nato. as you know, many country's later. the world development. we does not become a member of nato to close the door on others. we wanted to widespread the face of freedom and democracy.

i believe these these trends gave us the different theory. they serve in the words of dprat tooed. they discern to name what people they ared. it means sometimes what matters is the bravery of going to the trend we have believed that

these matter to some extend. compared to the common thinking. we have always felt that

sometimes it happens so that poland and in a world few people know that in poland, the polish parliament operates on the principle or operated on the principle of accept answer of everybody today we look and say,

wow, there is agreement there. i taught it here. i would like to say what it is like. three phases of making political decisions. the second phase was the phase of the final working on a different opinion of mixing. 24e were made up in the long term discussion. then around the way, that is

possible. that was in the face of fury. this is typical for poland then you had all those with their arms and those simply before they were disabled to run away.

i do not know how they are coping with this it is worthwhile recommending that our national freedom, we have to remember. america remembers in the 19th century we struggled in different spots of the world and today.

it was an interesting theory. in different koifrnts there was some level of help answer. it went for the european union. they joined nato. i was afraid as other supporters were afraid that this would be harmful the report went sky rocketing that never even tried.

they knew that was a national issue i do not know how it was

in the u.s. as a child, i went to wilson's park it was like that until the moment of the sol darity move me movement the courage and actions for freedom of others is the monument that was erected at the

entrance of the german restaurant. my grand mothers would never believe it to erect this memory of achievement you said here. it was better for me to take the visit of poland. we want to be very consistent

and in the respect. this is why we speak. we will feel better with them something that could not be settled. every public family lost it is easier because boo land was developed i am not going to

pretend that this is a poe we are not related with that ban. we would like in this whole polish success. we would like to have some guarantees of security. we have had 12,000 years i'm not sure of it. we are in such a place on the man that is the spot where ladies and jae.

even if you inter great, i would have spotted this spot. if somebody opens up the door or window, we were sneezing. we this project. that is why making in direct. through our support, this we welcome the new start we can go

far away from poland. we have no interest in iraq or afghanistan. we have no political or economic interest. resulting in the sense what we take responsibility for the freedom of other people when you go hunting, you have to any that your own home is guardered you have to know that your own wife, your own children, your own area

is safe this is built on the same. nato's subill including the language which is the he is edge a contingency plan. moreover, this document introduces training and exercises from the perspective of operation for the bad scenarios believing that we will not go hunting without this if

so, we must be guarded. our wife and children se 0 in lisbon, there is understanding. you have suffered very clearly. listen. this is for you. europe suffered from the deficit of trust what can we do about

it. this lack of trust was worked out. poe hand has had its ways. you can not reset at the experience of 1,000 years of living closely but what we say that we invest. we make investment 69 new we invest that new relations with russia. however that can grow by he jo

we skant jump when the water is so police officer there is the old russian saying. trust but ver tie. have confidence but you have to check. in marriage, you have to believe your spouse but you have to verify smmz i trust that modernization can happen only when it also hurts our common

roll. to gore it is worth wild investing sle. we do not want to be perceived as people afraid of russia. where he do not wachlt to a nobody more than poe hand is interest in it i remember that

still tenor 15 years ago, we were near a road. there was a proverb. there was a saying poe sland not approach. did you translate >> we for russians. it is a great opportunity for poland and russia.

this is worthwhile that the thinking of russia about herself about the near and more distance west. we are so persistent of the old principles ladies and gentlemen, these principles are again like marriage. splms it is worthwhile taking your wife to a date. also to reaffirm the relations.

now they are the state of an ab sclut ru feeng it is like eye mantra mumbled. there is no practice behind them only to repeat this time that vich many other things they talked about. they have the feeling of this if think wanted to come to the united states. and myself? as the fourth president of poland, they asked whether or

not i was involved in prostitution, genocide or a terrorist. i don't take this as an insult. i am not a composite >> this was a language of the charges formulated combi the prosecutor. i do not know should i write the truth or lie in that form. my suggestion is to keep the form. not only at my suggestion. it is nonsense. it spoils a lot in these

relations. every polish person who comes to chicago. they know he's call for a visit.

i believe it is necessary. it cannot be left off as we reaffirm. it was difficult, it was unique. all of america should know as you know, it doesn't really happen often.

it is high time for us to start thinking. you have to invert it wisely in order. i have a very white paper in front of me. >> i was in prison once in the 1970s.

they called us stupid. some people were arrested. some were arrested in waive done. he said, you are done. i can see you are arrested all the time. he was very decided perhaps your guards will come to take you out.

i was to look look at this and be a sierious resolution he knew very little about the world but he knew is very much about life. he tells me, your stru accidents. you are a, we all are for freedom.

he knew one thing. he knew america associated with freedom. let's not abuse it. thank you [applause] >> that was a terrific speech fshgs that kept everyone

attentive in the afternoon. ochg amount. any other questions? i want to 5:0 dodge. he has agree $to thak three offer four questions. >> thank you for this speech. you have given us a real chaej about how regular americans and others can work through the government

>> i really believe in such a holiday where there is a democracy, free domenici, free market also among these generations, i believe in democracy.

. my impression is. i believe he seemed to realize it was a sufious. i am deeply committed that life

itself they will do well to solve this problem. >> the question right there frment what has been upsetting me is like you mention.

17 days after, russia is accessed. our history is so full of miss trikt. we are the only one nation in europe that's gone we are trying to improve relationships with russia. we have been trying this for years and have always stood out. now they are going up. somebody will try to smash us down. how are we preparing for it this

world will have to search for the best opportunity this comes together with the changes in the world. poland has build different relations in politics like in lifer, you have to be a romantic

and be pragmatic i believe those are able to be realistic it really makes the effort. there were dozens and thousands of us. the begin.

did we succeed? well, i do not want to tell you the history of my whole familiar i a great friend, a person porp than a brother. we are brought together by destiny. his father who was the soldier of the home army to observe it. fighting for the free domenici. he was arrested in sarms. then they died. we could have built scenarios of fear

>> in 1989, almost 90% of pole lish people were afraid vr we are happen to to see that 61 -- 6 # say they are it was absolutely not possible. one of my translators who was brought up before the first worlds war. you could not say one word in

polish. she >> i love her in automatic my heart. but i am leel he. let uz -- that riflt. i am convinced that history convinced us to be afraid. we have to inter great. germans will be bound by other nations and countries we have to

design the world. in the progress, what is dangerous. russia, may god give us. i will not be afraid of such russia. we have to focus on good, brave it's part of your fears i want to tell you even more, we can invest in good creations in sgerm any. we can invest in good we have a strong position.

they would never be encouraged to invest in relations that fear would make it impossible for us. we do not have to be afraid of russia. the average russian person knows we have chosen another way great russ russia. the grfrn dp is higher than in eye >> they know that we develop better or manage better, wiser

and there's no point of being afraid of it and then -- the world will say same, wise and good wroi way. >> thank you very much. as the ambassador of iceland. a krim. the greatest number a broughted is polish. it is a large group. a little more serious point is that off continue, it is eu is equated with your open.

. if mothers this year. at least norway is a country that has survived well in the downtown. d this leads me to the question, what is your me to the government view on the enlargement of the view. iceland -- we're both negotiating, trying to become members. i would like to know your view, of the turkish entrance into the european union. >> with the european character, this is very european.

this was -- we have the homogeneous comments. the european union must be close, and we have to have the association, with a different cooperations. norway is a european country. this does not want to clearly be in the structure. we have access to the european markets. we have to respect this. and we cannot really make this a member of the european union. poland is the last countries -- we have become a member of this and we want to close the door to

the club. those who meet the criteria, those who commit to the criteria, this is alimentary to being different in politics. we have the mess -- but we do not feel for having a in our group. today, this is the source of serious trouble. what is also the source of serious trouble, we had an unregulated border issue. this is a problem for the european union. this is a beautiful island. this is about forgetting the principle. we'll not have regulated border issues. i want to put this very

strongly. this is about who will become and who will not become a member. what you have said made me realize that this is a question of a geographic nature. i never suggested -- spoke about whether this was part of europe. i have never encountered this as an issue. and i will talk about this in greater depth. we always have had to make a great effort to become a member of the european union. this was a very big job and we work under the common states. this was very hard and we were able to deal with the conditions. this was very painful. poland was never guaranteed

admission into the european union. this was difficult for us. and today -- there is a valley of tears and blood in poland. this is happening faster than in other countries. membership in the european union, we have to maintain the difficulty. this was so we could be better, and not just lazy. there is such investments such action, that this would affect everybody. there was the iceland issue, iceland was part of europe. the analysts had shown -- the

cultural issues with this being a member. you have 6000 people have voted on this, you have a big part of europe. [applause] >> i want to thank you for being here this afternoon.

>> next, question and a with stephanie flanders of bbc. >> here are a few tips from our judges. one of the things i look for is you, the student. i want to see your personality. >> what i like to see a real investment of care in the topic you are telling us about. if you are not interested in the project you are take. >> i'm looking for individual yeses where people have looked

at the content and said, what element makes the most sense. it's washington your way.