mr. turley: thank you, mr. president. i thank you for allowing me the chance to rebut some of what my esteemed colleague has told you today. i have to begin by making an observation, and perhaps you noticed what happened. we were told today that we were going to speak to you this morning about constitutional issues, and the first thing that the house did was they started to go through the specific allegations against judge porteous, the merits of the case. it may be that i'm a bit sensitive, but the way that i heard it made it sound as if if you don't like this guy, if you don't like what the merits say, it should influence how you read the constitution. as many of you know, i believe all of you know, constitutional interpretations don't depend on how you feel about someone. it doesn't depend how you feel about a case. it depends how you read the constitution. and so my opposing counsel took you up to about 10,000 feet. as you look down at these articles and say look at all the bad things this guy did. he is the one asking

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 caus

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

mr. turley: thank you, mr. president. my name is jonathan turley and i am from the public of law at george washington university and i am counsel to the honorable j. thomas porteous jr. of the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana. joining me in counsel's tables are my colleagues from the law firm of brian cave, daniel schwartz, p.j. meitl and daniel o'connor. as the majority leader has told you and as many of you know, the porteous impeachment has raised a number of constitutional issues that are rather unique and considerable concern among law professors and legislators alike. the three motions before you today are designed to put these issues squarely before you. we understand that members can choose not to vote on these motions and you can, in fact, reject an article or an allegation in light of these constitutional concerns. however, these issues do not turn on the facts of this case. rather, they present threshold questions for each senator in deciding whether to establish new precedent i

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

mr. turley will ope the argument in support of the motions tohow rv dismiss. mr. turley, how much time do you wish to reserve a rebuttal? >> yes, mr. president, we would like to reserve 20 minutes for r rebuttal. reb >> sout ordered. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the senate, and it's jonathan turley and i am a i professor of public interest law at george washington universitya i am counsel to the honorable g thomas porteous junior of theths united states district court for the eastern district ofn louisiana. joining me at counsel table with judge porteous or my colleagues in the law firmab of bryan caved jenna schwartz, p. j. mendel and daniel o'connor. the majority leader has told you porteous impeachment is rated number of comp to show issues that are rather unique and profe considerable a concern among law professors and legislators des t alike. the three motions before you today are designed to put these issues squarely before you.chooo we understand that members can choose not to vote on these, in motions and you can in factn arc reject an article, a

mr. turley, that you do all want to call mr. levinson as a witness in your case. >> are we do, madam chair. we're prepared now, or he could be held over. >> i'm not -- i'm trying to let you all try your cases, and i think it's not appropriate for us to interrupt the house's case with a witness for judge porteous, so i'm going to let the house finish their case, and mr. levinson will just have to stay over until -- i would ask, if possible unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously, the government is going to pay for him to stay here until your case begins. we would ask that you put him on at the beginning of your case so that he is not held over through the weekend. >> madam chair, i'll just point out that the committee has previously instructed us there were other cancellations by the government including judge greendyke cho occurred right -- which occurred right before the start of the trial, and we're under instructions to also put him forward. it's having a disruptive impact on our case because our bankruptcy l

mr. turley that you did things for lots of judges. answer, yes i did. question, and some of thosees w en judges went to prison, did they not? d answer, yes they did. yo did question of all the judges youhe did things for, who was the most important judge to you ever? answer, thomas porteous. iii let me turn to article 3as on the involving judge porteous' bankruptcy wilkie was on the bench. the the evidence demonstrated throughout the 1990's and into 2001, judge porteous' financial pub condition deterioratedinos to largely due to gambling casinos m that by the end ofar march, 2001 when he filed bankruptcy, he had over $190,000 in credit card bank debt. his credit cards and think steegmans in the years preceding his bankruptcy reflect tens of dollars those of dollars in cash withdrawals at casinos. before discussing held judge porteous deceived the bankruptcy court, i want to stress for the years leading up to his bankruptcy, judge porteous t he concealed his debts in the financial statement that he filed with c the court's. littl let me show you an examp

mr. turley has argued to the committee that the house cannot identify any corrupt bonds that were set by judge porteous. that is not the point or what the articles of impeachment allege. rather, the evidence will demonstrate that judge porteous eagerly solicited and willingly accepted things from the marcottes which he knew to be inducements and rewards for his taking many judicial acts for the financial benefit of the marcottes. the evidence will show they were not social friends as you or i may conceive that term. they knew each other solely through work, and they formed a corrupt, mutually-beneficial relationship. in addition to setting bonds as requested, judge porteous took other judicial acts of significance for the marcottes. in 1993 judge porteous expunged the conviction of a marcotte employee, jeff due hand. this was worked out between louis marcotte and judge porteous, and judge porteous expunged the conviction as marcotte requested. in 1994 at marcotte's request, judge porteous also set aside the conviction of another marcotte employee, aubrey wallace. again, this was worked o

mr. levin and in the house case. >> that is correct, madam chair, not at this time. it's my understanding, turley that you want to call him as a witness in your case? >> we do not share. we are prepared now or we could be held over. >> i'm not -- i'm trying to let you all try your cases and i think it's not appropriate for us to interrupt the house's case with a witness for judge porteous, so i'm going to let the house finished their case and mr. levenson will just have to stay over. i would ask if possible -- unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously the government will pay for him to stay here until your piece begins, we would ask you put them on at the beginning of your case so that he is not held over to the weekend. >> madam chair, i'll just point out the committee is previously instructed us there was other kids asians by government including judge green greendyke and we are on instructions also to put in four to 70 pretty disrupted in fact in our case because our bankruptcy witnesses and lawyers must leave when we start our case we have a short time before they'll have to le

mr. hatch: now having said that, the defense counsel, they did the very best job they could. jonathan turley is an eminent professor at george washington university. i've known him for a long time. he's very innovative, very creative and some thought in this particular matter was quite innovative and creative as well. let me say, he's a very intelligent, very knowledgeable man. and his other cocounsel deserve great recognition for what they did here. i feel sorry for judge porteous. to rise to the dignified position of a federal district court judge and then have this happen after 30 years in public service, or more, i'm sure it's just an absolute, absolute pain and problem and damage to his reputation. i wish him well. i hope that he will analyze these things and make some changes in his life that will be better for him, for his family and others. he had a lot of friends down there in louisiana, and i think probably earned a lot of friendships. but the senate has ruled properly in this matter, and the impeachment should be upheld. and he should have been convicted of these -- of at least on