Law Prof for Fed'l Judge in Impeachment Trial: Claimed Facts Wrong, Record Ever-Changing
A law professor representing a New Orleans federal judge in an impeachment trial before a special U.S. Senate committee came out swinging today as the hearing began its first day.
The U.S. House of Representatives impeachment vote last spring that led to the trial of U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. was based on faulty facts, contended Jonathan Turley of George Washington University. And at least one of the four articles of impeachment against Porteous, the attorney says, outlines a fact-based situation that simply can’t have occurred as stated, reports the Blog of Legal Times.
Meanwhile, the record in the case, Turley argued, is constantly changing “not by the week, not by the day, but by the hour,” citing new evidence he said he and colleagues on the defense team received Sunday night from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Turley also contended that those spearheading the judge’s impeachment, which is based on claims of corruption, made lunches with lawyers seem like a bigger deal than they were, ignoring that such meals are common practice and exaggerating the value of the meals at issue.
On the prosecution side, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is one of the impeachment managers, said Porteous clearly did wrong.
Additional and related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Unanimous House Committee OKs Impeachment Articles for Federal Judge”
ABAJournal.com: “Federal Judge Says Fellow Jurist’s Ethics Testimony Can Be Used in US Senate Impeachment Trial”
ABAJournal.com: “GW Law Prof Promises Airing of Undisclosed ‘Critical Facts’ in Judge’s Impeachment Trial”
Blog of Legal Times: “Impeachment Trial Raises Question: What is a Kickback?”
