Judiciary Committee Votes to Start Impeachment Investigation of Federal Judge
The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously today for a task force to investigate whether to impeach Judge Thomas Porteous, who served in federal district court in New Orleans since 1994.
As our post Tuesday reported, Porteous is at the center of judicial and U.S. Department of Justice investigations alleging that he took cash, hunting trips and steak dinners from five attorneys and two companies that had 25 cases before him.
If the task force investigation moves into next year, Porteous would be the first federal judge to face impeachment in 20 years.
Investigators from a special committee of the U.S. 5th Circuit Judicial Council said they counted $80,000 in unexplained deposits into Porteous’ bank and money market accounts.
The documents also describe Porteous’ bankruptcy case, which he initially filed under a false name and pursued even as he continued to rack up gambling debts. Porteous weighed in (PDF) on the allegations in December 2007, citing Hurricane Katrina, the loss of his wife and alcohol and gambling addictions as complicating factors in his life.
Jonathan Godfrey, spokesman for the Judiciary Committee, said the task force will be formed in coming days and will begin investigating, hold hearings and possibly subpoena witnesses.
Godfrey said the task force technically will expire Jan. 2, 2009, when the next session of Congress begins, but members will likely be re-appointed and move forward.
Eventually, the task force will send its recommendations to the full judiciary panel for a vote on whether to impeach. If so, Porteous would face a trial in the Senate to determine if he can remain in office.
Get Updates
Our Hottest Stories
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
- Time Out: Federal Complaint Alleges Rampant Abuse in Texas Truancy Program
- In Westchester, Progress on Housing and the Specter of Another Fight
- Worried about the Mass Surveillance? How to Practice Safer Communication
- When Interns Should be Paid: A #ProjectIntern Explainer
- Walmart Accepted Clothing from Banned Bangladesh Factories
- Without a Final Map, New York Rebuilds on Uncertain Ground
- Rape and Other Sexual Violence Prevalent in Juvenile Justice System
- Objection Overruled: Top Prosecutor Must Testify in Wrongful Conviction Case
- Remember When the Patriot Act Debate Was All About Library Records?
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
- The NSA Black Hole: 5 Basic Things We Still Don’t Know About the Agency's Snooping
- Walmart Accepted Clothing from Banned Bangladesh Factories
- The Best Stories on the Government’s Growing Surveillance
- Worried about the Mass Surveillance? How to Practice Safer Communication
- Betting Against the Future: How Industry Loses When Interns Go Unpaid
- A Buyer's Guide to Safer Communication
- Remember When the Patriot Act Debate Was All About Library Records?
- Unpaid Interns Win Major Ruling in 'Black Swan' Case — Now What?
- How the NSA’s High-Tech Surveillance Helped Europeans Catch Terrorists







3 comments
Warner Todd Huston
Sept. 19, 2008, 5:16 a.m.
I thought you guys were going to be “non-partisan” at proPublica? Was it so “partisan” to mention this judge was a Clinton appointee… or are you trying to HIDE that fact?
Richard Tofel
Sept. 21, 2008, 10:37 a.m.
The article clearly states that Judge Porteous was appointed in 1994. We think ProPublica readers know who was president that year.
Warner Todd Huston
Sept. 21, 2008, 7:24 p.m.
I see. Well, then, if you are going to expect your readers to do their own research on every story, why bother to write anything at all? Why not just put out opinions instead of “news”? I mean, you can use that excuse you just gave to exclude ANY point of fact, after all.
Commenting on this story is closed.