On the recordDecember 14, 2010
while serving on the impeachment trial committee, I heard evidence that convinced me that Judge Thomas Porteous had a long history of corrupt behavior, deceived this body during the pendency of his nomination to serve on the federal bench, failed to meet the ethical standards we expect of Federal judges, and should be removed from the bench. The Senate was right to convict him and to bar him from future Federal office. In light of the precedents this body inevitably sets in deciding to remove a Federal judge from office, the Senate must be thoughtful about the implications of our decisions on future impeachments. In this case, I believe that is particularly true with respect to the issue of aggregation of the Articles of Impeachment. Although the outcome of this trial may not turn on that question, it is fairly raised here, and calls to mind the prospect that in the future, House impeachment managers might be tempted to package a disparate bill of complaints against a President or Supreme Court Justice into a single article-- hoping that added together, the charges will attract the votes of enough Senators to convict. I believe we should mark in this proceeding our view that the House of Representatives must be scrupulous about properly crafting Articles of Impeachment in all future cases.
