Comments (22)

Tom Betz wrote on March 27, 2007 10:13 AM:

Does anyone have details about how (or whether) this legislation affects the replacements for the Pearl Harbor Day 8 that have already been appointed?

nofltwlt wrote on March 27, 2007 10:19 AM:

The fired attorneys should be re-instated and all appointments should be cleared retoractively.

joel wrote on March 27, 2007 10:21 AM:

The law can't be made retroactive (to my knowledge), so it applies on a going forward basis.

It would be a remarkable gesture of good faith for the administration to submit its new nominees for confirmation, but I won't be holding my breath.

xoxo wrote on March 27, 2007 10:29 AM:

The bill imposes a 120-day limit, from the date of enactment, on any sitting US Attorney appointed under the indefinite interim appointment measure from last year (for instance, Tim Griffin).

rj wrote on March 27, 2007 10:51 AM:

What's to prevent "our leader" from issuing a signing statement when he signs the bill?

j swift wrote on March 27, 2007 11:01 AM:

Nothing rj, but adding a weasel-worded signing statement is one thing. Carrying out his imperial edict threat is another. Also unless there is a possibility that a veto over ride would fail, Dubya will have to sign it and bite his tongue.

Dubya is just screwed on this one I think.

Sholom wrote on March 27, 2007 11:21 AM:

OK, so I'm trying to find the language of the bill that passed, and I went to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00580:, clicked on "Text of Legislation", and found that there are three versions. Which one passed?

(Security code: hope)

georgia wrote on March 27, 2007 11:24 AM:

Now if only they'd enforce it. Has anyone explained how Paula Silsby has been serving for six years unconfirmed?

robert green wrote on March 27, 2007 11:43 AM:

paul

c'mon now. it's "its" not "it's". please correct. mistakes like this are so...LGF, ya know?

eric wrote on March 27, 2007 11:46 AM:

RE: Silsby

I just read this.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/070325usattorney.html

"Collins said. "I do not know why she hasn't been confirmed."

Maybe because you and Olympia forgot to call Bush and nominate her? Jeez.

Security Code:
poison

Robin L. Boerner wrote on March 27, 2007 11:53 AM:

Adios Nelson Cohen. The Kyle Sampson email from September 13, 2006 to Monica Goodling and telling her "This is what I intend to send to Harriet. Any corrections?" clearly lists Alaska as a state with vacancy without a candidate. Even though three weeks before they put Nelson Cohen in place.

In Alaska they put in Patriot Act Attorney Nelson Cohen on August 22, 2006. A few days later the FBI was rading Sen. Ted Stevens sons office. At the time Senate Pro Tem, 4th in line to the Presidency.

This brings up some interesting questions:

Does Mr. Cohen know he was never in the running for permanent USA? Is it because he could never pass Senate confirmation? Why?

Since he was obviously put here as a temp...what WAS he put here to accomplish? Was it related to the upcoming FBI raids? So far Ben Stevens hasn't been charged with any crimes. At least one object of the raid was given advance notice by news accounts.

What if anything was Nelson Cohen promised if he did what his Republican handlers in the Whitehouse wanted successfully?

I can think of a thousand other questions Alaska'a Patriot Act USA should answer the House and Senate under oath but that's a starter.

And, I for one cannot wait to hear some answers, or see him shown the door for someone who honors the Constitution, Civil Rights, allowing cases to go forward without playing delaying games, etc.

xoxo wrote on March 27, 2007 11:53 AM:

Sholom, you want

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.580.eh:

That's the version "Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.580.EH]."

Tom Betz wrote on March 27, 2007 11:56 AM:

j swift: I thinnk you can consider the version
here to be authoritative. It's the committee report, and as I have seen no reports that there is any need to reconcile the House bill with the Senate version, there would have been no floor amendments thereafter; and this report also contains an excellent summary of background information on the need for the bill.

joel: Thanks for making my day.

Tom Betz wrote on March 27, 2007 11:57 AM:

Arg. I forgot that HTML is stripped out

"here" =

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr058)

rugger9 wrote on March 27, 2007 12:43 PM:

Well, even though most of the RSRs voted to remove this, it was solely to save their political arses because they know that W will veto. The true test comes when W vetoes the bill and the override votes follow.

Just like cloture was more important in the Alito nomination, so it is for override.

smgumby wrote on March 27, 2007 12:59 PM:

I seem to recall a gov official stating that the US Attorney system BEFORE the revised Patriot Act changes was "unconstitutional" because it "limited" the oh-so-important unitary executives options. What are the odds W signs the law with a quiet statement that he will consider the law as "recommendations" instead of "requirements" in regards to US Attorney appointment?

Anonymous wrote on March 27, 2007 1:05 PM:

c'mon now. it's "its" not "it's". please correct. mistakes like this are so...LGF, ya know?

Typing "conversationally" should'nt be encumbered by pedantic antics. When all the comments are published in a book, they'll be proofread and corrected.
On a clean new "canvas".

BW wrote on March 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

Who were the 72 Republicans that voted against it in the House and the 2 Senators that did the same?

When more of the details come out about this, those votes are going to be albatrosses that need to be hung around their necks. I'd sure like to know if my Reps or senators were one of them.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Roberts and Brownback were those 2 senators.

BW wrote on March 27, 2007 1:54 PM:

Posted by:
Date: March 27, 2007 01:05 PM

c'mon now. it's "shouldn't" not "should'nt". ...

lol :p

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 27, 2007 5:24 PM:

The Congress shall enact NO 'ex post facto' laws . . . (Unless, of course, it involves snowflake babies or Terry Schivo) . . . .So it will not effect the eight inbred toadies already installed.

The Congress could pass a law allowing themselves to oversee the credentials and actions of any and all US Attorneys WITH specific appropriate defined actions to be taken by DoJ based upon Congress' discovery and reccommendations OR better yet specify judical review as another avenue examining US Attorney capablities.

vhzdtrlwb pmkaylejg wrote on September 16, 2007 6:58 PM:

pxekn lojzdygxf ajomibq fnyu hegknjwl hqcs khwg

ma15zda wrote on November 17, 2007 6:25 PM:

c3t