Specter, O'Neill, Moschella, Sampson, Tolman

[Duer 157099]

What the hell is the real story here, and why isn't it still front and center?

And, with the Senate vote this week 94-2 to repeal this provision of the Patriot Act, does that mean that all of the "interim" USAttys appointed by Fredo will now have to be Senate confirmed, or did they slip under the clause?

Are there any hearings pending to find out WHO slipped this provision in under Specter's name (since he disavows any knowledge of it himself) -- was it Moschella, or Tolman, or Sampson, or O'Neill, or all of them?? (conspiracy anyone?)

Is it even illegal to "slip" legislation in? And is it true that it was "slipped" in *AFTER* the vote had already been taken?

That surely, if not explicitly illegal, must be at minimum treasonous.

No?

[peacetalksforall]

1. Slime. They probably had a party to celebrate their cleverness

when they slipped it in. And the taxpayers probably paid for it.

They are all a grand army of juveniles acting juvenile-criminal.

Yep, they brought honor and integrity back to the White House.

We doubted it then. And we have experienced six years of this slime with smell.

[Duer 157099]

2. Hopefully this is part of the investigation

This is part-n-parcel to the USAtty firing story, and should not be treated as a different scandal -- I hope congress can keep the whole thing in focus

[peacetalksforall]

4. Yes, you're right. It makes one wonder what other things have

been slipped in.

And I've heard one of the shills on corporate network news blame the Dems for not reading all the text.

It ticks me off so intensely that I think they should ask Specter to testify about which individual(s) ordered it.

[Cosmocat]

3. Specter ...

is one of my congressmen ... I THANK GOD my state finally woke up to how crazed Santorum was and put him out ... But, I am very disappointed that we don't get a shot at Specter next year ...

This guy was smart enough to mostly avoid the strong rhetoric, then when the tides started to shift about a year ago, he had about three situations where he talked all big about holding Bushco accountable as the chair of the judiciary committee, then when things got too complicated for the dullard MSM to be able to figure out or relay it, backed off and totally complied to what Bushco wanted, this being a case and point ...

ALL of these puke bags need to be sent home, but a guy like Spector who was so suave about it ... He deserves to be canned just the same ...

[onenote]

5. In truth, it wasn't really "slipped" in -- at least not in the way suggested

Let me be absolutely clear that I think that the Patriot Act provision relating to the "interim" appointment of US Atty's was terrible, both in its substance and with respect to the fact that it was not offered as a separate amendment.

HOwever, a few things (and only a few things) seem clear from the published legislative history of the Patriot Act reauthorization.

First, the provision relating to the appointment of US Attorneys was added to the legislation during the House/Senate conference to resolve differences in the versions of the Patriot Act reauthorization previously passed by the House and Senate. The earliest reference to the interim US Atty's provision that I can find is in the Conference Report of December 8, 2005. That report contains the new language as well as one-sentence explanation describing the provision as "a new section" that "addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of United States Attorneys" (this description it seems to me is misleading at best).

The House approved this language on December 14; the bill then moved to the Senate for consideration, but an attempt at cloture failed. It was not until March 2 that the standoff was resolved and the Senate passed the bill, which then went to chimpy for his signature on March 8.

In short, the US Atty language was not slipped in after enactment -- it was added to the bill before the Conference REport was voted on by either House and was sitting there for three months before the Senate acted.

Sure, its a big bill, but changes to a bill in conference, including the addition of new and often extraneous matter, is hardly unusual. It was there to be seen by anyone who looked (although, as noted the one sentence explanation was misleading).

There is blame all around for this, including on members of Congress and their staff who failed to notice or comprehend what this provision was even though it was there for three months.

[Duer 157099]

6. Thank you for the clarification

It is still awfully strange that even Specter claims he wasn't aware of this, though.

[Duer 157099]

7. I think we need to start adding all this stuff to the Research Forum

there's a thread there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x4701