YOU ARE not going to believe this if you are following the USAs scandal

[hang a left]

snip>

President Bush nominated Ms. Paulose on August 3, 2006 after appointing her as the interim US Attorney. News reports state that she was unanimously confirmed by the US Senate on December 9, 2006:

The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Rachel Paulose as the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota early Saturday.

The 33-year-old Paulose, of Eagan, had been acting U.S. attorney for about nine months. President Bush nominated her for the permanent job about four months ago.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said in a news release that he urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow full a Senate vote on Paulose before the Senate adjourned early Saturday.

Paulose met Wednesday with outgoing Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., and got his support. However, it appeared that the Senate session would end before it took up her confirmation.

But what did the Senate do after receiving her nomination on August 3, 2006? Nothing. The Judiciary Committee did not vote on her nomination. They did not send her nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Instead, on the last day of the 109th Congress, Bill Frist, then Senate Majority Leader of the Republican controlled Senate, asked that the Judiciary Committee be "discharged" from further consideration of Ms. Paulose's nomination.

Well, there's a reason they used such an unusual way to get someone confirmed. You see, the White House was panicking that the Senate would put 2 + 2 together.

Continue reading "Here's Why They Used a Discharge Petition to Approve Paulose" »

snip>http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/

[blogslut]

1. It. Just. Gets. Worse.

It's all so disgusting.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. I'll try putting this at the top of the thread:

it now has 53 recs, and the basic premise of the OP is entirely FALSE. Untrue.

Palouse was in fact, confirmed by the Senate in a process that that is used for the vast majority of confirmations.

The assertion that dirty tricks were used to confirm her is just a flat-out falsehood.

[The Doctor.]

64. The 'budge' is appropriate.

Thanks for the mitigation and stemming of unfounded commentary.

I intend to research this myself, as should everyone.

I cannot blame people for spurious responses however... in due consideration of this administration, I discount nothing.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. read the thread

and you'll see that she was confirmed by unanimous consent on the floor of the Senate.

The breathless title of this thread indicates that something really unusual happened, and that's just not the case.

[The Doctor.]

67. I have.

And I have seen many very feasible citations.

The only thing I haven't done is go look at the vote myself. Other than that, I'm fairly well convinced you are right.

"The mitigation of alarm is a great part of reason."

[MonkeyFunk]

69. well

there wasn't a vote. Not a roll-call vote, anyway. A whole lot of Senate business is passed by "unanimous consent" which means "unless anybody objects, this sucker's passed". And nobody objected.

Gah, I hate being in the position of defending Palouse or any of these schmucks, but I have an unusual fondness for the truth.

[The Doctor.]

71. You and I both, that's why I'm here.

A-men brother MonkeyFunk.

[MonkeyFunk]

74. Thanks Doc

:thumbsup:

[habitual]

2. k+r

[sellitman]

3. Did any Dems vote against her?

Are they paying attention at all?

[druidity33]

4. there was no vote... read the article. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

26. The article

is very poorly written.

Evidently, the nomination was discharged from the Judiciary Committee, and then brought to the full Senate, where she was approved unanimously.

[aquart]

36. That's what confuses me.

Paulose was unanimously confirmed by....nobody?

[MonkeyFunk]

39. She was confirmed

by voice vote "without objection" along a few hundred other house-keeping issues, including tons of appointments and military commissions.

[w4rma]

5. No vote. "Discharged" from voting. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

25. NO

that means the judiciary committee didn't vote, and that the nomination then went to the full Senate.

[druidity33]

43. basically they slipped it in... nt

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Not really

at least not any more so than the few hundred other nominations they dealt with around that time.

Certainly Mark Dayton would've known what was going on with it and could've objected and called a roll call vote.

[frogcycle]

46. and on that particular Saturday morning

the "full senate" probably consisted of about 2 or 3 pugs and the janitor

[hang a left]

6. These bastages used the illegally inserted patriot act provision

to seat these people!! I just cannot believe the gaul of these people. Every single day there is another outrage. It's gonna take 100 years to correct their wrongs. PLEASE PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION!!

[Eurobabe]

17. Bastages! I haven't heard that word for ages...

makes me laugh. Yes these hooligans are fargin bastages!!

[The Wizard]

61. Iceholes too (nt)

[Solly Mack]

7. Oh I believe it

The machine can't work without its cogs ("patronage opportunity.")

[Kurovski]

8. K&R. (nt)

[habitual]

9. i got a question.

i just read this thread on DU with a link to a news story about Norm Coleman and his contacting Paulose about his concern, and he wrote this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2802268

"As you know, your confirmation to be U.S. attorney enjoyed bipartisan support and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate because of your outstanding qualifications," he wrote. "At the same time, there are clearly managerial issues that need to be acknowledged and rectified."

Does this mean that he is lying? Did Paulose actually get confirmed at a later date? i'm confused as to the truth of this matter.

Edit to add link.

[hang a left]

10. Yep.. he is lying and trying to lay some type of record I would think.

She was never confirmed by the Senate. They all lie like rugs.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Where do you get that she was never confirmed?

A Discharge Petition merely stops the committee from bottling up a vote. It then goes to the full Senate, where she was apparently confirmed unanimously.

[Na Gael]

11. Can you say-

"Collusion?"
How about-
"Subversion?"

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. On the same day that an article gets published reporting that white

collar crime investigations are taking a backseat to the war on terror.

Things that make you go hmm...

[hang a left]

13. tell me you didn't hear that...nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x274181

[hang a left]

15. OMG Backlash, you really need to post that article in a thread of itself.

People need to know what has been sacrificed for politics only. Don't give me or anyone else the bs about the wot, everyone knows that is a huge farce. Or at least they should.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. The thread is already on the Greatest Page.

Took a little doing, but we got the required number of recommendations.

Going a little on a tangent, I have a good friend who was part of the Republican craze these last few years. The most respect we gave to each other was not talk about politics for several years. But, when it was apparent that the Repubs were incredibly corrupt, he started saying that it was a Washington problem which the Democrats also had when they were in power. To which I replied that he shouldn't be complaining about corruption on a national level if he wasn't willing to see it and fight against it when it was in his own backyard.

Shut him up quick.

[hang a left]

22. Right on raisin!!!

I bow before you.

[hang a left]

23. Oh crap....I forgot this was my thread LOL

too funny...

still I think you oughta post yours in a seperate. If you know what I mean. Really, sometimes the details get obscured. Think abooudit? Come on Backlash what you gotta say is importand now. The family says so :)

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. I have posted in the past, but find it's easier if I can show examples

at the national level, what I'm experiencing on a local level. Because the reality is, that I think that most anglo Americans in this community are okay with it. Reminds me of that Stephen King movie, "It." It's an evil thing that shows up every number of years that does unspeakable things, and the village just goes on its business pretending everything is normal and upright. It's really weird.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

16. K&R

liars to the core.

[hang a left]

18. scandalous

is it not??

[CrazyOrangeCat]

20. thirteen years of zero oversight

and this country is now rotten to the core. unbelievable.

[hang a left]

21. Lot a work to be done eh?...

[LSK]

27. I see no confirmation on Dec 9 of her

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm

[MonkeyFunk]

29. It was likely a voice vote

not a roll call vote.

[LSK]

32. Thomas shows records on Dec 8

"The Senate Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the following nomination and the nomination was confirmed:

Rachel K. Paulose , of Minnesota, to be United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota for the term of four years. "

http://www.thomas.gov/home/r109query.html

So you are right.

[Norquist Nemesis]

37. Also from Thomas, Discharged by "Unanimous Consent"

Nomination: PN1905-109
Date Received: August 03, 2006 (109th Congress)
Nominee: Rachel K. Paulose, of Minnesota, to be United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota for the term of four years, vice Thomas B. Heffelfinger, resigned.
Referred to: Senate Judiciary


Legislative Actions
Floor Action: August 03, 2006 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Floor Action: December 09, 2006 - Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Floor Action: December 09, 2006 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.
Organization: Department of Justice

Control Number: 109PN0190500

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Here's the Congressional Record

of Dec. 8th

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S11729&dbname=2006_record

[LSK]

41. thanks

I always have the worst time linking from thomas.

[jwirr]

28. Is there anything those of us who live in MN can do to get her fired?

We do not want her.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. Arlen Specter should get grilled over this one

Why didn't he do anything about her nomination? Did Frist confer with him about the discharge?

Where was Arlen Specter?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. but GOP Congress used to rubberstamp Bush/Cheney wishes

Mr Specter was too frightened to say no

[never cry wolf]

31. Question about the proceedure, what is a discharge petition?

Ok, so Frist kicks it out of the Judiciary Committee, then what, did it go straight to the floor? Was it a voice vote? I know they use the "in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it," gambit but it could not have been unanimous could it?

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Yes

a Discharge Petition takes something out a committee and brings it to the floor.

If nobody asked for a recorded vote, then it likely WAS unanimous.

If it was the last day of the session, with a lot of things to get through, the confirmation of an already-serving US Attorney probably wasn't something they wanted to spend a lot of time on.

[never cry wolf]

35. That makes sense, thanks. Can you imagine all the nasty shit they passed on the last day?

Egads, our dems should have demanded recorded vote on everything, asked for quorum calls anything they could do to run out the clock on the bastards last few hours in power.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. well

after 33 recs, I guess this nonsense isn't going away.

But she WAS indeed confirmed by the Senate, despite what many people here are saying.

[frogcycle]

47. by whomever was present early Saturday morning

[MonkeyFunk]

48. presumably

it was a quorum.

[frogcycle]

51. perhaps

although the fine print in the rules say that "two-thirds of members present" can suspend the rules - which presumably includes the quorum rule...

whatever... it was rushed thru on the last day when people wanted to catch planes

[MonkeyFunk]

54. yes

it was rushed through along with several hundred other appointments.

Normal business for the Senate.

The implication that she somehow was never confirmed by the Senate, though, is entirely false.

[MagickMuffin]

45. Norm Coleman was a $1500.00 SELLOUT

Paulose gave Norm a whopping fifteen hundred dollars to his campaign. What a cheap whore...

I read about this when the story broke, don't remember the article but the writer tried to make it look as though the 110th congress approved her. After reading more on the story I realized that this actually took place in December '06.

[rasputin1952]

49. I saw Coleman on the Senate floor talking about stem-cell research...

when he said he was "no scientist", he wasn't kidding!

Sorry MN DUer's, you have a real moran in the Senate on the R side...:scared:

Looks like it is a "stick, meet stupid" deal w/him...:D

[annabanana]

50. A stunning find!

And one more astounding scandal for the long, long list of
Things to Do.

[garybeck]

52. Did she get her legal license from Pat Robertson University?

I heard, I think on Olbermann, that some of these "lawyers" had JUST gotten their license before being appointed, and that many of them had "graduated" from Pat Robertson University.

Something doesn't smell right. I'd like to learn more about this university and their accredations.

[grannylib]

53. I believe she is one of the 150 who came through this "tier 4" school

Tied for 136th place out of "law schools"
Reich wing theocracy in action.
Disgusting. Pathetic. Corrupt. Typically rePiglican.

[MissMarple]

56. St. Thomas, I think. She is a wingnut Catholic like Brownback, Novak, etc. n/t.

[KoKo]

59. No...she's a Yalie. Maybe of the Bush mold.....n/t

[randome]

55. Okay. Good find. But...

...it sounds like they didn't break any rules or laws, right? They simply used the system to their advantage. Don't get me wrong. What they did is deceitful and unethical. But I have to think our outrage at the Repukes should be reserved for actual law-breaking.

Someone correct me if I have this wrong.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. I'm not even sure it was deceitful or unethical

I honestly have no idea if this is standard procedure or not.

[frogcycle]

58. I'm sure it is

lots of stuff gets rammed through

One of the reasons that hammering people over a single vote is so absurd.


The reference above that she "received unanimous confirmation" is what is rather deceitful - what she actually received is unanimous "not important enough for a big shot like me"

[MonkeyFunk]

60. eh....

yeah, sorta.

But she WAS approved by unanimous consent, but yeah, it doesn't mean 100 Senators went on the record supporting her.

I agree with you that it's silly to slam Senators over single issues like this, because the Senate can be a complicated place, and it's easy to mis-use stuff like this.

But I'm still a little surprised at all the recs for this, and the implication, uncorrected by the OP that she was not confirmed by the Senate.

[lonestarnot]

63. Their fucking days are numbered.

[pinto]

66. Apparently she was confirmed (Star Tribune, 12/10/06) :

"Rachel Paulose of Eagan became the federal government's top prosecutor in Minnesota when the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed her early Saturday."

Paulose confirmed as U.S. attorney
Rachel Paulose, 33, named the federal government's top prosecutor in Minnesota, is the first woman to hold the job.

By Chris Serres, Star Tribune

Last update: December 10, 2006 – 12:38 AM

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/864917.html

[Disturbed]

68. She will be replaced in '09.

In the meantime she will probably do a lot of damage in MN.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. Yes she was confirmed

via Unanimous Consent.

The assertion in the OP is false.

[Horse with no Name]

72. Unanimously confirmed early Saturday eh? Kind of like this one?

Except this happened on Palm Sunday when Congress was on recess.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/sb686_vote.htm

>>>snip
Terri Schiavo Act
On Palm Sunday, three Republican Senators voted on SB686, a special bill directing a Federal Judge in Florida to hear an appeal from Terri Schiavo's parents regarding the 18 March removal of her feeding tube.

The Sun Sentinel reports that there were three Senators present for the "unanimous" vote: Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN ; Senator John Warner, R-VA ; and Senator Mel Martinez, R-FL.

The bill then moved to the House, where a simple majority of members was required for a quorum (there are 435 members) and where suspension of the rules required a two-thirds vote of those present. Democrats forced a roll call vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

73. No

Congress was not on recess when this vote occurred.

There's no way to know how many Senators were on the floor, but the vote occurred just before the holiday recess.

[cosmicdot]

75. can't find the vote listed

December 2006 votes are at the top

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm



found this doing a Thomas search
````````````````````````````````

Nomination: PN1905-109

Date Received: August 03, 2006 (109th Congress)

Nominee: Rachel K. Paulose, of Minnesota, to be United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota for the term of four years, vice Thomas B. Heffelfinger, resigned.

Referred to: Senate Judiciary

Legislative Actions

Floor Action: August 03, 2006 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Floor Action: December 09, 2006 - Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Floor Action: December 09, 2006 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.

Organization: Department of Justice

Control Number: 109PN0190500

````````````````````````````````````````````````
so, why isn't the vote listed or a vote number assigned?


Following a hastily arranged meeting with Paulose on Wednesday, outgoing Sen. Mark Dayton, D.-Minn. announced his support for the nominee.

why-oh-why have they enabled Bu$h's illegitimate presidency?

[MonkeyFunk]

76. There was no roll-call vote

it was a unanimous consent vote.


The original post is bullshit.