I like Cory Booker a lot but he needs to keep as much distance as possible from Trump...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I like Cory Booker a lot but he needs to keep as much distance as possible from Trump and his crime associates and that includes his family. He has to be smart enough to know they are all dirty.

The appropriate response is if the media accounts are correct Trump, Sessions, Kushner, Manafort. and Flynn all have legal exposure. He has a J.D. from Yale Law. He has to know that.

[SHRED]

1. He doesn't think Jared needs his security clearance pulled

That is odd.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. If the media accounts are true he should be indicted.

[geek tragedy]

3. That is why we have a special counsel nt

[mythology]

13. The key word being "if"

All Booker has done is say that the investigation needs to be done before indicting him on rumors.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. We run into an operationalization of terms problem but I would wager ...

We run into an operationalization of terms problem but I would wager the media accounts in the NYT and WAPO are substantively true.

[still_one]

4. Actually, that isn't what he said. This is not unlike what some falsely attributed to Pelosi

a week or so ago when some were saying Pelosi said, "impeachment is off the table" That wasn't what she said. She said it is too early to tell. We need more information to determine if there are impeachable crimes.

In a very similar statement, Booker said a similar thing:

"Booker refused to support those calls during an interview with CNN Sunday. Asked if supports revoking Kushner's security clearance, the New Jersey senator said: "I think we need to first get to the bottom of it. He needs to answer for what was happening at the time. It raises very serious concerns for me. And that could be a potential outcome that I seek, but I want to understand, at least hear from Jared Kushner, as well as the administration, about what was exactly going on there."

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/democrat-cory-booker-defends-jared-kushner-after-receiving-loads-of-campaign-cash/

[58Sunliner]

5. Yeah, let me hold my breath for a pack of liars. WTF??

Is CB going to trust a lying bunch of shits? Getting to the bottom could take months-revoke or suspend his clearance now.

[still_one]

8. That is simply not true. Investigators are examining what Kushner and a Russian banker, who doesn't

have a known diplomatic role, wanted from each other when they met in December. U.S. officials have said Kushner may have been trying to establish a direct line to Putin and a federal inquiry seeks to find out why he wanted one.

These are both Federal and congressional investigators, along with the intelligence community. Are they "all a bunch of liars"

Is Special Counsel Mueller a liar also?

but forgetting about that, do you think republican Congress is going to take away Kushner's security clearance because the Democratic minority said so?

They have to go through an investigation.

Paul Ryan pulled the same bullshit by asking Clapper to remove Hillary's security clearance. Clapper effectively told him to go f**k himself.

The republicans also tried to introduce a bill to remove Hillary's security clearance, and it went no where, because there was no justification for it. In spite of the media, and the republican's distortions and lies, it didn't occur, because Comey exonerated her.

This is the same crap that was pulled against Pelosi a week or so ago. Pelosi was accusedi of saying "impeachment is off the table". That was NOT true. Pelosi said we need to investigate if there are impeachable crimes before we proceed.

I am not sure what the motivation is for these intentional distortions, but it isn't a good thing for the country or the party

[58Sunliner]

49. Lots of straw men in your post that I did not allude to. So I won't waste my breath

on mis-direction. Kushner was not an elected official, yet he went to the Russian ambassador while Obama was a sitting president, as a rep for DT. That is a violation of the Logan act. Look it up. Actual issue. no straw man. Want to talk about crap? You trying to snow me because I am critical of Booker.

[still_one]

52. Just who do you think is going to pull his security clearance?

The republican congress sure isn't going to do it without hearings, and no way in hell will trump do it.

That leaves the Defense Intelligence Agency. So what's stopping them?

As an aside, I am no Booker fan, but it also is not accurate to distort what he said. He did NOT say that Kushner's security clearance shouldn't be revoked. He said Kushner's activities are troubling and need to be investigated if his security clearance should be revoked.

In reality, this is only political theater, because it will be up to the DIA to revoke his clearance, and the DIA is supposed to be non-partisan

[58Sunliner]

58. I did not distort anything. JK already violated laws. He should not have a security clearance.

Read my response again. The issue is not about who will pull his clearance.

[still_one]

61. I didn't mean you distorted anything, I meant those who are characterizing Booker as saying "Kushner

should not have his security clearance removed". I did not clearly specify that distinction in my post, and I apologize for that.

I would like to go back to your main point, the Logan Act violation. Why hasn't he been charged with that? Flynn also hasn't been charged with a Logan Act violation, though Flynn's security clearance has been suspended.

Where I was disagreeing with you, was your assertion that it could take months to have his clearance removed if they went through a Booker type investigation, and I don't buy that, because there is an active inquiry that has been going on regarding kushner.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/25/fbi_s_russia_investigation_now_focusing_jared_kushner.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jared-kushner-now-a-focus-in-russia-investigation/2017/05/25/f078db74-40c7-11e7-8c25-44d09ff5a4a8_story.html?utm_term=.fa788c8ec1a5

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. That sounds better...

We need evidence presented in a court of law to confirm the media accounts. As much as I loathe the Trump crime family that's how we roll in America. We don't put people in the hoosegow based on media reports.

[zipplewrath]

27. This ain't how it normally works though

If questions arise about someone with a security clearance, typically the clearance is suspended, and then they conduct a review to see if it should be re-instated. Not sure why Mr. Booker or anyone else would advocate for special treatment in this case.

[pnwmom]

6. Not true. He said we need a full investigation. What's wrong with that? n/t

[uponit7771]

15. +1, someone posted about the Russian word for crickets ... I'm thinking applies to a lot of the bash

... bashing post I've seen about Booker so far.

He never said Jared should keep is clearance he said there needs to be an investigation.

[mcar]

19. This!

Some people don't understand our government and the investigative system, it appears.

[still_one]

23. It also is a failure to recognize that the Democrats do not have the majority in Congress,

and unless that evidence is brought out in a formal process, they won't sign onto it, and even if they did, there is a good chance trump would try to block it

[uponit7771]

14. He thinks there needs to be an investigation BEFORE the clearance is pulled, why is that odd?!!?!?1?

What's odd is the Booker bashing

[58Sunliner]

59. What's really odd is CB not asking for a suspension of a security clearance from someone

who lied under oath and violated laws. That's odd. What is also really weird are all the people posting about Russian trolls because people have criticisms about CB. That seems like propaganda.

[uponit7771]

62. There's usually investigations before the penalty right !? What am I missing here?! tia

[George II]

47. That's not what he said.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. One of many reasons I don't trust Booker.

[pnwmom]

7. What makes you think he isn't? I just see the same-old, same-old.

People loving to complain that Booker isn't pure enough -- even though his actual voting record is among the handful of the most liberal in the Senate.

[still_one]

9. That is the motivation by some for sure, and they are also distorting what Booker said. Booker said

it is disturbing, and we need to have the determine the full facts, and then decide.

This is the same crap they pulled against Pelosi. They accused Pelosi of saying "impeachment is off the table". That was NOT true. Pelosi said we need to investigate if there are impeachable crimes before we proceed.

I am not sure what the motivation is for these intentional distortions. It is either people just flying off the handle without any critical thinking, or an intent to divide Democrats with a false narrative.

Either way it isn't a good thing

[uponit7771]

16. +1, they're distorting what Booker said and posting it over and over again ... this his how the shit

... started last year

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I am the last person to have a purity test.

All Democrats need to choose their words carefully when it comes to Trump and his criminal cabal.

[pnwmom]

12. Booker has been. There's nothing wrong with him saying

that he isn't rushing to impeachment. No one should be "rushing" -- as Rethugs want to pretend we are.

And he is saying things like this:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/booker.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the need for a independent prosecutor to investigate possible ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russian officials was "even more urgent" following the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.

"The president of the United States just fired the person who was investigating his campaign, which should set off alarm bells across the country," said Booker (D-N.J.). "The last time a presidential firing raised this many questions, America was in the middle of the Watergate crisis."

http://observer.com/2017/05/booker-trump-may-have-engaged-in-obstruction-of-justice/

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker said President Trump may have “engaged in obstruction of justice in the Oval Office” after bombshell reports surfaced Tuesday describing a conversation between the president and the former FBI director, James Comey.

SNIP

“These stunning disclosures point to the possibility that President Trump personally engaged in obstruction of justice in the Oval Office,” Booker, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “This must be a wake-up call for congressional Republicans to begin holding Trump accountable, to put country first, and to act immediately in a bipartisan fashion to get to the bottom of this.”

SNIP

Booker went further than some of his Democratic colleagues with his assessment. U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) was asked Tuesday night on MSNBC whether Trump could be charged with obstruction. “I hope you’ll forgive me if I duck that question,” Durbin responded.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/booker_says_he_wont_back_trump.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Cory Booker plans to vote against fellow U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general and will make his objections known at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing considering his nomination.

SNIP

The Senate historian could not find another instance of a sitting senator testifying against a colleague nominated for a position in a president's cabinet, according to a statement from Booker's office.

"I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague," Booker said. "But the immense powers of the attorney general, combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience."

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/in_a_92-6_vote_bookers_one_of_the_6_the_auditor.html

May 6 (before Comey firing)

"Russia's interference was unprecedented and dangerous," said Booker, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We need to get to the bottom of it and in order to give the American people full confidence in the investigation, it should be handled by an independent counsel who does not answer to President Trump."

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/booker_calls_trump_election_commission_a_voter_suppression_effort.html

WASHINGTON -- During the presidential campaign, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker called candidate Donald Trump's allegations of voter fraud "a blatant lie."

As president, Trump's commission on election integrity is "a thinly veiled voter suppression effort," Booker (D-N.J.) said.

http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/hell-no-caucus/

Among Senate Democrats’ broad opposition to President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, six stand out in having voted against nearly all of his nominees — and each senator just happens to be a potential Trump challenger in 2020.

The Democrats’ latest hell-no caucus includes Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, according to a POLITICO analysis of votes on 35 Trump nominees confirmed this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/black-caucus-town-hall-trump/

As frustrated as Sen. Cory Booker said he's been with the Trump administration, he said he's been "inspired" by those criticizing the President's policies and actions and encouraged them to continue.

"I've been angry. I've been outraged. I've been frustrated. I've been discouraged and disappointed," the New Jersey Democrat said. "But if anything I've been inspired. I've been inspired by those people who despite all the challenges, haven't curled up, shut up or given up."

"They've been standing up, speaking up and having continued to work. So let's inspire each other on how we respond."

[zipplewrath]

28. Pretty low bar

There aren't that many liberal/progressives in the Senate. Sanders and Warren are about as liberal as they come, and they are anything but "pure". And if you expand the voting record beyond his time in the senate, his "score" will go down. I'm not sure why this whole Booker thing came up in the first place, but it smells like another attempt at "inevitability" again. I'd think we'd learned our lesson about that at this point.

[pnwmom]

30. By his Senate voting record, Booker is just as liberal/progressive as either of them.

And that's the appropriate place to measure his relative progressiveness -- not the mythical United States where all the mythical people are much more liberal than the ones who ever get elected.

[zipplewrath]

35. Relative progressiveness

The key word is relative. That's the point. On an absolute scale, it's a whole different story. And it has been for a few decades.

[pnwmom]

36. And that's the only way to measure it -- not by measuring mythical Americans

on a mythical yardstick based on the mythical idea that non-voters are more enlightened and progressive than the ones who do vote.

[zipplewrath]

39. Well, actually

If ones intention is to shift representation to the left, one has to look for candidates on an absolute level to some extent. That of course is different from ones that are perfect. But it does mean looking for candidates left of the status quo. Just suggesting that they are the "best" of the status quo won't accomplish the larger goal. And in primaries (which we haven't even gotten to yet) that is the time for people to advocate for such things.

[pnwmom]

40. It doesn't mean distorting the records of our real politicians. n/t

[zipplewrath]

43. No, it doesn't

But it doesn't mean exempting them from criticism of their past actions and positions either.

[58Sunliner]

60. It's the 2020 election, and apparently Cory Booker is a front-runner and a bunch of dirty Russians

are trying to Benghazi him. Right here on DU. And the purity test for trolls is that not one word of criticism may be uttered about Cory Booker. Or you will have at least 5 people posting straw men and mis-direction while they put words in your mouth. And tell you it's "disgusting" to criticize an American Senator. True story-except for the fictional parts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. +1

[GBizzle]

17. I don't share your feelings towards Cory Booker. He's far too close to Wall Street for my liking.

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/wall-street-loves-cory-booker

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/23/cory-booker-mitch-mcconnell-get-the-most-wall-st-campaign-cash.html

And remember what happened last time we ran a Wall Street-friendly presidential nominee...

DISCLAIMER: Before any flaming starts, I will vote for Booker if he's the nominee in 2020 (as I voted for Hillary). I just hope we can do better.

[still_one]

20. Stop with Jill Stein bullshit already. "Hillary lost because she was a Wall Street-friendly

Presidential nominee". That is a complete distortion and misrepresentation of where she stood on the issues.

Hillary lost because 11 days before the election, Comey and the FBI decided to interfere with the election by sending a letter to the republicans in congress. The republicans and the media then proceeded to LIE about that letter by saying the "email investigation was being reopened"

That was NOT true. The letter did NOT say the email investigation, and there is no doubt from Nate Silver's analysis, based on his data, she would have won if it wasn't for that complete distortion of the facts.

Interestingly, even with that, if those self-identified progressives who voted for Jill Stein, had voted for Hillary, she would have still won, but they choose instead to ignore where she actually stood on the issues, and push their false equivalency bullshit, and contributed to putting trump where he is today.

Noam Chomsky said it best, "Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’"

"Legendary linguist and activist Noam Chomsky thinks that progressives and left-wingers who didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton this year have badly miscalculated — and will now pay a very dear price."

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

Hillary won the nomination by a large amount, and she won the popular vote by over three million votes

As to your false characterization that she lost because of her "Wall Street friendly ties", is that the reason that every Democrat running for Senate lost in those critical swing states to the incumbent, establishment, republican? Those Democrats, such as Russ Feingold and the others were NOT wall street pawns, and neither was Hillary.

[GBizzle]

21. Easy. No need for hostility. I voted for Hillary Clinton, not Jill Stein.

We're on the same side here. I don't know where that quote came from, but it isn't mine.

That being said, her paid speeches and perceived coziness to Wall Street didn't help her candidacy one bit.

If you think it did help her, or that it had no effect, then I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye. It's just not reasonable to pretend there was no effect.

I'm not going so far as to say she lost because of it, but it definitely hurt her. In my view, it was simply one out of many factors that put Trump in office. I think that's reasonable to say.

I think it will hurt Cory Booker too, if he is our nominee, though I can't say how much. He may win regardless, but I also care about more than just winning. I think that's fair.

[still_one]

22. "remember what happened last time we ran a Wall Street-friendly presidential nominee"

That is what you wrote. There is no gray zone here. When you say look what "happened when we ran a Wall Street-freindly Presidential nominee", you are effectively saying we lost because of that. If you didn't mean that, then perhaps you should edit your post

Incidentally, I am no Cory Booker fan, but this OP was not about Booker's position on wall street, it was about his position on whether Kushner should have his security clearance removed, and the problem I have is that people are distorting what he said. He did NOT say that Kushner should not have his security clearance removed. He said there needs to be a formal process to determine that. He happens to be right on that, but more than that, it won't happen unless it goes through a formal process where the republican majority in Congress will not sign onto that without that investigation. The hard evidence needs to be presented formally for that to occur, and even then, trump will most likely try to block it.

As for 2020, I could care care less, it is 2018 where we need to focus.

The only one pushing the Corey Booker speculation is the media, it sure isn't Booker. In fact Booker stated just the opposite.

[GBizzle]

26. That's a stretch. I see you've stopped making up quotes out of thin air.

"That is what you wrote. There is no gray zone here. When you say look what 'happened when we ran a Wall Street-freindly Presidential nominee', you are effectively saying we lost because of that."

Nope, that's not at all what I said. But thanks for playing!

[zipplewrath]

29. Anything can be blamed

The margin of victory in 2016 was so close, you can blame it on almost anything you want and the numbers will support it. We're talking about 100K votes or so over 3 or 4 states. The whole Wall Street/Corporate/Trade/Bank friendly image extended beyond just Hillary and to much of the democratic party in general, which is why we got hammered in the Midwest. Comey was Hillary's problem, but it had vastly less to do with other candidates. The general standing of the party had alot to do with the larger losses.

It is a valid question to ask whether Booker will be subject to the same perception problem, but more importantly can the democratic party in general shake this perception? If they can't, the candidate themselves may have no way of avoiding this reputation, regardless of who it is.

[George II]

37. Exactly - how long after someone like Elizabeth Warren announces her candidacy....

...until we see OPs here saying, to the effect, "remember the last time we ran a woman candidate?", or even "remember the last time we ran a white candidate", etc.

The thing is, many people who may not be interested in the details throw out terms like "Wall Street friendly" without really knowing what that means.

[uponit7771]

48. +1

[pnwmom]

31. "Wall Street" doesn't fund campaigns. Individual people do.

Your position makes as much sense as saying we should never vote for someone from New Jersey, because lots of people in that small state work in NYC.

When donations are reported, the government adds up all donations given by employees in a company and reports that number as if that company itself gave it..

So they'll say XXX donations came from XXXX bank. Well, my sister is a regular employee at a bank based on Wall Street. She doesn't make a whole lot of money but when she gives to any politician her donation gets lumped in on reporting forms with all the others at her company. So reporting the donations by company makes little sense.

In the case of "Wall Street" or "big banks," the reason Booker has many individual donations is that northern NJ is the bedroom community where many of the ordinary people who work in NYC live. NYC is where the financial firms are. And they employ many more people like my sister than they do like the people YOU think of as "Wall Street."

[George II]

33. What are you trying to say here? Do you have any idea of how Federal Campaign Finance laws work?

Any idea of the background behind candidates' financial reports? Any concept of what "Wall Street" is in the real world?

[Cary]

34. What is your priority?

1. Ideological purity; or

2. Electing Democrats?

Vote Democratic!

[Demsrule86]

24. I agree. Say nothing.

[ismnotwasm]

25. Now this I can agree with

The scorched earther political-opinion bandwagon is still out in force, and seem to forget there a difference between criticism with an informed opinion and hyperbolic bullshit. I think Trump is a walking toxic political waste dump, although I understand he Is the president, and there is no complete avoiding him, There should be no waivering of purpose from any Democrat. No normalizing this situation.

[TheBlackAdder]

32. I know someone who interned with him. Their response, "I saw. And rightfully so. That's disgusting!"

.

My text that started it, "Your bud, Cory B. is sheltering prez and Kush after receiving piles of campaign cash from them."

They already knew about it.

.

[pnwmom]

41. Nonsense. Kushner used to be a Democrat and he gave the $5200

to Booker that anyone can give in the primary/general campaign.

But since then he has left the party and any ties he had with the Democrats, including Booker, are history.

[TheBlackAdder]

42. Yeah, Trump, Kushner, Ivanka all used to be Democrats.

Last edited Tue May 30, 2017, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

.

In NJ politics, all congress and senate critters are plugged into PhRMA, Oil and Wall Street.

Just because those donations were from a few years ago, loyalties and business takes precedence.

There is a fine division between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to this. We had a Dem who helped out the economic crash by working with Republicans to weaken regulations. I've seen the other comments trying to justify this, when in reality Booker is progressive on some issues and a corporatist on others. I, and my family, voted for him.


===

The non-disclosed communications with Russians, the backdoor access to the Kremlin should immediately warrant a temporary revocation of one's security. I took some US Intel courses, and the second there is a whiff of impropriety, security clearance gets pulled until things are straightened out. Kushner should be held to no less of a standard as the rest of the IC. Booker knows this.

.

[pnwmom]

44. No, loyalties don't take any precedence AFTER you leave the party.

That's just nonsense.

And the differences between the Dems and the GOP are stark.

[TheBlackAdder]

50. Sure, and there's a tooth fairy too.

.

Cuomo Appoints Trump Adviser After Huge Donations

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/new-york-gov-cuomo-hires-trump-adviser-after-huge-donations/



According to state campaign finance records, the couple gave $95,000 to Cuomo’s campaign on Dec. 1, 2016. Those donations came a few months after Cuomo selected Vornado as one of the firms to develop a separate, new 255,000-square-foot train hall to house passenger facilities for the Long Island Rail Road and Amtrak, according to a Cuomo press release.

The Roths’ $95,000 contribution to Cuomo was a fraction of the more than $344,000 the pair has given to Cuomo’s campaigns since 2007 — with three-quarters of that cash haul coming since Cuomo was sworn in as governor in 2011.

Roth is not the first Cuomo appointee with links to Vornado. In 2015, Cuomo appointed Michael Fascitelli as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He had previously been a partner at Goldman Sachs and a president and CEO of Vornado Realty Trust and remains a trustee of that entity.

.

[pnwmom]

51. I don't understand and the article doesn't explain how this couple

were able to circumvent campaign finance regulations.

I can't find those donations here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/advanced

But I've been defending Cory Booker, not Andrew Cuomo.

[TheBlackAdder]

53. Well, there ya go. Reflect a little.

[HarmonyRockets]

38. ...

[pnwmom]

46. Were you also one of the people who loved to post photos of Hillary

at DT's wedding?

DT used to be a Democrat. Past photos of people being friendly with him mean NOTHING.

[Jamaal510]

54. I saw people post those

all the time in TheGrio's FB comments section in a desperate attempt to prove that she's an undercover racist, and that the two of them are secretly friends. People will believe anything.

[pnwmom]

55. A lot of those postings, it turns out, may have been part of

the Russian propaganda effort, which micro targeted African Americans with FB posts designed to discourage voting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Guilt by photo association is a unfair way to argue.

[L. Coyote]

57. I don't know how the distance could be any greater.