Cory is a huge disappointment

 Are we supposed to think Cory has any leaderly - or otherwise - influence whatsoever in Israeli action?

That's laughable.  It's quite the other way around.

Ouch

 

click to watch

Having a hard time respecting Cory these days

 

Hakeem and Cory on the steps of the Capitol on Sunday

 

Resistance

Democrats are rushing to organize trips to El Salvador as President Trump refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of a Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to the country.

[...]

[Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.).] and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) are trying to secure GOP authorization to lead a congressional delegation to visit deportees at El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), Axios first reported Tuesday.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is leaving Wednesday to travel to the Central American country. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is also planning a trip, as Axios first reported.

[...]

"We have to do similar kinds of things for the others who are victims of this dystopian attack on our Constitutional rights," said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.). "This president is dangerous and we can't let this go."

[...]

The sentiment within the party about rallying behind deportees is not universal.

Some in the more establishment wing of the party have bristled at that approach, arguing it makes the party look frenetic without securing any concrete wins.

  Axios

Why? They're not securing any wins any way that doesn't look frenetic. Or any way, for that matter.

The second House Democrat who spoke anonymously, a centrist, called the deportation issue a "soup du jour," arguing Trump is "setting a trap for the Democrats, and like usual we're falling for it."

"Rather than talking about the tariff policy and the economy ... the thing where his numbers are tanking, we're going to go take the bait for one hairdresser," they said, likely referring to Andry Hernandez Romero.

Only if Trump tries to deport U.S. citizens, the lawmaker argued, will Democrats need to draw a "line in the sand" and "shut down the House."

Who is that asshole? They're not worth quoting on this important matter if they won't give their name. The tariffs take a back seat in importance to snatching up people and sending them to a foreign gulag. Did this person not hear Trump say that "homegrowns are next" or Tom Homan saying public officials are on the list?

Democratic aides and lawmakers told Axios they were bombarded Tuesday with calls from constituents and activists, similar to how DOGE and tariffs have dominated their switchboards in past months.

"It's a lot," one House Democrat told Axios when asked about the call volume they have received on the issue.

Said another House Democrat: "I just came from a round-table with two Dem activist groups and all they wanted to talk about was El Salvador."

[...]

It's not clear whether House Democrats will be able to get their formal delegation.

A spokesperson for House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.) declined to comment on whether he would grant Garcia and Frost permission to lead a CODEL.

Come on. We know he won't.

Garcia suggested Democrats may forge ahead anyway with something more informal, telling Axios: "We've been discussing already what the other options would be. Our intention is to go to El Salvador."

As it should be.

UPDATE 05:41 pm:

US District Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for violating his orders in mid-March halting the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The long-awaited decision on Wednesday from a judge President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly attacked puts the administration on the path toward being punished for thwarting court orders.

[...]

“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a 46-page ruling detailing his decision.

“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” he added. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

[...]

Boasberg says he wants sworn statements first from people who can attest to the officials making the decisions not to turn the planes around as they carried migrants to El Salvador on March 15.

Then, Boasberg says, if those statements aren’t satisfactory to him, he will ask for live witnesses to testify at hearings or depositions.

The judge could then, he says, ask the Justice Department to prosecute Trump administration officials, or he could appoint an attorney as a special prosecutor.

  CNN

Obviously, he'd have to appoint a special prosecutor.

UPDATE 07/19/2025:

He did something

 

Doing something

Y Around 6:00 pm Central last evening...

He says Senator Chris Murphy has been there with him all night.  

UPDATE 04:15 pm: He's still up and going strong. 20+ hours.

Booker, who until now had not stood out as one of POTUS 47’s more vocal critics, invoked the spirit of the late John Lewis, the legendary civil rights activist: “Tonight I rise with the intention of getting in some ’good trouble’ — I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able.”

The New Jersey Democrat said it was time to scream out that Trump’s dictatorial habits are not normal, and his all-night monologue — technically not a filibuster, since it’s not tied to a specific piece of pending legislation — is the most powerful way for him to do that.

[...]

It’s not going to alter any trajectories on Capitol Hill, but that’s not the point. Booker is responding in the right way to core Democrats, and others, who are also screaming that this is not normal, and who are desperate for political leaders who share their sense of urgency. If Lewis were still here, he’d surely give a thumbs up to this modern-day outbreak of good trouble.

  Philadelphia Inquirer

UPDATE 07:00 pm:  Strom Thurmond held the record for speech length in the Senate since the Civil Rights Act he filibustered against at 24 hours and change.  Cory Booker has broken that record and is still going at 25 hours.

UPDATE 4/2/25:

The Trump purge reaches far

 

And, more agency firings...

Burn it all down.

Surely we won't need the rangers once Trump sells off the park lands.

And all I hear from Cory Booker is that "we" can't become like "them" so keep finding ways to work with them.  Which, in practice, is lie down and let them roll right over you.

Trump would be thrilled to watch California burn.

UPDATE 02/21/2025:

Et tu, Cory?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

All we really needed

Cory Booker for President

Throw away the dog whistle and shout

(He must be thinking of "Real Housewives" of Jersey. )

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

I suspect it's partly a matter of Booker and Harris going after Kavanaugh and Barr during hearings.

And, he misspelled Booker's name.  So....

Kamala Harris Great Moments

Maybe gives you some idea why Trump, et al. hate her.

Also, watch Cory Booker's face.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Disappointed in Cory

And here I was sorry he had to drop out of the running for president.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

I'm really sorry Cory Booker is out of the running

Too bad

Whoever is the Democratic president: make Cory Secretary of State.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Cory Booker

Don't get me wrong.  I like Cory Booker.  I'd be fine with him as president. 

In fact, it would be a joy, because he always looks like a four-year-old trying to explain why he couldn't have been the one that broke the lamp.

Sit down, Corey

He wants Mueller to testify and "we should continue this investigation."  Corey, that's what an impeachment proceeding would do.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Friday called for the House to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump, wading into a topic that other 2020 White House hopefuls have so far been wary of discussing.

[...]

"Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: 'Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.' The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment," she said in an email announcing her position.

[...]

Democratic presidential contenders have so far been reluctant to address the question of whether Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump, fearing that doing so could energize the president’s supporters and isolate many of the moderate and independent-minded voters that Democrats are hoping to win over in 2020.

  The Hill

A terrible excuse for shirking their responsibility to the country

Elizabeth Warren: The Massachusetts senator was the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for impeachment, writing that not holding such proceedings “would suggest that both the current and future presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways”.

“The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty,” she tweeted. “That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.”

Julián Castro: The former housing secretary and hopeful for the Democratic nomination said he would support Congress opening impeachment proceedings, telling CNN “it would be perfectly reasonable for Congress” to do so.

[...]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: On Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez said she would sign-on to Tlaib’s resolution, in the wake of the Mueller report. “Many know I take no pleasure in discussions of impeachment. I didn’t campaign on it, and rarely discuss it unprompted,” the New York representative and progressive star tweeted. “We all prefer working on our priorities: pushing Medicare for All, tackling student loans, and a Green New Deal. But the report squarely puts this on our doorstep.”

Maxine Waters: The Californian who chairs the House finance committee – and who has been attacked by Trump – backed impeachment on Thursday. “Congress’s failure to impeach is complacency in the face of the erosion of our democracy and constitutional norms,” she said. “Congress’s failure to impeach would set a dangerous precedent and imperil the nation as it would vest too much power in the executive branch and embolden future officeholders to further debase the US presidency, if that’s even possible.”

Al Green: The Texas representative has pushed for impeachment since Trump fired the FBI director James Comey in May 2017, forcing two unsuccessful votes on the articles of impeachment. He continues to push on. “I call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America,” Green said in a press conference streamed on Facebook. “This rests solely now on the shoulders of the Congress of the United States of America.”

[...]

Nancy Pelosi: The speaker of the House [...] “Let me assure you that whatever the issue and challenge we face, the Congress of the United States will honor its oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to protect our democracy,” she told reporters this week. “We believe that the first article – Article I, the legislative branch – has the responsibility of oversight of our democracy, and we will exercise that.”

  The Guardian

Deftly managing not to mentione the word impeach.

Hakeem Jeffries: The New York representative who chairs the House Democratic caucus said voters were much more interested in issues beyond impeachment. “The avenue is not impeachment,” he said this week. “The avenue is further disclosure to the American people.”

Angus King: The independent senator from Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, said the decision to keep Trump as president – or not – should be taken by voters. “In my view, there’s an even better political process coming right down the road on almost the same time frame and that’s the elections of 2020,” King told CNN on Friday. “For Congress to go through an impeachment process would be, it would take probably 18 months, which would lead right up to the election. And it would be divisive.”

Refusing to do something so close to the election is how we ended up in this situation. And you think we're NOT devided already?

Pete Buttigieg: The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, another 2020 hopeful who has surged in the polls, said there was “evidence that this president deserves to be impeached”. But he also said it was up to Congress to decide whether to proceed, prompting debate over his true meaning.

Sounds pretty clear to me. Trump deserves to be impeached. It's up to Congress whether to proceed. Both are true. Both statements are clear. Where's the debate?

Jerrold Nadler: The chairman of the House judiciary committee said his panel would hold “major hearings” with prominent people featured in the Mueller report. The New York representative, who has subpoenaed the unredacted report, has discussed impeachment repeatedly as it would originate with his committee. This week he remained noncommittal.

“The idea is not whether to debate articles of impeachment,” Nadler said. “The idea is to find out exactly what went on, who did what, what institutional safeguards were gotten around and how they were gotten around, and then decide what to do about it.”

That takes care of Russian interference, but what about obstruction of justice?

Kamala Harris: “I think that there is definitely a conversation to be had on that subject,” the California senator and presidential hopeful told MSNBC on Thursday, “but first I want to hear from Bob Mueller and really understand what exactly is the evidence that supports the summary that we have been given today.”

Read the report.

Bernie Sanders: At a South Carolina campaign stop on Friday, the Vermont senator ignored questions from reporters about impeachment. Instead he tweeted: “While we have more detail from today’s report than before, Congress must continue its investigation into Trump’s conduct and any foreign attempts to influence our election.”

Fortunately, Bernie, there's a specific group in the House who can walk and chew gum whose duty it is to investigate Trump's conduct - and impeachment proceedings are oone Constitutional avenue to do that.

Beto O’Rourke: The 2020 contender and former Texas representative said he believed voters cared more about policy discussions than impeachment, telling reporters on Thursday: “I don’t know that impeachment and those proceedings in the House and potential trial in the Senate is going to answer those questions for people.”

See response to Bernie Sanders above, Beto.

Why is anyone acting like impeachment proceedings are a zero sum venture? If they conduct impeachment proceedings, they can't do anything else?

Elijah Cummings: The House oversight committee chairman told MSNBC on Friday the Mueller report revealed actions that were “at least 100 times worse” than those that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. “We’ve got to go against this, we’ve got to expose it. A lot of people keep asking about the question of impeachment,” Cummings said. “But right now, let’s make sure we understand what Mueller was doing, understand what Barr was doing, and see the report in an unredacted form, and all of the underlying documents.”

Impeachment proceedings would cover all those things.

Eric Swalwell: The California representative, also running for president, told MSNBC on Friday impeachment was “a conversation we have to have as far as holding this president accountable” but stopped short of saying whether he supported impeachment proceedings. “I’m for bringing Bob Mueller in and see what the evidence is,” he said.

Steny Hoyer: The House majority leader, from Maryland, said the Mueller report was “a damning recitation of lies, misinformation, and malfeasance” that clearly sets a basis for “probable cause that crimes were, in fact, committed”. But he did not mention impeachment.

What a bunch of bold and courageous people, our Democratic Congressfolk are.

Kudos to Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Al Green, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Julián Castro, and any others who are ready, willing and able to carry out their Constitutional duties and responsibilities to the American people.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Just say no to AIPAC

The liberal group MoveOn is calling on Democratic presidential candidates to skip this year’s AIPAC policy conference, citing the pro-Israel group’s links to the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu and charging that AIPAC has flirted with Islamophobia.

The move underscores a growing willingness on the left to criticize Israel and its staunchest Washington supporters, particularly since freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) bashed supporters of Israel in terms widely condemned as anti-Semitic.

“It’s no secret that that AIPAC has worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination, and inviting figures actively involved in human rights violations to its stage,” Iram Ali, campaign director at MoveOn Political Action, said in a statement provided first to Politico. Ali said the move should “give a clear insight to 2020 candidates on where their base stands instead of prioritizing lobbying groups and policy people who rarely step outside of D.C.”

MoveOn’s move may be largely symbolic, as there is no evidence candidates planned to attend this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, which begins Sunday. In past political cycles, presidential candidates have tended to appear at the annual conference during election years rather than off years.

  Politico

But their declaration not to attend does carry consequences with voters. Any bets on Booker and Gillibrand?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

So, if not Kamala Harris, then what about Corey Booker?

Given the nature of the Democratic primary field, Booker can't help but be the candidate of the establishment, as defined by the Clinton and Obama administration. More than a few people remember him chiding the 2012 Obama campaign for being too hard on the private equity industry. He has been a bridge between the Democratic Party and Wall Street—as a senator from New Jersey, he has hundreds of little masters of the universe as his constituents, who flee across the bridge and through the tunnel every night—but it is entirely possible that the Democratic primary electorate doesn't want a bridge to Wall Street any more.

That's his tightrope to walk, just as Kamala Harris's record as a prosecutor is hers. But he also is a charismatic presence in the field, and an undeniable source of energy. It's a better field with him in it. Let's see him go through the wringer. And if his presence keeps Joe Biden on the sidelines, that's all the better.

  

I suppose there is no perfect candidate, and I've already resigned myself (begrudgingly) to voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee, so I guess it doesn't really matter, but I still kind of like to know what we're getting.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.