Cory Booker Rails Against Sessions at Confirmation Hearing

Today U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ) went in front of the Senate confirmation hearings for Trump's Attorney General nominee Senator Jeff sessions (R, AL).

Booker set a new precedent because he is the first sitting Senator to denounce another sitting Senator in this situation.

Booker's main theme was civil rights and how Sessions might not be impartial as Attorney General.

Probably symbolic but many think Booker's testimony had merit.


Cory Booker Rails Against Sessions at Confirmation Hearing

In an unprecedented move, New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker testified against the confirmation of fellow Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the United States.

It marked the first time that a sitting senator has testified against the confirmation of another sitting senator for a cabinet post in U.S. history.

“I know that some of my colleagues are unhappy that I’m breaking Senate tradition to testify against the nomination of one of my colleagues,” Booker said, adding “But I believe, like perhaps all of my colleagues, that in the choice between standing with Senate norms or standing up for what my conscience tells me is bets for our country, I will always choose conscience and country.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah not so long ago he was praising Sessions for having the opportunity to work with him...sounds like someone wants to run for a higher office in 4 to 8 years.

a reply to: xuenchen

Probably symbolic but many think Booker's testimony had merit.

Did you see the person that testified before Booker? He totally debunked Booker's racist accusations.

Not that I don't agree with the things Booker spoke of in principal. It's how he related those principals to Sessions that turned me off, it was baseless. And quite honestly hypocritical, too.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

Probably symbolic but many think Booker's testimony had merit.

Did you see the person that testified before Booker? He totally debunked Booker's racist accusations.

Not that I don't agree with the things Booker spoke of in principal. It's how he related those principals to Sessions that turned me off, it was baseless. And quite honestly hypocritical, too.

Yeah ironic.

"Timing" is everything.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Trump and his choices seems to have brought out the many colors of hypocrisy flashed live across the www for all to see .

a reply to: ColdWisdom

How could he debunk what Booker testified to, if he spoke before Booker did!



What are you going to do, believe Sessions' promises to be a "new man" in this new office, or are you going to believe his past record?

I'm going with believing his record.

I'm especially concerned that Sessions said that he couldn't be sure that secular lawyers can "understand the truth". Not a good sign, not at all!

a reply to: xuenchen

I watched it, I can para phrase his testimony if you like.

"Hi I am Cory Booker. I know its unprecedented for a senator to testify against another senator, but I need to virtue signal to my crew because I am running for President in 2020.

So I worked with Sessions to get the Selma people medals, and he was cool with that.

But I had to be here today to take this unprecedented action, because Sessions is so unqualified for this position. Let me tell you why.

Did you all every here about slavery? How about Jim Crow, or the KKK? Yeah, they existed. A lot in the south.

Jeff Sessions is from the South. He is also white.

Sooooo......

Now that I have proven that he is a racist, let me add that we need someone in this position to bring us all together.

Now I know, people think that by constantly bringing up slavery and Jim Crow and focusing on skin color, that I and all other identity politic peddling politicians aren't bringing us together. But thats because your definition of bringing us together is wrong.

Bringing people together means we all need to acknowledge how privileged white people are. You must focus on race in every issue. Law enforcement. Race. Immigration. Race. Climate change. Race.

Once white people acknowledge that they must always apologize for their race, then we can come together.

Jeff Sessions has made the error of not viewing everything in a racial context. Yes I praised him on the Selma situation, yes he prosecuted the KKK. I could say that we just have political differences, but thats not enough, I must insinuate he morally isn't capable of this office.

So reject Sessions and vote for me in 2020, or you too are a racist"

I think thats a fair summation.

As I said in the Sessions thread, pure politics. Shameful for him to do that to a colleague who has always conducted himself with honor in the Senate. Clearly Booker fancies himself a candidate for 2020. And poor John Louis, they totally exploited his courageous history simply for political grandstanding.

Let Booker rant and rave... the Dems lack the numbers to keep Sessions out of the position, so this is little more than a dog and pony show for their constituents.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ColdWisdom

How could he debunk what Booker testified to, if he spoke before Booker did!

Must have been a coincidence.

Sometimes the same subjects come up at different times.

I found it ironic a man whose last name is "Booker" could barely read.

-Chris

originally posted by: kosmicjack
As I said in the Sessions thread, pure politics. Shameful for him to do that to a colleague who has always conducted himself with honor in the Senate. Clearly Booker fancies himself a candidate for 2020. And poor John Louis, they totally exploited his courageous history simply for political grandstanding.

It is especially shameful for him to do that against a colleague Booker, himself, was praising and elevating towards last year over the same issues he's now alleging Sessions is on the wrong side of.

a reply to: windword

I'm especially concerned that Sessions said that he couldn't be sure that non-secular lawyers can "understand the truth".

So if you will , please explain to me and others just what a non-secular lawyer is .

originally posted by: Christosterone
I found it ironic a man whose last name is "Booker" could barely read.

-Chris

The dude is from a very affluent home. His parents were both executives with IBM, he was private schooled and raised in a gated wealthy neighborhood, and he graduated from Stanford. Dumb, he is not. Possessing of a background in which he is qualified to talk about any of the plights of the average African American, he also is not.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Christosterone
I found it ironic a man whose last name is "Booker" could barely read.

-Chris

The dude is from a very affluent home. His parents were both executives with IBM, he was private schooled and raised in a gated wealthy neighborhood, and he graduated from Stanford.

And yet his reading skills were that of an elementary schooler...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Christosterone
I found it ironic a man whose last name is "Booker" could barely read.

-Chris

The dude is from a very affluent home. His parents were both executives with IBM, he was private schooled and raised in a gated wealthy neighborhood, and he graduated from Stanford. Dumb, he is not. Possessing of a background in which he is qualified to talk about any of the plights of the average African American, he also is not.

Usually guys like that tend to be the most radical racialist to try to make up for their privileged upbringing. I grew up around a lot of upper middle and upper class black folks who were 1%er's in every way, but will act like they are so down for the cause and struggle breaking out their daishkis and clenched fist hair picks to cover up their backgrounds and to try to fit in.

a reply to: Christosterone

He has tiny hands!

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Christosterone

He has tiny hands!

I'm just saying it's ironic a man named "Booker" is barely literate...

I guess it would be the same if I heard Trump was bad at spades....

-Chris

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ColdWisdom

How could he debunk what Booker testified to, if he spoke before Booker did!



What are you going to do, believe Sessions' promises to be a "new man" in this new office, or are you going to believe his past record?

I'm going with believing his record.

I'm especially concerned that Sessions said that he couldn't be sure that secular lawyers can "understand the truth". Not a good sign, not at all!

He can debunk it because all the world has pretty much known what Booker was going to testify to since ... oh yesterday.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: windword

I'm especially concerned that Sessions said that he couldn't be sure that non-secular lawyers can "understand the truth".

So if you will , please explain to me and others just what a non-secular lawyer is .

Sorry, I fixed my typo. Sessions said that he didn't think that he could be sure that a secular lawyer can "understand the truth".

A non-secular lawyer would be, say an attorney for the Catholic Church for example, who is bound by religious rule.