I Swear the Democrats Are Ridiculous
A Decade Ago, the Start of the Trump Era
Up Close and Personal With David Mamet
PragMAGA
Mike Lee's Land Plan Is a Good Plan
Democrats Would Rather Embrace Crime Than Prevent It
California Senator Alejandro Padilla, Performance Artist
How to End 'Forever Wars'
Federal Courts Shrug at Deadly Wrong-Door Raids
If You Want to Empower Women, Let Them Keep Their Tips
Patriotic Cosplaying at No Kings Protests
Gas Station Heroin: The Synthetic Drug Crisis Devastating America
No, Fossil Fuels Do Not Receive Fat Subsidies
Missiles Abroad, Misinformation at Home: How Poor Education Undermines Support for Israel
Illegal Alien Crisis Compels ICE Raids
Tipsheet

Where's The Popcorn? AOC And Her Liberal Posse Pounce On NYT Over Hope Hicks

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler on Tuesday subpoenaed former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and White House Chief-of-Staff Annie Donaldson to testify before his Committee. 

Advertisement

The New York Times wrote a piece about Hicks and whether or not she'd comply with the congressional subpoena before her.

Naturally, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did what she always did: spin the story.

Apparently The Times piece wasn't substantial for AOC. She said the newspaper framed the story as a "Lifetime drama called 'Hope's Choice'" because she's weighing her options.

She seems to think the picture that The Times chose treats her "less equally" because it's a "glamour shot." And it's a theme liberals ran with. 

Advertisement

AOC agreed with former CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien's analysis of the situation, saying Hicks was being put on a pedestal. 

The talking points seemed to be the same across the board: liberals are assuming Hicks won't comply with the subpoena because other current and former members of the Trump administration – including Attorney General William Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn – didn't.

Advertisement

There's this whole notion that she can assert privilege. 

Advertisement

And be on the right side of history.

Then there are those who think she repeatedly covered for the big orange guy in the White House.

Advertisement

Seriously? When will Democrats give it up?

If Hicks decides not to testify, they'll be up in arms. If she testifies and they she doesn't provide them any intel that they're hoping – or convinced – she has, then she'll be someone who's lying for Trump. It's a lose-lose situation, in all honesty. 

It's time to move on but Nadler and his crew are just getting started.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement