Here's the Part of the WSJ Piece on the Death of Biden's Presidency...
Radio Host Got Brutally Honest on Why Black Voters Never Really Liked Kamala...
CNN's Harry Enten Breaks Down the Biden-Harris Switcheroo
Democrat Lies And Incompetence Make Conspiracy Theories Great Again
Musk Responds to Report Claiming He's Donating Huge Monthly Sum to Pro-Trump Super...
Tlaib Wants Netanyahu Turned Over to ICC During His US Trip
After Assassination Attempt, One Feature About Trump's Rallies May Change
After Writing Viral Op-ed Calling on Biden to Step Aside, George Clooney Issues...
You Knew Democrats Were Going to Roll Out This Narrative Once Biden Exited...
Democrats Learned the Wrong Lesson From the Attempted Assassination of President Trump
Chuck Schumer Finally Endorsed Kamala Harris and What a Mess It Was
Roll Tape: Radical Leftist Kamala Harris, in Her Own Words
California Kamala: a Calamity for Our Country
Ending the FTC’s War on Consumers
A 'Warren Report' Isn’t Going to Fly In 2024

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. 


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. 


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.


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


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.


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


Trending on Townhall Videos