Tipsheet

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

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.