When asked her thoughts about Impeachment, AOC was already looking ahead to anyone other Republicans she can sling mud at. And she’s coming up with some wild stories.
She has been eager to see the President’s impeachment since, well, probably the day he won election. She’s certainly been one of the more aggressive advocates of impeachment since she’s come to DC.
‘Clearly momentum has built, we’re kind of knee-deep here in impeachment inquiry. [stammering] At this point, I think we’re beyond the question as to whether Trump has committed a crime, or whether he’s violated the Constitution, he’s clearly engaged in extortion and bribery. The question is how many other people in his administration have been engaged in similar — who have been implicated in this behavior, in this plot, rather, and that’s part of the question we’re getting to the bottom of today. It’s not just Trump, it’s who else is going to be implicated in this, and so, um, you know I think when it comes to what we’ve discovered, we’re at the point of no return, and it’s just a question of how many crimes have been potentially committed, and who else has committed them.
Hate to burst her bubble, but as an elected official, she ought to know and understand that this is NOT a trial, Trump has not had a chance to stand before a judge, and every American has the right to the presumption of innocence.
Occasional-Cortex has just tipped her hand. This is a process whose outcome was decided months ago when Democrats took back the gavel in the House, if not a couple of years ago.
The follow-up question (because Yahoo News is SOOO impartial) was about facism, which he had just spoken to Al ‘if we don’t impeach him he might win’ Green about moments earlier she got a softball asking if Trump was trying to intimidate witnesses.
Her rambling answer included such points as:
“He’s clearly engaged in witness intimidation.” Clearly? That phrase has a very specific legal meaning. Which of the three points does she specifically allege he has ‘violated’?
“He’s questioned whether they can or should be fired.” You mean, people who serve literally ‘at the pleasure of the President’? Didn’t Obama clear house and fire every last ambassador in 2008 without any Democrat objections about the Constitutionality?
But the ‘most clear and disturbing of them all’ is Steven Miller, who she claims has been outed ‘as a neo-nazi and a white supremacist’ [he’s Jewish. But she’s already explained why that is not to be considered defence against her accusations.]
She claims he is guided by the border policy by ‘eugenics’ and says that Trump ‘clearly believes in Eugenics given the fact that he has put and maintained Steven Miller in a position of power’.
She should be careful what accusations she levels at other people when she is NOT standing on the House Floor. Someone just might consider that ‘defamatory’.
And she’s already looking to weaponize the levers of government against another civil servant.
Because they have the unchecked power to do so. And so little ACTUAL work to do in the House.
Let’s all remember that this time next year when we hit the polls, shall we?
In fact, we have more direct evidence that she and other members in the squad have skirted election finance law than we do of any legal wrongdoing on Trump’s part.
Related…
