Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the socialist “fresh face” of the Democratic Party, continues to impress the world with every brilliant and insightful comment that comes out of her mouth.
Not only is she the youngest member of Congress, at 29-years-old, she is also undoubtedly the most intelligent of the Legislative Branch.
This of course is all sarcasm, but one has to wonder, given how confidently she espouses bizarre ideas, if she does not actually believe all this herself.
While being interviewed on the Yahoo! News’ “Skullduggery” podcast, Ocasio-Cortez made it clear that President Donald Trump was more than vulnerable to a grab-bag of impeachable offenses,
“I think you could reach in a bag and pull so many things out that are impeachable of this president. I support impeaching this president.”
This is no surprise as the Democrats in Washington have been pushing for the impeachment of President Trump since the day of his inauguration. In Representative Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) case, the push for impeachment began before he even took office. It has become clear, over the last two years, that the Democrats are unable to cope with the presidential victory of Donald Trump.
Their attempts to sabotage his administrations with calls for impeachment look to be desperate attempts to redo the 2016 election.
However, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the esteemed bartender-turned-congresswoman from New York, thinks she has a bag full of reasons for impeaching the 45th president.
After the release of the Meuller Report and the collapse of the Russian collusion narrative, we can already get rid of the Democrat Party’s primary two-year effort to impeach the president. There was no Russian collusion. If there was no crime of Russian collusion, there cannot be an obstruction of justice. How can you obstruct a criminal investigation of a crime that did not occur? The Democrats’ biggest hope of impeaching the president deflated before their very eyes.
But that doesn’t slow down Ocasio-Cortez. She has more impeachable examples. In fact, a bag full of them.
When asked to come up with a mere three, she stated the following:
- First on her list is “emoluments.” This would be a clause that forbids federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments without congressional approval.Simply put, the argument is that Donald Trump still benefits, financially, from Trump properties. When foreign officials stay at, say, a Trump Hotel, the president is still receiving financial gain. This would be indirectly through proxies that he has put in charge of his properties. He has ceded control of his business stakes to others who are running it in his stead.
The spirit of this clause was meant to prohibit the loyalties of government officials from being purchased by foreign governments. For example, we would not want the husband of a currently serving Secretary of State to be receiving a half million dollars in speech fees from agents of a foreign government while the State Department was one of several voices to decide whether or not to sell a large stake in uranium production to said foreign government.
That might be an example of a violation of the emoluments clause.
We would also not want to have a non-profit charity of a Secretary of State, with ambitions to win the White House, accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments across the world. This might give the appearance that the charity was nothing but a pay-for-play scheme in which foreign agents paid the Secretary of State now, through the charity, and received access to the government or favors later on when that Secretary of State was elected to the office of President. Such a scheme might become even more blatantly obvious if said Secretary of State lost their presidential election bid and donations from foreign agents suddenly dried up to a trickle.
But this is all conjecture because we know that we would never have such a corrupt and crooked Secretary of State who would use the federal government to enrich themselves to the tune of a quarter billion dollars.
- Ocasio-Cortez’ second call for impeachment is “tax fraud.” Well that’s pretty interesting because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has not seen Donald Trump’s taxes because Donald Trump is not legally required to publicly release his tax records. Just as he is not legally required to publicly release his medical records, public officials are afforded privacy in certain areas of their lives. So, no. There is no evidence of tax fraud.However, when you are Ocasio-Cortez, the democratically elected socialist from New York, and you believe the mere existence of Donald Trump the billionaire is “immoral,” it’s perfectly understandable how you could come up with the idea that Trump MUST have some tax skeletons in his closet somewhere. He’s rich and he’s successful, so he must be a bad guy.
- Number three is probably her most compelling impeachment argument of all.It includes, “Number three… … … uh… … …” all the while staring off with a blank look on her face.
Remember, folks, Ocasio-Cortez has a “bag full of reasons” to impeach a duly elected president of the United States. There are so many reasons that she can just reach into that bag at any time and come up with another reason. When confronted, she came up with two bumper sticker phrases, emoluments and tax fraud, and finished up her argument with a deer-in-the-headlights look.
Excerpts of the exchange can be seen below via The Daily Caller: