AOC Gets GOP Lawmaker to Walk Back His Words After Questioning If He Used 'Intimidation' Against Democratic Governors
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) accused Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) of witness intimidation during a tense hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday.
The hearing featured testimony from sanctuary state governors, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota. The state leaders clashed with Republicans over immigration enforcement, National Guard deployments, and states' rights.
"Charges of obstruction should be brought against each one of you," Palmer said, adding, "I'll leave that up to the Department of Justice." Ocasio-Cortez swiftly challenged him.
Palmer: Charges should be brought against each one of you AOC: Raising the prospect of charges against witnesses is a form of intimidation is it not?
Palmer: I strike those words pic.twitter.com/uXbu8HqeYO — Acyn (@Acyn) June 12, 2025
"That was intimidation of the witness," she said. "Raising the prospect of charges against witnesses is a form of intimidation, is it not?"
Palmer acknowledged Ocasio-Cortez's objection. "I strike those words," he said, inspiring a wink from Ocasio-Cortez.
During the volatile hearing, Hochul and Pritzker openly dared federal immigration czar Tom Homan to "come and arrest" them, accusing the administration of stoking fear and undermining local authority. Walz warned that such threats "undermine democracy."
At another point, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told Hochul, "The DOJ should prosecute you for murder," as she held up a photo of Laken Riley, a young woman murdered by a man who illegally entered the United States.
ICE officials claim Riley's killer had previously been arrested in NY but was released before ICE could detain him. The case was cited in the controversial Laken Riley Act, which requires the detention without bail of undocumented migrants charged with a crime.
The Governor's defense of their city's immigrant sanctuary policies comes amid anti-ICE protests taking place nationwide. Protests in LA have garnered national attention as President Donald Trump clashes with California Gov. Gavin Newsom over the deployment of federal troops to subdue demonstrations the Trump administration has described as "insurrection."
Originally published on Latin Times House of Representatives Immigration
© Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
16 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Pope Leo's First US Bishop Calls on Priests to Escort Asylum Seekers to Court: 'People of Faith Stand with Immigrants'
Rev. Michael Pham, the first U.S. bishop appointed by Pope Leo XIV, has called on priests, deacons and ministry leaders across the Diocese of San Diego to accompany asylum seekers to court on International Refugee Day, June 20. In a joint letter with Reverends Ramón Bejarano and Felipe Pulido, Rev. Pham announced that a group of clergy and faith leaders will stand in solidarity with migrants at San Diego's federal courthouse from 7 to 10 a.m. The letter described the migrants' situation as a "difficult predicament," noting they are being summoned to court only to face swift expulsion from the country. While acknowledging their presence is unlikely to change the outcome, they emphasized that migrants are treated with greater dignity simply by virtue of their being there. "Following the court appearances, the faith leaders will have a press conference so that the clear message that people of faith stand with immigrants and refugees can be delivered to the broader public," the letter stated. Rev. Pham is himself a former refugee. He fled Vietnam in 1980 at the age of 13 with his older sister and younger brother. The siblings spent time in a refugee camp in Malaysia before they were sponsored by an American family in Minnesota in 1981. His family was reunited in 1983, and they eventually settled in San Diego two years later. Pope Leo appointed Rev. Pham to be the seventh Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego last month, and his installation Mass will be held on July 17. Rev. Pham will be the first Vietnamese American to lead an American diocese. "I am deeply thankful to Pope Leo XIV who entrusted me with this portion of the Lord's vineyard. It brings an added sense of awe as I am a son to this diocese," Bishop Pham shared in a statement. "It is an honor to serve 'my home,' where I received my call and vocation to the priesthood more than 31 years ago. My priestly ministry has been greatly nurtured and enriched all these years." Originally published on Latin Times
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump's Final Appeal Denied in E. Jean Carroll Civil Rape Case: $5M Enforcement Begins
E. Jean Carroll (left), Donald Trump (right) President Donald Trump has hit a wall in his legal battle with writer E. Jean Carroll. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected his final attempt to challenge a jury's finding that he sexually abused and defamed her, a decision that leaves a $5 million judgment in place and sets the stage for potential asset seizures if he doesn't pay up. The court turned down Trump's request for what's called an en banc rehearing, where all the judges on the circuit would revisit the case. That move effectively locks in a prior ruling from December 2023, when a three-judge panel upheld the jury's verdict that Trump attacked Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her when he called her a liar decades later. That ruling also stood by the trial judge's decision to let jurors hear the 2005 "Access Hollywood" recording, in which Trump bragged about grabbing women without consent, as well as testimony from other women who accused him of similar behavior. The judges agreed that the evidence showed a pattern of conduct that supported Carroll's claims. His Legal Lifeline? A Long Shot at the Supreme Court Trump's team is now expected to try one last option: taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. They're likely to argue that the lower courts allowed unfair, prejudicial evidence and that the verdict could have broader implications for lawsuits against high-profile public figures. They might also revisit presidential immunity arguments, which courts have repeatedly rejected. But here's the catch: filing a Supreme Court petition doesn't stop the clock. Unless Trump requests and is granted a legal stay and puts up a bond for the full amount (plus interest), Carroll's legal team will be free to begin collection efforts. That could mean freezing bank accounts, garnishing income, or placing liens on property. The court is expected to issue its formal enforcement order within the next week or two. JUST IN: The full bench of the NY-based 2nd Circuit Court of appeals has *denied* Donald Trump's appeal of E. Jean Carroll's win against him in court. Supreme Court would be next/last stop. — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) June 13, 2025 $83 Million Still Hanging Over Him And that's not the end of it. In a second trial this past January, another jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll yet again and awarded her $83.3 million in damages. That case is still on appeal, but together, the two judgments add up to a staggering $88 million liability. Legal experts say this latest ruling may set a wider precedent for civil sexual misconduct trials. By reaffirming the use of "pattern of behavior" evidence, the court has made it harder for powerful men to block past accusations from being aired in court. Unless the Supreme Court steps in, and fast, Trump will be required to pay Carroll or face the real possibility of aggressive enforcement actions and a fresh wave of scrutiny that could ripple far beyond the courtroom. Originally published on Latin Times © Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Int'l Business Times
2 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Middle East Crisis Opens 'Major Schism' In Trump Coalition
Establishment Republicans have backed Israel's strikes on Iran, but the crisis is forcing President Donald Trump to walk a political tightrope between the hawks in his base and the isolationists who helped sweep him to power. Trump ran for reelection as a peacemaker who distained the foreign adventures of his predecessors, boasting that he would have little difficulty ending conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. Many Trump followers see Israel's offensive as the sternest test yet of his "America First" credentials, fearing that he will allow the United States to get dragged into the hostilities. The announcement of strikes was applauded by Mark Levin, a rightwing political analyst and longstanding Trump loyalist, who crowed: "The Iranians are about to get their asses kicked." "They think this is Joe Biden's administration, that they would get away.... Thank God we have Donald Trump as president of the United States," he thundered on Fox News. Beyond the government buildings and TV studios of Washington, however, Trump's Make America Great Again, or MAGA, activists oppose US boots on the ground abroad and warn against shows of support for Israel. "This is a sticky one for Trump, who has long pledged to end 'forever wars' and keep the US away from dangerous foreign entanglements," Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, told AFP. "Trump's America First base is divided. There's a strong strain of isolationism there, and yet Israel and efforts to tamp down anti-Semitism pull Trump in the other direction." Levin received blowback from Tucker Carlson, a leading voice on the American far right, who posted on X that his former Fox News colleague was "hyperventilating" to distract from the real goal -- regime change in Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, normally a foreign policy hawk, was quick to distance the United States from Israel's "unilateral" strikes, which hit uranium-enrichment facilities and killed top Iranian military officials. Trump himself had repeatedly insisted that Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons -- but made clear before the strikes that he was against military action. He appeared to have changed tack by Friday, with ABC quoting the president describing the attack as "excellent." That won't sit well with many of his supporters. Saagar Enjeti, a populist right-wing anchor on the Breaking Points YouTube show, accused Trump of letting down the "America First" isolationists in his base. "Trump has now praised Israel's strike, affirmed US material support, and Israeli media is reporting his public opposition was a disinformation campaign to mislead Iran," he said. "So in other words Trump, not Israel, has made a mockery of all of us wanted to avoid this war." Charlie Kirk, a pro-Israel online MAGA star and one of Trump's staunchest allies, went live on his podcast to find out how his pro-Trump audience was reacting to events. "The emails are so largely overwhelmingly against Israel doing this, I'd say it's probably a 99 to one," Kirk said. Kirk went on to ask how the "America First" foreign policy doctrine can "stay consistent with this," before concluding: "This, right now, is going to cause, I think, a major schism in the MAGA online community." Kirk asked his five million X followers if America should "get involved in Israel's war against Iran" and almost 90 percent of the 300,000+ people who had responded by Friday morning said no. Fellow MAGA activist Jack Posobiec warned before the strikes that they would "disastrously split" Trump's coalition. "Trump smartly ran against starting new wars, this is what the swing states voted for," he said. "The midterms are not far and Congress' majority is already razor-thin. America First!" US President Donald Trump (right) made clear that he wanted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to prioritize diplomacy with Iran over military action AFP
