AOC Suffers Double Blow As Socialism Takes Over Dem Party
New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and socialism have taken quite a few hits in the past week. Just before New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani arrived in Washington for his first meeting with President Donald Trump, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution condemning what it called the “horrors of socialism.”
“A yes vote on this resolution should be a relatively straightforward, easy decision. It simply states that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America,” Republican Arkansas Rep. French Hill said.
The measure passed in a bipartisan vote of 285-98. Among the 86 Democrats who backed it were 14 members from New York and New Jersey, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who endorsed Mamdani only in the final moments of the mayoral race.
Advertisement
Other New Yorkers who supported the resolution included Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres, Queens Reps. Greg Meeks and Grace Meng, and Long Island Reps. Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi.
Suozzi made a point of distancing himself from Mamdani throughout the campaign.
The resolution also received support from Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of Staten Island, whose mother fled Cuba in 1959 to escape what she described as “the very things that our new socialist mayor in New York City says he wants.”
Mamdani and AOC have sparked a “socialist movement” that could endanger Democrats going into the 2026 midterms.
Advertisement
“Two more candidates who are proud to align themselves with socialism are running for important House seats in solid blue districts in Democrat-controlled states. The secret sauce fueling this phenomenon is a widely perceived belief among the progressives who dominate the grassroots of the party that the Democratic establishment is corrupt to the core and must not just be reformed but thoroughly eradicated,” wrote Liberty Nation’s Joe Schaeffer.
“In my opinion, the real moment right now in the Democratic Party is, do we want to go back to the politics as usual?” Saikat Chakrabarti told NBC News in an interview for an article that ran Nov. 19, labeling his prospective main political opponent for the position he is eyeing as “part of that normal establishment politics.”
That enemy is none other than California state Senator Scott Wiener, who is one of the most extreme left-wing politicians in the Golden State.
But Wiener is also thought to be connected to the party’s mainstream, which could hurt him a lot more in the Bay Area than his controversial views on how transgender youth “rights” should take precedence over parental authority or how “sex workers” should be free to roam California street corners.
Chakrabarti and Wiener are both running for the Democratic nomination for the seat that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is leaving open.
Three or four years ago, during the Biden administration’s White House heyday, the political climate may have supported Wiener. But in 2025, the winds of change are obviously flowing in Chakrabarti’s direction.
Advertisement
Chakrabarti helped start the Justice Democrats, a dissident progressive group that became well-known when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) became a rising star on the left in November 2018.
One of these fellow travelers is Chi Osse, a member of the New York City Council who is running against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) in the primary.
Osse, who is 27 years old, left the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in 2022 because of a disagreement over policy. However, he rejoined the group this past summer.
“Power to the people! But is it really as easy as that? The Democratic establishment hasn’t run the show for decades by dumb luck. It still has potent cards to play. The mystique of incumbency and the assertion that capturing vital offices can be achieved only by supporting the pecking order already locked into place still carry pragmatic pull even among the most inflamed pitchfork-carrying progressives,” wrote Liberty Nation’s Joe Schaeffer.
Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation
E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegations against President Donald Trump were never credible, and now she’s under investigation by the Department of Justice for perjury.
Now, Byron York is digging into the case and has uncovered what could be the most elaborate political setup in history.
Critics of Carroll have long argued that major inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding her allegations against Trump undermine the credibility of the claims.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her sometime in the mid-1990s. Critics frequently point to her inability to identify a precise year. They also argue that aspects of the timeline and surrounding details remain difficult to reconcile.
Skeptics have also questioned why Carroll waited decades before publicly making the accusation. This is especially true given that they came near the height of the “Me Too” movement.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for remaining silent for years. They include concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that going public politically could inadvertently benefit Trump.
Oh. Right. You bet.
She waited until 2019 to ‘disclose’ her allegations. But she didn’t go to police. Didn’t go to a lawyer. She didn’t even go to a journalist. Rather, she made the allegation in a book. And why? Well, that was the only way to generate royalties:
And Carroll had a history of grifting, too. Before the book even dropped, she was charging admission for her “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute #MeToo landmark stroll through Manhattan. The tour started at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance on 58th Street, which just so happens to be exactly where she claims she first encountered Trump the day of the alleged assault. She had been leading paying groups past that spot before she’d told the world what had supposedly happened there.
Now here’s where the origins of these allegations get genuinely interesting. Carroll, by then a certified celebrity of the anti-Trump resistance, attended a party at writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Manhattan home, a gathering the New York Times described as “Resistance Twitter come to life.” The guest list included George Conway, who apparently advised Carroll to sue Trump for defamation.
The case got a critical boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which allowed sexual assault claims to be filed regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Carroll had helped advocate for the bill. The Act went into effect on November 24, 2022, and within hours, Carroll filed a second suit, this time adding a rape allegation in addition to defamation.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a virulent anti-Trump guy, bankrolled all of it. But Carroll testified under oath that no one was paying her legal fees. She described it as a “contingency case.”
It was just before the trial began that her own attorney wrote to Trump’s legal team admitting that Carroll had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony.
Trump’s lawyers stated that the “belated disclosure” raised “significant concerns” about Carroll’s “bias and motive.”
Hoffman carries political baggage of his own. In 2018, Hoffman apologized after it was revealed he had funded a group that secretly mimicked Russian disinformation to help a Democrat win an Alabama Senate seat.
Now, York says, investigators are digging deeper into the broader origins of the anti-Trump legal and political apparatus.
This includes the network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers that critics argue helped fuel years of coordinated lawfare against Trump.
For conservatives, the emerging scrutiny feels long overdue.
WATCH IT: Trump Shreds 'Fake News' Kristen Welker, Storms Out of Interview
Washington, D.C. - June 8, 2026
President Trump Abruptly Ends Meet the Press Interview During Discussion of California Elections
President Donald Trump walked out of an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker on Sunday after a heated exchange over the slow vote-counting process in California’s recent elections. The interview, conducted in Wisconsin, covered topics including negotiations with Iran and the status of several California races that remained unresolved days after Election Day.
Interview Context and Escalation
The discussion turned contentious when the conversation shifted to California, where multiple races continued to see shifts in results as additional ballots were processed. Trump criticized the extended timeline for finalizing vote counts, describing the system as flawed and comparing it unfavorably to processes in other countries. He pointed to changes in leads in certain contests as evidence of problems with how votes are tallied and reported.
Welker responded that the counting method follows standard procedures in California. Trump expressed frustration with what he viewed as inadequate media scrutiny of the delays and vote swings. The exchange ended with Trump stating that he had had enough of the discussion.
“So let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling, have a good time.”
Trump then left the interview.
California Election Developments
Several California races, including contests in Los Angeles and state legislative districts, remained too close to call or saw leads narrow in the days following the June 2 primary. In one notable example, a candidate who held a substantial lead on election night saw that margin reduced significantly with the arrival of later ballot batches. Additional ballots are still expected in some areas.
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli has indicated that his office is examining potential irregularities in the state’s election processes. Officials have attributed the delays to standard procedures for processing mail-in and provisional ballots, while critics argue that the extended timelines undermine public confidence in the results.
Broader Reactions and Statements
Trump has long voiced concerns about election administration in certain states, including questions about 2020. During the interview, he linked the current California situation to wider issues of electoral integrity and media coverage. Welker maintained that the process reflects established state practices.
The abrupt conclusion of the interview drew immediate attention on social media and in news coverage. Supporters of the president praised his decision to end the exchange, while critics described the walkout as an overreaction to routine questioning.
The interview had also touched on U.S. efforts regarding Iran and the path toward any potential agreement to end ongoing conflict. Those portions of the discussion did not appear to trigger the same level of tension as the segment on California elections.
Implications for Public Discourse
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and segments of the national media. Trump has frequently accused major outlets of biased coverage, particularly on election-related matters. Media representatives, including Welker, have defended their role in asking pointed questions of public officials.
California election officials have stated that the current counting timeline is consistent with past practices in the state, which relies heavily on mail voting. However, the extended period before final certification has prompted renewed calls from some quarters for reforms aimed at faster and more transparent tabulation.
As additional ballots continue to be counted in California, several races remain fluid. The U.S. Attorney’s review adds another layer of scrutiny to the process. The full transcript and video of the Trump-Welker exchange are expected to be released by NBC in the coming days.
