AOC heckled by hysterical protester shouting about Gaza ‘genocide' at NYC town hall: ‘Shame on you'

All hell broke loose at a town hall hosted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Friday, when the far-left 'Squad' member was heckled by a protester for failing to stop the 'genocide in Gaza' — who was immediately met with a torrent of boos and hisses.
The speculated 2028 presidential candidate was holding a constituent event in Jackson Heights, Queens, when it devolved into chaos after an anti-Israel demonstrator harangued the lawmaker from New York's 14th Congressional District over the war in Israel.
'I am a health care worker, and I want to know what you're doing about the genocide in Gaza,' a female disrupter shouted as AOC spoke on stage, video showed.
That declaration set off the crowd, which booed loudly as the woman continued to point and scream at Ocasio-Cortez, who was unable to control the quickly escalating situation.
'I'm a nurse! Shame on you!' the agitator yelled at AOC from her seat. 'Shame on you, you're a liar. You're a liar!'
Attendees continued to drown out the disruptive nurse with one loudly shouting, 'Shame! Shame! Shame!' while others yelled indecipherable counterarguments to the pro-Palestinian attendee as she was corralled by security and staffers.
'You're a war criminal! War criminal! War criminal!' she yelled on the way out of the auditorium, adding, 'Shame on you, I used to support you!'
After a semblance of order was restored, Ocasio-Cortez responded to the provocative outburst.
'I more than welcome people who disagree, or are super pissed off at me for any issue to come, but we have some ground rules here,' she said.
'Please wait for the Q&A because we don't want to deprive all of our neighbors of the ability to have information and hearing them to respond to it,' the three-term congresswoman said, adding, 'We need to be able to have this conversation.'
Friday's abrasive town hall was a far cry from the reception AOC received around the country as she recently toured with Senator Bernie Sanders on their 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour.
In the wake of that nationwide engagement, Ocasio-Cortez raised $9.6 million from 266,000 individual donors with an average contribution of just $21, Fox News reported.
'I cannot convey enough how grateful I am to the millions of people supporting us with your time, resources, and energy. Your support has allowed us to rally people together at a record scale to organize their communities,' AOC wrote on X.
Political forecaster Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight predicted AOC will run away with the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, according to Fox News.
'President AOC, the stuff of nightmares,' Vice President JD Vance told Fox News' 'Special Report' host Bret Baier Friday when asked about the possibility of a Vance vs. Ocasio-Cortez matchup in the 2028 presidential election.
'You've ruined my sleep for the evening.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

19 minutes ago

• Fox News

JONATHAN TURLEY: Dems suddenly outraged over presidential war powers

Democrats in Washington are again talking impeachment. Politicians and pundits are expressing outrage over President Donald Trump attacking Iran without a prior authorization of Congress. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are "shocked, shocked" that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors. Fourteen years ago this week, I was in court litigating that very issue when President Barack Obama attacked Libya. Most Democrats supported or were silent on the action. Nevertheless, Democratic members are now calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act. Schumer insisted that "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement. Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges. I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach. Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan. The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action. The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period. President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA. Presidents have long maintained their right to deploy military assets unilaterally without congressional approval to address imminent threats. President Thomas Jefferson did so when he went to war with the Barbary Pirates at the start of the Nineteenth Century. Presidents have also routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question. In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions. Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying "authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces," both Obama and Trump did precisely that. Trump was wise to notify Congress and is currently in compliance with the Act. However, what occurs after that is anyone's guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater. Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period. Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations. In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors. This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust at the use of the same authority that they once accepted from prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.

CBS News

22 minutes ago

• CBS News

Transcript: Sen. Tim Kaine on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 22, 2025

The following is the transcript of an interview with Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 22, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to the Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who joins us from Richmond, Virginia. Good morning to you, Senator. SENATOR TIM KAINE: Good morning, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, but what we just heard from the Pentagon was that Congress was notified after the strike on Iran was concluded, after the US jets are back- in safety. Is this sufficient? SEN. KAINE: Margaret, no. Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran. This Trump war against Iran, we have not. Congress should be consulted with it. We were not. And, Congress needs to be notified, not after the fact, but in advance. We were not. That's why I filed a War Powers Resolution that will ripen and be brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate this week. Senator Schumer is working with Leader Thune to make that happen. The United States should not be in an offensive war against Iran without a vote of Congress. The Constitution is completely clear on it. And I am so disappointed that the President has acted so prematurely. The Foreign Minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back, "at least two or three years." There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the US should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Vice President was on another network earlier this morning, and said, "We are not at war with Iran. We are at war with Iran's nuclear program." There seems to be a lot of legal parsing on the definition of the word war here. What do you make of that description? SEN. KAINE: I think it's, it's BS, and I think anybody hearing it would conclude the same thing. When- when you're bombing another nation, ask them if they think it's war. They do, would we think it was war if Iran bombed a US nuclear facility? Of course we would. And the US, you know, we've invaded two neighbors of Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, to topple their regimes since 2000. Those were wars. This is the US jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops, and risking troops' lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just on the facts, though, the President has not authorized ground forces. In fact, he said he really doesn't want to send in ground forces. When it came to what was just described to the public by the Pentagon, it was really characterized as limited in scope. It sounds like you believe those early hour descriptions are going to turn out to be false. SEN. KAINE: I do. The- the War Powers resolution says that a member of Congress can challenge the President, if the President initiates hostilities against a foreign nation. Doesn't use the- even though the title is War Powers resolution, the statute says if you initiate hostilities without congressional authorization, even a single member of the House or Senate can force a vote on the Senate floor. There is no doubt that the US sending this massive set of Tomahawk missiles and B-2 bombers and bunker busters on three Iranian nuclear sites is hostilities. Now, again, some in the Senate may say this is great and we want to vote for it. I happen to think that getting into a third offensive war in the Middle East in the last 25 years is absolutely reckless and foolish, and I'm going to be doing everything I can to convince my colleagues of that I may or may not succeed, but Congress should have the debate and vote on this before we escalate the risk to American troops, which this action has done. MARGARET BRENNAN: We know that prior to this action, Northern Command had already directed additional security measures on all U.S. military installations. You've got a lot of military installations in Virginia. What do you know about the threat to the homeland at this point? SEN. TIM KAINE: We're going to have a briefing Tuesday, Margaret, and I'll learn more then, but what I do know, I also have a lot of Virginians deployed in the Middle East. There are about 40,000 U.S. troops deployed all over the Middle East, sailors on Navy ships in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, folks in land bases in Syria and Iraq, and yes, this action dramatically raises the risk to them. And the question is, for what? If the Iranian nuclear program – Vice President Vance says it's a war against their nuclear program. Of course, we had curtailed that diplomatically a few years ago until Donald Trump tore up the diplomatic deal. That even if you needed to wage war, when the Israeli Foreign Minister is saying we've set the nuclear program back at least two or three years, why launch this strike escalating risk to Americans and American troops over the weekend with no real discussion with Congress? No real debate before the American public? I don't want to be lied into another war in the way we were with Iraq in 2002. MARGARET BRENNAN: Governor DeSantis of Florida was greeting passengers in his state who had boarded a Florida chartered flight from Israel to his state evacuating Americans. It was on Saturday that the U.S. ambassador first made public some of the details for Americans on how to get out of the country if they wanted to. The airspace is closed. What do you know in that foreign relations capacity about the security of our personnel in diplomatic posts, but also Americans who just want to get home and get back to safety? SEN. KAINE: We need to do everything we can, Margaret, to facilitate Americans wanting to return home from anywhere in the region. From Israel, where you know these these attacks from Iran pose serious risk to civilian lives, other countries in the region who feel at risk, we should do everything possible to bring them back. And I do suspect that the briefing that the entire Senate is going to get Tuesday is not only going to be about the military side of this, but how we are protecting our personnel in the region. President Trump started to voluntarily remove some U.S. personnel, State Department, USAID and other agencies from the region a couple of weeks ago. Not a mandatory evacuation, but the pace of voluntary departures was was picking up because we could see that President Trump was merging closer and closer and closer to violating what he told the American public and getting into another war in the Middle East. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Kaine, thank you for joining us this morning.

CBS News

23 minutes ago

• CBS News

Terrorism advisory bulletin warns of "heightened threat environment" in U.S. after strikes on Iran

A bulletin from the National Terrorism Advisory System warns of a "heightened threat environment in the United States" following the U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. The bulletin, obtained by CBS News and dated Sunday morning, June 22, does not note any current specific threats, but warns that "low level cyber attacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks." The bulletin notes that U.S. law enforcement "has disrupted multiple potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in the United States since 2020," and warns "the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict could also motivate violent extremists and hate crime perpetrators seeking to attack targets." The bulletin also warns, "The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against the United States." The bulletin, which has not yet been officially shared with the public by the Department of Homeland Security, is the type of comprehensive threat assessment designed to communicate information directly to the public about threats and about "resources for how to stay safe during the heightened threat environment." Multiple sources tell CBS News that intelligence analysts began crafting this document earlier this month. It's gone through many iterations, with plans to publish following any escalation in the conflict overseas or intervention by the United States. When the advisory is finalized, it will be made public at this government website. It comes after the U.S. launched military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday evening, an operation that President Trump said aimed to stop "the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror." The president warned Iran not to retaliate and to work toward a peace deal in its war with Israel. Speaking at the White House Saturday night, Mr. Trump threatened to target other Iranian sites "if peace does not come quickly." Iran had previously vowed to retaliate if the U.S. joined Israel's attack, which started June 13 with Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets. More than 650 people have been killed and at least 2,000 have been wounded in Iran since then, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. At least 24 have also been killed in Israel, and hundreds wounded, in Iran's retaliatory missile and drone strikes, according to estimates from the Israeli military. The conflict has played out as Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza continues. "The Iranian Government has declared the United States complicit for Israel's attack, and will almost certainly condemn direct US involvement in the conflict," said U.S. officials in Sunday's bulletin. They additionally cautioned that the Israel-Iran conflict "could contribute to US-based individuals plotting additional attacks," citing violent incidents in recent months targeting Jewish groups and institutions around the country. Federal law enforcement agencies had already issued an intelligence bulletin in early June warning that those attacks could motivate others. Law enforcement officials in New York City said Saturday night that they were "deploying additional resources" to certain sites as a precaution. The NYPD tweeted: "We're tracking the situation unfolding in Iran. Out of an abundance of caution, we're deploying additional resources to religious, cultural, and diplomatic sites across NYC and coordinating with our federal partners. We'll continue to monitor for any potential impact to NYC." and contributed to this report.