Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as “sexually lewd acts” in a Colorado theater on September 10.
Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and “causing a disturbance” during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.
Surveillance footage from inside the theater appeared to show Boebert’s male accomplice groping her breasts, and then being groped in turn by the Republican firebrand. In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed “fell short of my values,” but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to the controversy in a one-minute video posted to her 323,000 TikTok followers on Thursday, in response to a viewer’s question.
She commented: "All I gotta say is I can’t go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it’s wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.”
“I danced to Phoenix once in college and it was like all over the place. But putting on a whole show of their own at Beetlejuice and there’s nothing? I’m just saying be consistent. That’s all I’m asking for. Equal treatment. I don’t expect it, but come on.”
I love her, downvote me if you must.
Say what you will about pronouns, sometimes they aren’t clear.
Wait, what? I’ve just reread my comment like 50 times trying to figure out what you mean.
“Her” could refer to AOC or Boebert. It is technically unclear.
lotta people are going to be real mad about their upvotes when op follows up with “…and that’s why Lauren Boebert is great” or whatever.
Are you referring to Boobert or AOC?
AOC, WTF? Who in their right mind? Like I might hate fuck Booberry, but she’s horrible.
I’m glad I’m not the only one whew
I kinda dislike her, but anyone dancing to Phoenix is alright.
AOC unfortunately became an establishment Democrat pretty quickly. She’s all about the party nowadays.
You don’t pass bills with 1 vote. Coalition building is a necessary part of democracy. If you don’t believe in coalition building, you don’t actually believe in democracy…
I fucking hate being left on issues because how much the left doesn’t figure out the game.
On a post about AOC literally complaining about how effective the right is at suppressing voices on the left. You comment ‘you know why AOC is a big dumb bitch’
It’s tribalism, party over country
For those that downvoted me- please ELI5 to me how the Republicans have NOT reverted to tribalism?
I remember how much pearl-clutching there was over AOC. Dancing. In college. Oh, the horror! Imagine it! Dancing! All of a sudden every con became a town elder with a stick wedged in their posterior in the movie Footloose.
(By the way - I love to use those gifs of her dancing when replying to cons when the discussion is AOC.)
And now that Qbert is caught in a grope session, with children present, the cons seem to be mum. Weird.
AOC dancing in college, Vivek Ramaswamy rapping to Eminem like 2 weeks ago.
deleted by creator
Narcissists like Vivek would just say, “what does Eminem know?”
deleted by creator
campaign spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to US media: “Vivek just got on the stage and cut loose.”
Desperately trying to make a Republican sound hip 😄🤦
Shaka, when the walls fell.
Lauren, her chest touched.
picard and dathon at el adril
Data, his lower circuits overheated.
Kermit, drinking coffee.
Do they really have to say alleged sex acts? I mean, there’s video. Are they suggesting that maybe the groping and fondling wasn’t sexual in nature?
You’re right, the uh “activity” was definitely getting her boobs groped and flashed about- and giving a handy in return (both of which looked incredibly uncomfortable, just saying.)
That said, what the video shows is a crime, and there’s fairly strict ways they can write about potential criminals which more or less mandate tacking on qualifiers- like “allegedly”, at least until they can tack on the “convicted” qualifier.
You’re correct. As annoying as it is allegations are just that. Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.
actually, it’s a mere presumption. as a matter of due process, you’re guilty whether or not your found so in a court. the decisions by a jury are irrelevant to the fact of any acts you may or may not have committed- or the reasons behind them. Which is why we have innocent people that have been locked away on charges they didn’t commit, and people who get off on charges we all know they did. Jury trials are a shitty way to find justice- the other ways are universally worse, mind, but that doesn’t mean its great.
Back to the matter at hand, we’ve all seen the video. We all know what was happening. I was able to find this document providing a brief overview of CO’s sex offenses. the two that apply are on page 19.
Public Indecency:
-
Performing in a public place or where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public, an act of sexual intercourse; a lewd exposure of an intimate part of the body, not including the genitals, with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person; a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or a knowing exposure of the person’s genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301, C.R.S.)
-
A subsequent conviction of a knowing exposure of the person’s genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301 (2)(b), C.R.S.)
and:
Indecent Exposure
-
Knowingly exposing one’s genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person; knowingly performing an act of masturbation in a manner which exposes the act to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (1), C.R.S.)
-
Third or subsequent incident of knowingly exposing one’s genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (4), C.R.S.)
(emphasis mine)
The first is a shoe in. we all know that she was wanking him off. proving it might be a different matter, but we all know it. Ergo, it’s completely legitimate to say she’s a sexual offender. Worse, not that I know if it matters legally, kids were exposed to this. All that to say: yes she should get due process in court. No. that presumption doesn’t change the fact that she’s a sex offender.
deleted by creator
-
A journalistic org will always say alleged until someone is convicted, even if the crime is “obvious”
deleted by creator
Thats a good point. She already apologized for getting caught as well. I think at this point its “verified exhibitionist sex acts”
Maybe she was vigorously trying to get a stain
inoff his pants…She was trying to get something off
Maybe she lost a popcorn down in her titties and he was helping get it out. And to thank him she… gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin’.
gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin’.
The kids are now referring to that as a Boebert.
Fuck this timeline.
How about a Qbert, or a Qubie?
I thought that was a handie with a rubix cube
Ouch!
In America yes. Unless someone has literally been convicted of something in court, you’re better off just saying allegedly and not leaving yourself open to lawsuits.
I’m America, yes.
So America is a false god? Or a farcical one at best?
That checks out.
I did fix my mistake, but I’m enjoying your interpretation. Thanks.
Nope, they REALLY don’t have to. In fact, it’s tantamount to gaslighting to claim that there’s anything “alleged” about something that has been publicly shown to definitely be the case.
If they didn’t have much bigger fish to fry, media ethics watchdogs should really clamp down on this kind of bullshit.
Probably avoiding the possibility of a libel case.
That’s not necessary. As they say, the truth is an absolute defense in libel and slander cases. You can’t convict someone of malicously lying when there’s no lie.
You can bankrupt them proving that though. The idea isn’t just to avoid the final judgement, but to avoid being taken to court in the first place.
Pretty sure Newsweek can afford a trial, especially one where they get a lot of free publicity and readers for standing up against a hypocrite sex offender who was already despised by most of the population trying to stifle the freedom of the press to publish the obvious truth 🤷
Point.
Considering how litigious the US is: yeah, they do.
Obviously she’s completely correct. But she should realize at this point that it’s a waste of time to ever expect conservatives to be consistent. It’s not in their nature.
She literally said “I don’t expect it.”
Conservatives have turned being inconsistent into a sport. They’re the world champs!
I get a lot of mileage out of this Sartre quote
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
They have gaslighting down to a science.
God wants you to feel up people in public places, clearly.
That’s why he gave us 10 fingers and only two legs (obviously dancing is less important).
But you can only feel with your fingers, no hands! Only got two of those.
Me specifically? God can get bent. I’m busy. I got nachos in the microwave.
The article really is just about how she responded to a thing. Not even mentioning in title if she did it in a noteworthy way or anything, just that she responded. Amazing
Right. But people will eat it up, as evidenced by this comments section. Something happened, people will create their own facts based on feelings and find articles with the right buzzwords to support said feelings. How did we get here?
Didn’t those weirdos also go on about AOC’s boyfriends feet at some point? The right wing media and the GQP have absolutely no substance. Their whole existence is a huge drain on our society.
The republican party is an existential threat to the United States and the rest of the world. We should treat them as such.
Chomsky is right to call them the most dangerous group in the world.
deleted by creator
They go nuts about any mundane thing she does or doesn’t do. She’s practically the new Obama for them.
I wish we had an AOC in the UK
I wish we had NHS in the U.S.
I wish becoming a billionaire made your head pop like a party balloon releasing glitter and little “Winner!” paper notes.
I wish for World Pizza.
President AOC will bring NHS here
Zarah Sultana
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25909/zarah_sultana/coventry_south/votes
Seems good, except for voting against higher corporate tax and VAT
VAT directly affects you as the consumer, and thus would reduce the buying power of the people, how is that so terrible?
Yeah, I think perhaps my own ignorance is showing. I just see it as a tax, but I guess it is indirect and paid by the customer so it’s not really here or there. High VAT means more tax money to rebuild our country but everything becomes more expensive. I suppose we’re on quite a high VAT anyway in comparison to other nations, although Norway, which we seem to look up to, is on a 25% rate
The lady has a point.
AOC has a point. There is a double standard here.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as “sexually lewd acts” in a Colorado theater on September 10.
Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and “causing a disturbance” during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.
In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed “fell short of my values,” but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.
She commented: "All I gotta say is I can’t go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it’s wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.
Boebert’s team had initially denied she was vaping during Beetlejuice, but after footage emerged contradicting this, the congresswoman admitted she had been, but insisted there had been no deliberate attempt to deceive.
Boebert’s male companion at the musical was later identified as 46-year-old Quinn Gallagher, co-owner of the Hooch Craft Cocktail Bar, which has previously hosted drag shows.
The original article contains 673 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
They are hypocrites and liars. Republicans don’t believe in shit other than “rules for me, not for thee,” and fear-mongering hate.
ETA: Dems too, just not nearly on the same scale.
So what?! I responded a lot. Where’s my article?
Libs asking for the media to be consistent now that’s some fucking poetic justice right there. Downright comical.
The umbridge and resentment is so ingrained, you can’t even see double standards you live by.
Two sides to that coin smarty pants.
So democrats are the prudes now? I get the point of the article, hypocrisy, but Republicans don’t come off in these stories as the bad ones
Why is asking for equal treatment prudish?
Read what she said again. She doesn’t spend time talking about how disgusting Boebert is, she doesn’t call her names, she doesn’t call for her resignation, she doesn’t spend time whinging about the children, she doesn’t do any of the things that would be done to her if she did something like this.
She simply noted that the reaction to this is less than what she has endured over lesser actions.
I’m having a hard time grasping how that amounts to being a prude, so please help me understand.
So tone deaf. You don’t have to be prudish to disapprove of adults fondling each other in an all ages theater.
“You don’t have to be prudish to disapprove of adults fondling each other in an all ages theater.”
Yes, yes you do have to be prudish to get mad at people making out in public. Like I said before though, hypocrisy doesn’t work when it comes to sex, saying these people you hate like doing it isn’t going to make them seem like the bad ones, and pointing out FOX not covering it isn’t a news flash
Wow. You just down graded heavy petting to making out and acted like I wouldn’t notice. Tell me you know you’re wrong without telling me you know you’re wrong.
Read the quote again. She’s calling out Fox and conservative media for cherry picking what they are outraged about.
