AOC: We have to remove Trump to prevent compromising the 2020 election

This isn’t quite the Al Green argument for impeachment, but it’s close. Six months ago, Rep. Green (D-TX) argued that Donald Trump had to be impeached and removed to prevent Americans from handing him a second term, thanks to being “vindicated” by the lack of it. That even got Green the highest compliment Trump could bestow — a presidential tweet:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also argued that impeachment is really about the 2020 election too, but with a twist. Ocasio-Cortez says removal would prevent “a potentially disastrous outcome next year,” but she’s not talking specifically about Trump’s re-election. Instead, Ocasio-Cortez suggests that Trump will sell out the country to get foreign assistance for his re-election:

“You made the case the president could be impeached for profiting off the presidency, his conduct in the Russia investigation. What message, congresswoman, will it send if Democrats don’t incorporate those issues into the upcoming articles of impeachment?” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked on Wednesday.

“While I believe personally that we should be pursuing and investigating quite flagrant abuses of the emoluments clause, even reporting as recently as the suspicious stops at Trump properties even in congressional delegations or rather in foreign trips, I think all of this is game for investigation,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections. And so this is not just about something that has occurred, about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome next year,” she continued.

Where have we heard this before? Oh, yeah. Democrats spent more than two years accusing Trump of having colluded with Russian intelligence to win the 2016 election before Robert Mueller finally put an end to that conspiracy theory over the summer. Ocasio-Cortez is simply warming up the next round of conspiracy theorizing, that’s all.

Funny, though, how Democrats seem unconcerned about the DNC’s contacts with Ukraine for oppo research in the previous cycle. Or for that matter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s contacts with China’s moneyed interests in 1996. Of course, Trump hasn’t exactly set minds at ease by disclaiming any interest in foreign sources of political dirt or by refraining from bringing up his domestic opponents in diplomatic calls, but let’s not pretend Trump invented foreign influence or was the first to benefit from it, either. And let’s not lose our minds in paranoia without any evidence while we’re at it. We’ve already seen the disastrous outcomes that result from that.