Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed The New York Times for a report and “glamour shot” of former Trump administration staffer Hope Hicks who could be thinking about “participating in a coverup.”

The New York Democrat called out the newspaper on Twitter for treating Hicks as the glamorous subject of a television drama instead of someone potentially “committing a crime before Congress.”

“What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called ‘Hope’s Choice.,'” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Sunday, referring to the former White House communications director who was subpoenaed last week by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to testify before his Committee.

Calling her one of the “best-known but least visible” members of the White House, the Times report said Hicks faced an “existential question” about whether to obey the subpoena.

Hope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump’s White House staff, is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena https://t.co/8NXpfQvxQL pic.twitter.com/L7aWVMsIdq — NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) May 24, 2019

The newspaper’s characterization of the decision by Hicks on whether or not to comply was blasted by Ocasio-Cortez for apparently lacking substance.

“This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President,” she tweeted. “Treat her equally.”

What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called “Hope’s Choice.” This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President. Treat her equally. https://t.co/XcNbSuU4QB — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

Liberals apparently took up the theme and lit up the newspaper, with former CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien calling the photo of Hicks for the article “basically a glam shot.”

This is a good example of bias in the @nytimes: a picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot, and it’s framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice. https://t.co/qRHT31AsMg — Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019

Calling out the “bias” by the liberal newspaper, O’Brien then journalists who authored the report.

Oh ha. Didn’t even realize who wrote it. Imagine having people write about your decision to answer a subpoena as an existential dilemma. The way these journalists treat the potential sources for their next book is… not surprising. — Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019

“Yup. Where’s the ‘no angel’ take now?” Ocasio-Cortez chimed in, agreeing with O’Brien.

Yup. Where’s the “no angel” take now? In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photos of people-of-color victims + dredge up any questionable thing they’d ever done. But when Hope Hicks considers not complying w a subpoena, it’s glamour shot time. https://t.co/ACnvXlKF7Q — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

With Attorney General William Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn deciding not to comply with subpoenas to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, it seemed safe to assume Hicks would do the same according to the let’s thought process.

Liberals picked up the narrative and ran with it.

Rolling Stone writer Jamil Stone took aim at Hicks for being “white, wealthy, and connected” as a reason for her treatment.

There is nothing for Hope Hicks to “decide.” She got a subpoena from Congress. Were she not white, wealthy, and connected, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. She would appear, or she would face the threat of prison like the rest of us. As she should. https://t.co/giDCcvIxvf — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019

Smith claimed that a decision by Hicks to testify would be an act of “pubic service” as he went on in several tweets slamming The Times and its portrayal of the “existential question” as “infuriating.”

Hope Hicks had to have known who she was working for and what the work they were doing was affecting the world. These are people we should treat with every bit of disdain. By testifying, Hicks may actually have her first opportunity to perform something akin to a public service. — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019

Black folks here have faced existential questions, quite literally, for 400 years. Indigenous people for even longer. I don’t want to belabor this, but we must think more critically—especially when evaluating President Trump and his collaborators. We are writing in permanent ink. — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019

Other liberals quickly grabbed a seat on the bandwagon, proving that, as usual, it will be a lose-lose situation for Hicks who will be attacked as someone who is covering up or lying for President Trump whether she testifies or not. And if she chooses to comply with the subpoena, her testimony will likely be seen as the same if she does not provide the smoking gun Democrats are after in their relentless pursuit of taking down the president.

If Hope Hicks wants to be on the right side of history she will go to Congress and tell all. If she thinks Trump will be see as anything more than the incompetent and corrupt mess he is, she better take a closer look and talk to a few who are not in the cult! https://t.co/pT1a0TIZbS — John Dean (@JohnWDean) May 26, 2019

i think the idea of ‘existential’ is not that if she complies she will cease to exist but that if she complies she will cease to be hope hicks https://t.co/XTLMna8Tip — elizabeth bruenig (@ebruenig) May 26, 2019

If you think Hope Hicks choosing whether or not to obey the law is an “existential question”, then boy do I have some news for you about the climate crisis https://t.co/k8q39t89kv — Kate Aronoff (@KateAronoff) May 26, 2019

(NOTE) Hope Hicks lied to the country repeatedly on both Russia and obstruction, and subsequently admitted she had done so. She may have a moral code, but it has not yet been demonstrated to the country. So as far as I’m concerned, her considering ignoring a subpoena is on brand. — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 26, 2019

(NOTE2) I agree with those who say the New York Times humiliated itself by positioning Hope Hicks as a sympathetic figure and her decision over whether to break the law an “existential” question rather than merely yet another test of basic human decency that she’s likely to fail. — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 26, 2019

(NOTE3) Certain people, and Hicks is one of them, made the decision to work for a venal, dishonest, and dangerous politician with their eyes wide open about what he was and how he planned to harm the country. It would take a lifetime of repentance for them to re-earn my sympathy. — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 26, 2019

Meanwhile, Twitter users slammed the left’s hypocrisy and Ocasio-Cortez’s behavior as “moral compass.”

“She’s attacking the free press!!! Tyrant”!! Lol That’s how dumb you libs sound when you say this about Trump?? — David J Español ?? (@despanol203) May 26, 2019

Trump does this…media and the left go crazy.

AOC does this….the left goes silent…and media seems ready to issue her an apology and a pledge to frame things how she would prefer in the future. — Just another guy on the internet (@AdorabLDeplrabL) May 26, 2019

Ocasio thinks she’s our supreme leader and the moral compass of the world! — Tiamat (@ameeniis) May 26, 2019

Overcome with misplaced feeling of power — Larry Fagerness (@lwfagerness) May 27, 2019

Unfair complaint. Hope Hicks is genetically incapable of taking a bad picture. — Leatherneck (@Leatherneck) May 27, 2019

Welcome to today’s media! Have you seen the photos used by MSM of conservatives? Honestly AOC, you have been afforded much friendly reporting. But unlike you, we won’t play the race card. And while we’re being honest… Can we ban the word existential? — Wendy0027 (@Wendy00271) May 27, 2019