AOC’s Chief of Staff Backs the Boston Bomber Voting Brigade, Wants Those Affected by ‘Unjust Laws’ to Vote

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Saikat Chakrabarti — the chief of staff for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — joined a growing group of Democrats who support felons voting from prison, including terrorists like the Boston Marathon bomber.

As IJR previously reported, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) both said they would consider allowing felons — including terrorists, rapists, and murderers — to participate in American democracy while they are behind bars.

This position outraged many who do not want the perpetrator of a terrorist attack that left three people dead, including an 8-year-old, to have a say in the laws of the country.

Despite the outrage, Chakrabarti joined Sanders and Harris on questioning the prohibition on terrorist voting. He took to Twitter to question why voting rights are stripped of felons while in prison and claimed that those “most affected by unjust laws” should have the right to vote.

There were a lot of people who were in disbelief at Chakrabarti’s tweet. Several people questioned whether he believed that terrorist like the Boston bomber and white supremacist Dylan Roof are victims of “unjust laws” and should participate in democracy.

Following the blowback for his tweet, Chakrabarti attempted to address his comments but the wheels fell off the wagon when he said that he didn’t think “one vote from the Boston bomber would be enough to change our terrorism laws.”

As IJR previously reported, those defending the Boston bomber have angered those who first responded to the attacks, including officer Ed Kelly.

“Why would we ever let a murderer, who murdered children, like the Boston Marathon bomber, have a voice in our democracy?” Kelly questioned.

This is not the first time Chakrabarti has been the center of a controversy. As IJR previously reported, Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti have been hit with several ethics complaints about the shady money transfers between Chakrabarti’s LLC, PAC, and Ocasio-Cortez’s boyfriend Riley Roberts.


  1. Just a thought. It’s okay in AOC’s mind to let terrorists vote, killers of children, from INSIDE a prison WITH WALLS TO KEEP THEM OUT, yet she is for letting criminals from other countries cross the border that NEEDS WALLS, to just walk right on through? There is something rotting in her synapses!

  2. Of course he thinks felons should have voting rights otherwise how else will this future felon’s vote count.

  3. The next step would be that prisoners would be demanding more access to TV, Newspapers, Internet, etc. so that they can be better informed about their voting decisions. And then of course there will be the parade of candidates that feel that it is a MUST to campaign inside the prisons!! So just where do you draw the line on their ‘rights’??

  4. Most States will restore a felon’s voting rights after they’ve paid their debt to society. Only Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia prohibit a felon from ever being able to vote after being released from prison.

  5. You break the law you lose your right to vote. When you get out you can get your rights back. Don’t break the law, then there won’t be a problem. Should smoking pot be against the law, probably not. But right now it is, so change the law. We don’t pick and choose which laws we want to follow

    1. Why isn’t Chakrabarti pushing AOC to work on real-world legislation like that and not destructive fantasies like the GND?

  6. Because we all know criminals in prison make good choices.

    1. Do you reckon that’s why they’re called “criminals”?

  7. I would think that under current laws, all prisoners lose their civic rights until sentencing is completed. After release, they can regain their rights not before. AOC is merely quoting Bernie who must be overusing his medical marijuana. To agree with this kind of statement is totally against our civil rights as law-abiding citizens. This statement says the criminal is above the law and free from being prosecuted for their actions.

  8. I really don’t see the problem I mean, our votes don’t really mean anything. They are barely symbolic. More like an illusion. Illusion of choice.

    1. John isn’t confused.

      We currently only have one politicial party divided in two. The Republicans and the Republicans-who-are-pro-choice. Both are corrupted, both ignore the people.

Comments are closed.