> She should be sued for that. She's claiming that Ted Cruz is actually trying to get her killed.

Ted Cruz would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he not only was not doing so, but that AOC actually knew, or reasonably should have known, he was not. Given that the specific notional basis for her accusations is her knowledge (and not only from public sources) of his involvement with the Jan. 6 insurrection, that’s probably not something he wants publicly litigated in a court of law, since it's something he desperately wants to erase from the minds of everyone not actually sympathetic to the insurrection, while still staying on the good side of the pro-insurrectionists.

Since when do you have to prove your innocence? It is AOC who should prove that.

There's a huge difference between trying to get someone killed and calling for an election audit or objecting against the election results.

Are the Democrats guilty for all the BLM/Antifa murders? I don't think so and they supported and fuelled the protests/riots.

> Since when do you have to prove your innocence?

Were he charged with a crime, he would not.

Were he to file a civil lawsuit for defamation, he would have to prove the required elements of that case. In defamation law in the US, falsity is an element (in some other places truth is a defense, which is somewhat different), and for defamation against public figures, in the US, so is actual malice.

Note that both of those requirements have been found by the courts to be necessary to preserve Constitutional freedom of speech.

> There's a huge difference between trying to get someone killed and calling for an election audit or objecting against the election results.

Sure, and in court Cruz would have the opportunity show that he was only doing what you described and neither trying to get anyone killed nor doing anything that might reasonably be mistaken for that. But that's not something Cruz probably wants litigated in court of law, which is why he won't file and litigate a defamation claim.

That's not what she's claiming. She said previously that during the capitol riot, there was a moment when she thought she might be killed (don't know more than that). She blames Ted Cruz for his role in creating that situation.

The present tense here is misleading without the additional context.

She used the past tense. Not sure if there is any problem getting sued though. It's all public record and well known. Not even sure what it would be for, defamation? Not likely when it's pointing out what occurred.

  "Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed."

From that I understand Cruz is trying to get her killed, which is a very serious accusation and should not be taken lightly.

No, “any other X not doing Y” indicates that the one being addressed is also an X not doing Y.

So, it reads like she thinks Cruz should resign becauss he tried to kill her in the past, but isn't currently trying that, while other GOP members are (or at least may be) still trying to do that.

Yeah, no.

If you come to me asking to work together and I tell you no because I don't work with people that are trying to get me killed, it's pretty obvious what I mean.

> If you come to me asking to work together and I tell you no because I don't work with people that are trying to get me killed, it's pretty obvious what I mean.

But that's not what she said, even as a summary.

She said (summarized at the same level):

1. You tried to get me killed recently.

2. So, you need to quit.

3. Still, I am willing to work with almost anyone else in your party who isn't trying to get me killed.

Her unwillingness to work with Cruz was expressly predicated on his perceived recent past, not present, efforts to have her killed.