(OT) AOC earning praise

Pelle Svanslös

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 12:39:14 AM2/28/19

to

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is earning praise from pundits on her
performance during Michael Cohen's testimony, but there's more to her
line of questioning than meets the eye.

Not only did she focus on her "home borough" (the Trump Links golf
course in the Bronx, which taxpayers paid millions to build), but she
brought focus to possible issues at the state level.

Ocasio-Cortez pressed Cohen, asking if Trump ever inflated assets to
insurance companies and deflated the value of assets to local tax
authorities.

"Why is that significant?" Pitney continued. "Well if Trump tries to
short-circuit everything through a bunch of pardons that doesn't apply
to violations of New York state law."

This was echoed by FiveThirtyEight's Galen Druke.

"Ocasio-Cortez was the first to hammer home on possible tax fraud by
Trump," he wrote during a live-blog of the hearing. "That is potentially
being investigated by the Southern District of New York and the state of
New York. Various legal experts believe that investigations out of those
jurisdictions are more of a legal threat to Trump than Mueller's is."

During her allotted time, Ocasio-Cortez specifically asked Cohen if
speaking to Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and subpoenaing
Trump's tax returns were a necessary part of the committee's
investigation - laying the groundwork to look into those matters.

"To your knowledge, did the president ever provide inflated assets to an
insurance company?" Ocasio-Cortez asked.

"Yes," Cohen answered.

"Who else knows that the president did this?" she continued.

"Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew Calamari," Cohen answered.

"And where would the committee find more information on this?"
Ocasio-Cortez asked. "Do you think we need to review his financial
statements and his tax returns in order to compare them?"

"Yes, and you'd find it at the Trump Org.," Cohen replied, referring to
the Trump Organization.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-questions-to-michael-cohen-are-significant-why-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

She does her homework. I like that.

♥♥♥

Calimero

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 12:49:41 AM2/28/19

to

„Pundits“, „investigating“, „various legal experts“, „groundwork“ ... yawn ... lol

Max

The Iceberg

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 5:08:33 AM2/28/19

to

she really does her homework on the New Green Deal too, you really reckon that's good??

bob

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 7:35:30 AM2/28/19

to

>> ???

>
>
>„Pundits“, „investigating“, „various legal experts“, „groundwork“ ... yawn ... lol

i'm anxiously awaiting a trip to NYC in 2021 to get served drinks by
AOC. i'll tip her nicely, maybe even $15 if she's good enough.

bob

Hey Guys

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 8:53:23 AM2/28/19

to

Germany thinks so. They have most of the proposed policies in place in some form already.

Calimero

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 11:07:23 AM2/28/19

to

Lol

Max

The Iceberg

unread,

Feb 28, 2019, 8:03:14 PM2/28/19

to

LOL did CNN tell you that?

Hey Guys

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 9:55:44 AM3/1/19

to

So Germany doesn't do the following? Too bad.

• "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible"

• "building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity"

• "guaranteeing universal access to clean water"

• "upgrading all existing buildings and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification"

• "clean, affordable, and accessible public transit, and high-speed rail"

• "making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries"

Sawfish

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 10:34:15 AM3/1/19

to

I think a lot of these are decent ideas, in general. The method of
implementation is really important, however.

>
> • "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible"
>
> • "building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity"
>
>
> • "guaranteeing universal access to clean water"
>
>
> • "upgrading all existing buildings and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification"

This is a good example.

For existing buildings, who foots the bill? Current owners? Government?

I own a fair number of residential apartment units, and have since 1988.
I'm not the only one; there are a lot of small scale investors like me.
I can tell you that it would be impossible to do this to many/most of my
buildings, some of which have historic designation, without huge rent
increases.

So one answer would be to tear them down and put up new ones. Who'd pay
for that?

The solution that many cities have is to grandfather older buildings.
But this is contrary to the stated proposal.

How to reconcile?

>
> • "clean, affordable, and accessible public transit, and high-speed rail"
>
> • "making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries"

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish

Calimero

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 1:10:15 PM3/1/19

to

No, because "as much as technologically feasible" would cost far than any voter would be willing to allow.

> • "building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity"

Too expensive.

>
> • "guaranteeing universal access to clean water"
>

Everybody has a water tap, yes.

> • "upgrading all existing buildings and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification"

Would me moronic. No one would be able to pay that.
AOC is a nut case. Germans don't like nutters since Adolf Hitler.

> • "clean, affordable, and accessible public transit, and high-speed rail"

No high-speed rail. Too expensive.
Only a few hundred miles are possible.

> • "making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries"

No, "public investments" are socialist. Only the former German commies call themselves socialist still.

Max

The Iceberg

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 3:02:01 PM3/1/19

to

What country do you live in HeyG? Do you have any idea of the real world outside? Germany has pretty much none of that due to expense, also don’t you know Germany has even banned all nuclear power, so there goes OC’s “zero fossil fuels” policy too. Maybe you should visit some places.

Calimero

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 3:26:26 PM3/1/19

to

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:02:01 PM UTC+1, The Iceberg wrote:
> What country do you live in HeyG? Do you have any idea of the real world outside? Germany has pretty much none of that due to expense, also don’t you know Germany has even banned all nuclear power, so there goes OC’s “zero fossil fuels” policy too. Maybe you should visit some places.

Germany imports about 70 % of its energy. Most of it is mineral oil, the rest natural gas and hard coal.
30 % of German energy consumption is produced domestically. Most of it renewables, the rest brown coal, only a little bit still mineral oil and natural gas.

So about 75 % is fossil energy.

AOC is an idiot, she is simply dumb.
People like HellsUpHarris, Spartacus, Pocahontas are not dumb. They are simply extremely dishonest, typical for "progressives".

Max