One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Asked the Sharpest Questions in the Michael Cohen Hearing
Mar 1, 2019 06:05:34   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-asked-sharpest-201050742.html

For a political newcomer whom even some Democratic pundits think of as a "self-perpetuating legend" unworthy of the "hype," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proving to be quite good at her job—and not just, as her critics contend, at Twitter. During Michael Cohen's testimony in front of the House Oversight and

Reform Committee on Wednesday, the congresswoman cleverly helped lay the groundwork for a potentially wide-ranging investigation into the president's well-documented but still not fully understood history of financial wrongdoing and criminality.
She didn't even need all five of her allotted minutes. In about four minutes and 17 seconds, Ocasio-Cortez cruised through a rapid-fire questioning of Donald Trump's former attorney and fixer, homing in on the goods.

Video

First, Ocasio-Cortez delved into the infamous "treasure trove" of stories stockpiled by AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company. They were part of a catch-and-k**l operation designed by Cohen and AMI to shield the president from future embarrassing Stormy Daniels–esque revelations. When Cohen replied that he could no longer be sure of the whereabouts of these documents, Ocasio-Cortez—instead of pressing him for lurid details about their contents—simply asked who might be able to tell the House Oversight Committee more about them. Cohen, under oath, named names: David Pecker, Barry Levine, and Dylan Howard.

Pecker, who is AMI's chairman and CEO, already struck an immunity deal with federal prosecutors in conjunction with his involvement in hush-money payments during the 2016 campaign. But this agreement would not preclude Pecker (or Levine or Howard) from testifying about the matter before Congress, whether on a voluntary basis or pursuant to a subpoena. Should committee chair Elijah Cummings elect to exercise this power in the near future, the responses Ocasio-Cortez elicited provide him with ample justification for doing so.

Next, she turned to a pair of strategies that Trump purportedly employed before ascending to the White House in an effort to preserve his wealth: inflating the value of his assets when dealing with insurance companies, in order to obtain favorable coverage terms, and then deflating the value of his assets when dealing with local government officials, in order to reduce his property-tax liability. Cohen confirmed his general familiarity with these practices, but also disclosed the limits of his knowledge; he couldn't, for example, speak directly to alleged shell-game maneuvers that took place in the 1990s, before his tenure with the Trump Organization began.

In response, Ocasio-Cortez suggested a logical alternative source of the information she sought. "Where would the committee find more information on this?" she asked, referring to the insurance issue. "Do you think we need to review his financial statements and tax returns in order to compare them?" And again,

with respect to asset deflation: "Would it help for the committee to obtain federal and state tax returns from the president and his company to address that discrepancy?" Both times, he replied in the affirmative. And both times, he suggested a handful of individuals who might have that knowledge: longtime Trump Organization officials Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew Calamari.---MORE---

Reply
Mar 1, 2019 07:57:53   #
Kevyn
 
Bad Bob wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-asked-sharpest-201050742.html

For a political newcomer whom even some Democratic pundits think of as a "self-perpetuating legend" unworthy of the "hype," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proving to be quite good at her job—and not just, as her critics contend, at Twitter. During Michael Cohen's testimony in front of the House Oversight and

Reform Committee on Wednesday, the congresswoman cleverly helped lay the groundwork for a potentially wide-ranging investigation into the president's well-documented but still not fully understood history of financial wrongdoing and criminality.
She didn't even need all five of her allotted minutes. In about four minutes and 17 seconds, Ocasio-Cortez cruised through a rapid-fire questioning of Donald Trump's former attorney and fixer, homing in on the goods.

Video

First, Ocasio-Cortez delved into the infamous "treasure trove" of stories stockpiled by AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company. They were part of a catch-and-k**l operation designed by Cohen and AMI to shield the president from future embarrassing Stormy Daniels–esque revelations. When Cohen replied that he could no longer be sure of the whereabouts of these documents, Ocasio-Cortez—instead of pressing him for lurid details about their contents—simply asked who might be able to tell the House Oversight Committee more about them. Cohen, under oath, named names: David Pecker, Barry Levine, and Dylan Howard.

Pecker, who is AMI's chairman and CEO, already struck an immunity deal with federal prosecutors in conjunction with his involvement in hush-money payments during the 2016 campaign. But this agreement would not preclude Pecker (or Levine or Howard) from testifying about the matter before Congress, whether on a voluntary basis or pursuant to a subpoena. Should committee chair Elijah Cummings elect to exercise this power in the near future, the responses Ocasio-Cortez elicited provide him with ample justification for doing so.

Next, she turned to a pair of strategies that Trump purportedly employed before ascending to the White House in an effort to preserve his wealth: inflating the value of his assets when dealing with insurance companies, in order to obtain favorable coverage terms, and then deflating the value of his assets when dealing with local government officials, in order to reduce his property-tax liability. Cohen confirmed his general familiarity with these practices, but also disclosed the limits of his knowledge; he couldn't, for example, speak directly to alleged shell-game maneuvers that took place in the 1990s, before his tenure with the Trump Organization began.

In response, Ocasio-Cortez suggested a logical alternative source of the information she sought. "Where would the committee find more information on this?" she asked, referring to the insurance issue. "Do you think we need to review his financial statements and tax returns in order to compare them?" And again,

with respect to asset deflation: "Would it help for the committee to obtain federal and state tax returns from the president and his company to address that discrepancy?" Both times, he replied in the affirmative. And both times, he suggested a handful of individuals who might have that knowledge: longtime Trump Organization officials Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew Calamari.---MORE---
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/alexandria-ocasio-... (show quote)
Anyone who buys into the right wing media’s nonsensical contention that Ocasio-Cortez isn’t sharp should look at her questioning of Cohen during the hearing. More than anyone on either side of the isle she asked questions that will open the door to Americans finally getting to the t***h about the Trump syndicate. I can’t wait to see her dance when her fine work and that of other patriots brings the crooked Pumpkinfuhrer down!



Reply
Mar 1, 2019 07:59:08   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
Kevyn wrote:
Anyone who buys into the right wing media’s nonsensical contention that Ocasio-Cortez isn’t sharp should look at her questioning of Cohen during the hearing. More than anyone on either side of the isle she asked questions that will open the door to Americans finally getting to the t***h about the Trump syndicate.



Reply
 
 
Mar 1, 2019 13:40:06   #
tommsteyer
 
Nope. The most sharp questions were never asked.

for instance: if all the agreements and commands were communicat d and "understood" without direct speech,
why would anyone record 100 different times nothing being said?"

Were you planning on electronically manipulating and re-recirding a new master using Trumps career audio files to render a "gotcha" tape with no actual factual basis?

Why a hundred recordings? why not stop at ten if nothing incriminating was being recorded? Why go to a hundred? why keep the recordings?

and...

How come you didn't just quit representing Trump if the work was so ethically burdensome to you?

and

how come you trying to record your own legal clients and yet your own ethics didn't stop you?

Why didn't you just move on to another high paying job like lobbying or legal work for a nonpolitical entity!

Isn't it a fact that you conspired with Avenatti to purposefully direct campaign derived accounts for Stormy's blackmail, and to utilize funds and imply Trump knew, when in fact you were just playing three card Monte and abusing Trump's trust?

How come you didn't advise your client of his legal position and/or withdraw use of your own HELOC as a resource!

Didn't you plan to blackmail Trump using this information and when he failed to accede to your demands you dumped the whole mess at the media!

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.