Ocasio-Cortez slams New York Times for framing of Hope Hicks's 'existential question'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
Ocasio-Cortez slams New York Times for framing of Hope Hicks's 'existential question'
Kadia Tubman Sun, May 26 9:24 PM GMT+2 
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rebuked a New York Times piece about former White House communications director Hope Hicks, who was recently issued a subpoena to submit documents and testify before the House Judiciary Committee as part of its congressional investigation into possible obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power by President Trump.
In the New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman, titled “Hope Hicks Left the White House. Now She Must Decide Whether to Talk to Congress,” the White House correspondent described Hicks’s decision as “facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena in the coming weeks.”
The committee authorized subpoenas for Hicks as it had done in April for former White House counsel Don McGahn, who failed to comply with his subpoena at the direction of the White House, not appearing for a scheduled hearing on Tuesday. The congressional subpoena, which is not optional, asks Hicks, who is mentioned over two dozen times in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, to provide documents to the committee by June 4 and to testify on June 19.
“Like few others in the White House, Ms. Hicks was witness to some of the president’s angriest moments and most pointed directives about the investigations into the Trump campaign and its contacts with Russians in 2016,” the Times reported. “Her dilemma now is how to respond to House Democrats, who have grown frustrated and increasingly aggressive in the face of a sweeping decision by the Trump administration, and the Trump Organization, to oppose such subpoenas.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Ocasio-Cortez called out this temperate framing on Twitter Sunday.
“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,’” wrote Ocasio-Cortez. This is a [former] admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President. Treat her equally.”
This iframe is not allowedHaberman pointed out that Hicks was repeatedly mentioned in the Mueller report, which found no conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, but detailed “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”
The report did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice issue, despite what the president and his allies have consistently claimed.
“Ms. Hicks was mentioned on 28 pages in the report,” wrote Haberman. “Three of those are related to possible conspiracy between Russian officials and the Trump campaign, and the rest to the obstruction investigation. They paint a picture of an adviser who was more of a witness to the president’s frustrations with the investigations into his campaign and his own conduct, rather than someone who was an active participant in any discussions of what to do about them.”
The New York Times did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Hicks barely spoke on record when she served as the public relations strategist behind Trump’s presidential campaign but was frequently seen at his side before she stepped down from her position in March 2018, as illustrated in instances outlined in Mueller’s report that could amount to obstruction.
One such instance involves comments from Hicks about emails between Donald Trump Jr. and Russians and plans to spin the story about Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
Other critics took to social media to cry foul on how the article painted Hicks, drawing distinctions between race and social status for those who face the criminal justice system. They also slammed the glamorous cover shot of Hicks in the story.
This iframe is not allowed This iframe is not allowed This iframe is not allowed This iframe is not allowed This iframe is not allowed_____
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Ocasio-Cortez called out this temperate framing on Twitter Sunday.
“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,’” wrote Ocasio-Cortez. This is a [former] admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President. Treat her equally.”
Haberman pointed out that Hicks was repeatedly mentioned in the Mueller report, which found no conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, but detailed “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”
The report did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice issue, despite what the president and his allies have consistently claimed.
“Ms. Hicks was mentioned on 28 pages in the report,” wrote Haberman. “Three of those are related to possible conspiracy between Russian officials and the Trump campaign, and the rest to the obstruction investigation. They paint a picture of an adviser who was more of a witness to the president’s frustrations with the investigations into his campaign and his own conduct, rather than someone who was an active participant in any discussions of what to do about them.”
AND On February 27, 2018, Hicks gave nine hours of closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. I suggest Haberman & Cortez and their fellow hacks read the testimony she already provided them with. Ms Hicks need not pay anymore legal fees or waste anymore time on this nonsense.
At that time they didnt know which instances of obstruction of justice Hicks had witnessed. Now they do.
Big difference.
What have they got John?
Whether Trump obstructed or not, it is now too late to do anything about it.
But everybody knows that nothing he said or did rose to the level of obstructing the report.
Time for the left to move on.
The report did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice issue, despite what the president and his allies have consistently claimed.
Morning Tessylo..
There is a catch 22 when it come to exonerating or not exonerating .. The powers that be in Chicago say that Jussie Smollett was not exonerated either, but all charges were dropped and the record sealed.
The Mueller report may not exonerate, but it failed to conclude that Trump did obstruct justice - so the topic becomes a bit moot at some point. All the House committees can do is begin the impeachment process [which I believe most likely will happen soon] yet there is lil that can be done about the 'not exonerated obstruction' that Mueller did not conclude happened...
Hope your day is a sweet one...
Nope, not at all.
The Dems will not impeach him, because the effort will fail and they can't afford the political risk of being on the losing side yet again.
So the point really is moot.
Nope.
Oh, really. The subpoena was issued BEFORE the Mueller Report was finished, so now all the Dems/Libs are doing is TROLLING.
So she just witnessed Trump rather than advised him?? And now the Dems want her to explain her impressions and thoughts of Trump's emotional state while she observed him allegedly being angry or happy or whatever. Isn't that what is called hearsay?
In an earlier story, it appears that AOC bitched about the NYT using a flattering picture of the attractive Ms Hicks instead of a dowdy one. Perhaps the horse faced congresswoman is a tad jealous of a really accomplished and talented woman.
What has Hicks accomplished? What makes her a talented woman?
She is a highly regarded public relations consultant who became the White House Communications Director. Don't you consider that an accomplishment?
What makes her a talented woman?
Ability to be where needed
Didnt Hope Hicks work for the Trump organization prior to her "political career"? Wasn't she mainly a friend of the Trump family. I see no particular reason to describe her as especially talented.
I'm not in favor of any twenty-somethings having any influence in the White House.
I dont see a dang thing in that bio that recommends her as a white house adviser or press secretary. This was simple "nepotism".
Plus no doubt Trump thinks she is hot.
Yes & Yes
I see no particular reason to describe her as especially talented.
John, I was having some fun there, thus the picture. Get it? Or does everything connected to Trump have to be taken literally?
I'm not in favor of any twenty-somethings having any influence in the White House.
That's a far cry from demonizing somebody or destroying them financially while ruining their reputation. Trump haters need their comeuppance. It's coming!
Hicks had no qualifications to work for the president of the United States. Trump brought her in because she is attractive and she was a friend of his children.
The only thing that counts is what the President wants
This was simple "nepotism".
Narrowly defined "nepotism" involves family members:
noun
Be that as it may, it's still the President's call
Plus no doubt Trump thinks she is hot.
Based on his taste in women, I would agree. Despite all of that Donald Trump has been an excellent President.
Which is the only reason she was hired.
Irrelevant. Every President gets to pick whomever he wants.
While every President gets to pick whomever they want,that doesn't mean the choices are free from scrutiny. It is very relevant when it comes to this Presidents record and how he will be viewed by most Americans. Choosing staff based on nepotism versus picking the most qualified is a reflection of the administration and its inability to get the job done for the American people, and it's obvious to most that this failure of a President has constantly picked the least qualified staff. Perhaps they were voted "most likely to brown nose a moron" in high school which made them so qualified to serve under this half-wit.
This President hasn't picked everyone on his staff the same way and many of his more important posts WERE filled with qualified individuals. Let's not forget, Obama chose people based on ideology! As for "getting the job done", if your'e a Conservative, this guy is getting straight A s.
The turd picked the ones who paid for their positions and also the ones who would tear down the institutions they're 'hired' for to oversee.
And if you're anything other than a religious conservative bent on protecting what you perceive as "white culture" in America, then this idiot is exactly what he seems to everyone else, a monumentally stupid narcissistic bully with a room temp IQ an a seeming inability to tell the truth about anything destroying Presidential norms and dismantling the government. Just refusing to ever admit you're wrong is not a winning strategy, it's called denial. The naked Emperor is still naked, no matter how much he refuses to accept that fact and claims he's wearing the best, most expensive, finest clothes ever made.
Which specific institutions have been torn down?
Who paid, how much did they pay, who did they pay?
Proof?
Very interesting … Yet you are fine with a 20 something having influence as a law maker in DC?
Other than being from a family of known Communists, what qualifications did Valerie Jarrett have to be Obama’s advisor?
Oh for fucks sake, communists?
Uhhh - you wanna give us her job description John? That way ALL of us can make our own choices as to whether or not she was qualified for the job she held in the White House.
"LINK"
who became the White House Communications Director. Don't you consider that an accomplishment?
No
Talent?
Ability to be where needed
BTW, some of that was meant to be funny.
Getting back to reality, I think that Ms Hicks has spent more on legal fees than she earned as WH Communications director. Don't you think that a lot of decent people have been hurt in this never ending crusade to hurt Trump?
But if she were a progressive liberal democrat it would be okay and a whole different story and you know it. But because she is not and was connected to the Trump administration she is subject to the hatred of the left and is fair game. Nothing more than guilt by association in your eyes.
So you're a mind reader 'doc'?
What hatred?
You mean your postings have absolutely no hate?
Bingo!
Never ending crusade? To find the truth?
There are no decent people involved with the turd.
I think that might not have been your first response, nor the second, but even with the reflection & revision, it is still hard to deny that many who served this President have been victims of the lefts hate.
Who cares how many times I revised my statement? Obviously you have nothing better to do than track how many times I change my statement.
Whatever dude.
[deleted]
We know the truth Tessylo. And by "we" I mean the vast majority of American citizens.
It seems certain elements on the left can't accept or handle the truth.
Since there was never any crime (collusion) committed, there was nothing to obstruct. Also, the Mueller investigation proceeded on unimpeded for almost two years and a logical conclusion according to the facts was reached. That couldn't have happened if there had been any obstruction at all.
I refer you back to post #4.2.
So you're a mind reader 'doc'?
What hatred?
One only has to read to your posts describing your love and admiration for anything regarding Trump or conservatives in general...
Now what was that you have been saying about "What hatred?"
I think AOC is jealous. Hicks briefly stole her media thunder.
As for the left's claim that Hicks is unqualified; after electing AOC they need to look up the meaning of unqualified.
It took AOC less than 5 months to forget that she was hired by US citizens to legislate. Instead of concentrating on learning her job and fulfilling the requisites, she flies around the country flapping her opinionated gums in front of friendly cameras and microphones.