Ocasio-Cortez slams New York Times for framing of Hope Hicks's 'existential question'

  
Via:  tessylo  •  3 weeks ago  •  54 comments

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'



9197dca0-94e1-11e6-9718-4d4a4a2e45f0_US- Kadia Tubman Sun, May 26 9:24 PM GMT+2 












AOC slams New York Times article for framing of Hope Hicks's 'existential question'










giraffe-284108-1558907627657.jpg

Scroll back up to restore default view.





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.”

5ceae05b240000540085469a.jpeg
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 allowed

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.”

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 allowedThis iframe is not allowedThis iframe is not allowedThis iframe is not allowedThis iframe is not allowed

_____



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

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.”

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

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.”

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @2.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.2  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    3 weeks ago
“Ms. Hicks was mentioned on 28 pages in the report,” wrote Haberman.

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    3 weeks ago

At that time they didnt know which instances of obstruction of justice Hicks had witnessed. Now they do. 

Big difference. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
Now they do. 

What have they got John?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

The report did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice issue, despite what the president and his allies have consistently claimed.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
2.2.5  Colour Me Free  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.4    3 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.2.5    3 weeks ago
so the topic becomes a bit moot at some point

Nope, not at all.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.6    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    3 weeks ago
So the point really is moot.

Nope.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.9  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

Oh, really.  The subpoena was issued BEFORE the Mueller Report was finished, so now all the Dems/Libs are doing is TROLLING.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2    3 weeks ago
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.”

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

What has Hicks accomplished?  What makes her a talented woman?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    3 weeks ago
What has Hicks accomplished?

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


920x920.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
In August 2014, Hicks joinedThe Trump Organizationfull-time.[18]She worked for Ivanka Trump insideTrump Tower, helping expand her fashion label (the Ivanka Trump Collection) and modeling for her online store.[27]In October 2014, she began working directly for Donald Trump.[28]

In January 2015, Donald Trump chose Hicks, who was 26 years old at the time, for the role ofpress secretaryfor his potential presidential campaign.[29][30]Trump summoned her to his office and, as she tells it, "Mr. Trump looked at me and said, 'I'm thinking about running for president, and you're going to be my press secretary.'"[27]Until that time, she had never worked in politics or volunteered on a campaign.[31]

wikipedia

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Didnt Hope Hicks work for the Trump organization prior to her "political career"?   Wasn't she mainly a friend of the Trump family. 

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!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
I dont see a dang thing in that bio that recommends her as a white house adviser or press secretary.

The only thing that counts is what the President wants


This was simple "nepotism".  

Narrowly defined "nepotism" involves family members:

noun

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics

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.
 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
Plus no doubt Trump thinks she is hot. 

Which is the only reason she was hired.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
Trump brought her in because she is attractive and she was a friend of his children. 

Irrelevant.  Every President gets to pick whomever he wants. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    3 weeks ago
As for "getting the job done", if your'e a Conservative, this guy is getting straight A s.

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
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.

Which specific institutions have been torn down?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
The turd picked the ones who paid for their positions

Who paid, how much did they pay, who did they pay?

Proof?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
3.1.14  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I'm not in favor of any twenty-somethings having any influence in the White House.

Very interesting … Yet you are fine with a 20 something having influence as a law maker in DC?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.15  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

Other than being from a family of known Communists, what qualifications did Valerie Jarrett have to be Obama’s advisor?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.16  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.15    3 weeks ago

Oh for fucks sake,  communists?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.18  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    3 weeks ago

"LINK"

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

who became the White House Communications Director. Don't you consider that an accomplishment?

No

Talent?

Ability to be where needed

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @4    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.2    3 weeks ago

So you're a mind reader 'doc'?

What hatred?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

You mean your postings have absolutely no hate?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

Bingo!

 
 
 
Tessylo
5  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

Never ending crusade?  To find the truth?

There are no decent people involved with the turd.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago

I refer you back to post #4.2.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.3    3 weeks ago

So you're a mind reader 'doc'?

What hatred?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.1    3 weeks ago

One only has to read to your posts describing your love and admiration for anything regarding Trump or conservatives in general...jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago

Now what was that you have  been saying about "What hatred?"jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
6  Ronin2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7  Jasper2529    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Don Overton
epistte
XXJefferson#51
Dulay


51 visitors