Skip to main content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Asked the Sharpest Questions in the Michael Cohen Hearing

February 28, 2019

 

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.

Content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

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-kill 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.

A condition that has long afflicted Washington lawmakers—on a bipartisan basis!—is the urge to say something big and splashy during high-profile hearings, since doing so might earn them a segment on the evening news or a mention in the morning paper back home. Because there are 435 members of the House jockeying for the scarce resource of media attention, on-camera time provides them all with a valuable opportunity to star in a retweetable video clip. These dynamics often result in committee members, when given the chance to interrogate a key witness about an issue of national importance, instead choosing to deliver a miniature stump speech that may or may not require the witness's actual participation. (Looking at you, Cory Booker.)

Ocasio-Cortez, who at this point is one of the most famous American politicians not named Donald Trump, does not need to do much these days in order to go viral. (For God's sake, the woman can literally make news by cooking ramen and talking politics on Instagram.) But she knows Democrats will have to win a messy, protracted political battle if they ever want to expose the president's financial malfeasance. By choosing to eschew theatrics in favor of asking substantive, straightforward questions, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez provided party leadership with the strongest justification yet for using the subpoena power to get the president's tax returns. Now, if only more senior members could follow her lead.