Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in trouble and should there be a formal investigation by the House?

It probably should be looked into and not dismissed out of hand as “fake news” as some are inclined to do.

I’m reading more and am finding that not only did they funnel cash to shell corporations, they were on the board of to PACs that contributed heavily to her campaign. That, in itself, could open her up to huge penalties from the FEC. I am not surprised, however, that the liberal media isn’t pushing this story. Had this been Trump, it would have been (and should have been) front page news for weeks. But on this? Not a peep out of CNN, WaPo, NYT,...none of them.

It should be looked into. Even if the aide is guilty of diverting funds to his own account, it is not clear that AOC benefited or even knew about it.

@seawulf575. Why is everything a fight or an argument with you?
I don’t see this being blasted from Fox News or the National Enquirer either. Both of which spout the virtues of Trump.

Given the source (Washington Times, owned by Sun Myung Moon) and lack of corroboration from other similarly inclined media outlets, I would not jump on a bandwagon to condemn Representative Ocasio-Cortez.

Given how new she is in politics, I question anyone saying she had access to that much PAC money.

Yes, but only if investigation reveals that she might have actually been involved.

@chyna I didn’t use Fox because (a) it wasn’t where I first saw it and (b) when I use Fox as a source, you on the left go crazy and try slamming the source instead of the substance. But to mollify and nullify your complaint

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-millionaire-chief-of-staff-violated-fec-rules-to-hide-885g-fec-complaint-alleges

Just a point of emphasis…right after your comment, @zenvelo did indeed start to attack the source without actually doing any research himself. Sort of makes my point, doesn’t it?

@zenvelo Much of her money came from PACs according to the article. The FEC records I found tell me she had over $2M for her campaign

You are just using this question to slam anyone that doesn’t agree with you. I’m out.

@kritiper I agree. I think there is enough question to warrant a thorough investigation. But as I say with all these things, it still should be innocent until proven guilty. According to the documents I have seen, her name is on all sorts of the filings for the PACs, though.

@chyna That’s an interesting statement. I asked a question concerning alleged political corruption and your first response was to accuse me of wanting a fight or an argument. You really didn’t address the question at all. You tried using logic to slam the source, but my response proved that logic to be false. Now you are saying I am slamming you because you tried slamming me and I proved you wrong? You are a strange woman.

@seawulf575 My name could be on the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn’t mean I had anything to do with it.

@kritiper Possibly. But if your name was on the Declaration of Independence and it listed you as President, it would look a lot worse. But in the case of AOC, as I have said…it is allegations. It could be that her Chief of Staff was a complete snake and just threw her name and forged her signature all over the place. We don’t know. But it warrants looking at. And if it is true, then we have the second question…what to do with it. But that is after guilt has been established or refuted.

@seawulf575 So to answer your question (thank you for Fox corroboration, i was unable to find it), the process is underway, which is referral to FEC. Once the non partisan FEC makes a finding, then House Ethics can deal with it if necessary,

Sure, they should check it out if there is reasonable evidence to investigate.

@seawulf575 It doesn’t matter what it looks like because I am assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. You seem to say that I am guilty until proven innocent. But I think lots of people think that way…
@JLeslie Yes, it’s called “probable cause.” You have to have it. A person cannot be dragged up in front of a committee for no reason.

@seawulf575

You can complain about attacking the source all you want, but the Washington Examiner does have a history of running stories without evidence or corroboration. You cannot fault people for erring on the side of skepticism.

If, after the FEC has looked into it, the House determines that an investigation is necessary then, yes, there should be an investigation by the House. But not before the FEC has completed its part.

@Darth_Algar as to the source, what I find amusing is that if I cited CNN no one would have lifted an eyebrow. Yet CNN has a long history of falsification of reports and videos. Didn’t they also run with the Covington Student story as well? They didn’t have the full video but still ran with it. As did NYT, HuffPo, Politico and a number of others that this group would consider reputable and reliable. Oddly, though, with the undercover Planned Parenthood videos they refused to air them saying they were edited. The courts later determined the tape were authentic. My point behind attacking the source is that it negates any content. without consideration. If someone posts a story from the Daily Beast, I will read it to see what that person is saying. Now, being the Daily Beast I know that it is skewed way to the left and probably is presenting opinion or innuendo as fact. But I don’t know that is the case unless I read it. If it IS the case, then I can discuss why that is a bad source instead of just discounting it. With this group, unless I am citing some uber-liberal source, they will attack the source and not the substance pretty much without fail.

You’re clearly not looking for honest discussion here. You’re only looking for an argument. This shit grows tiresome.

Actually I am looking for honest discussion here. I’m not looking for discussion that merely wants to complain about a source.

Sorry dude, but your second post gave your intentions away.