[ad_1]
R ep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Spent the weekend lying about the disastrous deployment of her absurd "Green New Deal". The Washington Post's fact-finder does not dispute that. But he refused to give him "Pinocchios" anyway because Trump.
No, really.
The newspaper refused to disclose the obvious lies of the congressman, suggesting that his resolution in the House was the target of a libel campaign from the right, explaining that the president had also made misleading statements about of the proposed bill.
One of the newspaper's auditors would do everything possible to soften what Ocasio-Cortez and his team were clearly trying to lie and mislead. This is compounded by the fact that the author of the Post article is also one of the journalists who attributed to President two "Pinocchios" last week when he said that "One in three [female migrants] is sexually assaulted during the long northward journey" because, in fact, "31.4% of women reported having been" sexually abused "during their journey, not "sexually assaulted" as Trump says. "
Ocasio-Cortez unveiled its much awaited" Green New "Proposal, which aims to turn the US economy into a more respectful version of the environment and more respectful of the environment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the House's resolution is absurd, especially one that calls for the modernization or replacement of each building in the country over a 10-year period "to achieve the same. maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.
Adding an extra layer of national humor to this unintentional comedy is the fact that the staff of the congressman circulated pages of bizarre "Frequently Asked Questions" last week, including the following: one appeared on his website. The FAQ contained additional ideas and proposals that were not included in the current legislation co-sponsored by more than 100 Democratic legislators.
One of the FAQs made available to NPR stated that the purpose of the bill was to reduce fossil fuel emissions to "zero emissions instead of zero" in ten years, because we are not sure to be able to get rid of it completely. fart the cows and planes quickly. "The NPR FAQ, as well as the FAQ on the Ocasio-Cortez Web page, stated that the bill would provide" economic security for all those who can not or will not work. "
making their position more difficult to defend or take seriously, Ocasio-Cortez staff judiciously pulled the FAQ from its web page.
It is here that the congressman and his team made concerted efforts to mislead the public.
"When the #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to spreading false versions, while the truth contains 70 Cosponsors of the House on the first day and all the Dem presidential candidates rally from any way, "complained the congressman ] last Friday .
His tweet, which kicked off the narrative suggesting that the ridiculous pages of his House resolution and FAQ were not actually his office, did not not a legislator or GOP staff member. Instead, he cites only an obvious joke shared by social media trolls "showing" the "Green New Deal" which states that all men must urinate in empty milk jars.
Later in the same sentence, Robert Hockett, Ocasio-Cortez advisor and law professor at Cornell University Law School, was asked to explain the line "refusing to work". He responded by denying the authenticity of the FAQ page, saying, "I think you are referring to a type of document. … it's wrong. This is the wrong document. This is not us. "
On Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff admitted that the FAQs were authentic, but went on to say that his office had been the victim of a concerted misinformation campaign." Hockett also said on Saturday that the FAQs were legitimate, Yesterday, after a long day in the media, it seems that there was more than one document under discussion, only one of which I had heard about precisely, namely the one mentioned by the MP in her tweet. "But the congresswoman herself held up this weekend, suggesting that legitimate critics for her ridiculous House resolution are suspicious because of an obscure campaign being conducted by the GOP to delegitimize its proposal.
"There are many resolutions and fictitious questions about the GND that are circulating, it was also a preliminary version that has been downloaded and deleted, and there are also floating drafts," she said. tweeted.
Ocasio-Corte z's official response and his team denied writing what they had written and claimed to be victims of a perverse right smear, admitting that they had wrote what they had written while still claiming to be victims of a perverse right smear.And all because the congressman and her team panicked after the review was applied to the language that they included in the documents that they shared with the public.It would have been nice if the FAQ had been distributed by mistake. been considered as a blunder and quickly forgotten.The problem here is that the membr e of the Congress is clearly trying to mislead the public about what really happened, by publishing a rogue article about the trafficked version of the "Green New Deal" by GOP that is circulating.
This is where you think fact checkers would be useful. But no. The Washington Post published a factual investigation, the final result of which was as follows:
It is also misleading for Ocasio-Cortez to mention "tampered" materials as she reacted to these attacks. Most of the criticisms she answered were
based on documents from his office, not on fake "urine recycling" plans.
It must be maintained that the criticisms concerning the abandonment of planes and cows were exaggerated because the resolution did not mention any of this and the FAQs were not definitive. But Ocasio-Cortez has now repudiated the FAQ and statements going beyond resolution. The line that talks about providing people "who do not want to work" has been completely removed. We will not assign Pinocchios to this kerfuffle.
It's amazing how fast a fact-checking operation can go from giving "bottomless pinocchios" to poetry about the nature of "truth" to the political affiliation of the person that she covers. It is even more amazing that the newspaper that was publishing this year a $ 10 million Super Bowl advertisement praising reporters who were covering the D-Day invasion could not afford to say that A 29-year-old Congolese MP had lied.
[ad_2]
Source link
