Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her team were caught making false statements about a document on the “Green New Deal” that they published on the congresswoman’s website after Ocasio-Cortez was widely mocked across the political spectrum.
Ocasio-Cortez published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on her congressional page that contained numerous outrageous statements, including that her “Green New Deal” sought to provide economic protections to those who were “unwilling to work.”
On Friday, Ocasio-Cortez adviser Robert Hockett appeared on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” where he made multiple false statements about the FAQ document published by Ocasio-Cortez’s team.
A video published by far-left Media Matters, an online publication that aims to smear conservatives, showed part of Hockett’s false claims, which Ocasio-Cortez then retweeted to her 3 million Twitter followers.
Watch what happens when Tucker Carlson steps out of the conservative bubble and brings on an @AOC policy adviser who debunks all the conservative media lies straight to his face (spoiler: it doesn't go great for Tucker) pic.twitter.com/joDNXBBB7G
— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) February 9, 2019
Online archives show that Ocasio-Cortez’s team did, in fact, publish the document that said the Green New Deal would provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
Here's an archived version of the now-deleted @AOC's House webpage with the #GreenNewDeal FAQ's and the "guarantee" in all its glory: "It guarantees to everyone… Economic security to all who are… unwilling to work."https://t.co/UlOtwgD3dT pic.twitter.com/qr29dzU2fV
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) February 8, 2019
After being thoroughly mocked across the political spectrum over the disastrous rollout of her Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez did what she does best — make false and misleading statements while playing the victim card.
Ocasio-Cortez found a couple of examples of Twitter accounts who had tweeted out parody versions of her Green New Deal, and claimed that the Republican Party was secretly behind the attempt to destroy her plan because it was “so strong.”
“When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway https://t.co/BbHIn8cu0f
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 8, 2019
Below is the full interview Ocasio-Cortez’s adviser had on Fox News.
Transcript from Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ocasio-Cortez adviser Robert Hockett provided via Fox News:
TUCKER CARLSON: All right, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says her Green New Deal will save the planet. In exchange, we just give up cars and airplanes and rebuild every structure in the United States. We’ll also by the way need to invent brand new forms of energy that science hasn’t conceived of yet. How much will this cost? That’s unclear. How will we pay for it? Unknown. Who will make this happen? Well, workers, obviously, though anyone who is quote, “unwilling” to work will still get paid by the government.
In other words, not all of the details have been ironed out as of tonight, that’s why we’re grateful that Robert Hockett is here. He is a Law Professor at Cornell. He is advising Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the Green New Deal and he joins us. Professor, thanks very much for coming on.
ROBERT HOCKETT, LAW PROFESSOR, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Thanks, tucker.
CARLSON: So can I just ask the obvious question, why would we ever pay people who are quote “unwilling to work”?
HOCKETT: We never would, right? And AOC has never said anything like that, right? I think you are referring to some sort of document that — I think, some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating.
CARLSON: Oh, I thought that came right from her – that was in the backgrounder from her office is my understanding.
HOCKETT: No, no. She has actually tweeted it out to laugh at it. If you look at latest tweets. It seems that apparently, some Republicans have put it out there. I don’t know the details.
CARLSON: Well, good. Well, then thank you for correcting me. I mean, because it seemed a little ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the idea that we’re going to build enough light rail to make airplanes unnecessary, which I think actually is from —
HOCKETT: I don’t know where you got that either, Tucker. I actually believe that you are actually on our side about this. If you actually read the actual plan, right, there is nothing about getting rid of anything. It is about expanding many options, right?
I mean, there are many, many things we want to be able to do now in addition to what we already do. So what’s — where is the airplane disappearance coming from? I’m not really clear on where that originated?
CARLSON: Well, I could actually get it for you. This is a —
HOCKETT: That would be great because I keep hearing that.
CARLSON: … frequently questions released by her office and I’m quoting from it. Maybe this is fraudulent in which case, I hope you will correct me. But it says that the Green New Deal — and I am quoting, “Totally overhaul transportation and that would mean,” quote, “building out high speed rail at a scale where air travel would stop becoming necessary.”
Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono responded to that by saying, “That would be hard for Hawaii.” So I don’t think that’s made up. The Senator from Hawaii.
HOCKETT: No, no. But I mean, apparently it is being misunderstood, right? We are really talking about expanding optionality here. We are not talking about getting rid of anything, right? We are talking about basically making it cost effective to move into more modern forms of technology and more modern forms of production which would then enable people actually cost effectively to transition to that stuff. We are not talking about requiring anything or prohibiting anything, that’s sort of 1980s style environmentalist.
CARLSON: Okay, but hold on, I don’t want to you back away from what she herself has said and all of this with the caveat that a lot of this won’t happen, maybe none of it, but these are the ideas that she is articulating. She did so on NBC last week.
HOCKETT: Well, I promise you, Tucker, I won’t back away from thinking she said, and see, we are pushing forward, right?
CARLSON: Then, she said, well, yes at high speed.
HOCKETT: Yes, very high speed. Yes.
CARLSON: That we are going to supplant all fossil fuels in 12 years.
HOCKETT: Yes, yes.
CARLSON: Okay, so that would mean —
HOCKETT: But that doesn’t mean prohibiting them. It means rendering them obsolete by doing something better. And we can do it. This is America. We can do anything.
CARLSON: Then good. Then I am glad, and it’s nice to have a smart person on the show to explain this. What about air travel which is critical to our economy? This is a continental country.
HOCKETT: It stays the same, right?
CARLSON: Okay, but no, because that requires fossil fuel.
HOCKETT: That might, wait, we are not talking – we are talking about carbon neutrality, remember? We are talking about net zero emissions. That doesn’t mean there is never any burning of anything, right? I mean, until we come up with solar panel flying airplanes, of course, we are not going to —
CARLSON: I’m sorry to interrupt you. I just want to correct you. I just had – because this seemed like we were making news on this show. The “unwilling to work” thing was in her backgrounder, that has been absolutely confirmed.
HOCKETT: No, no. Definitely not.
CARLSON: You’re saying no.
HOCKETT: No, definitely not. Definitely not.
CARLSON: Okay, so NBC and lots of other news outlets are saying that that was in the backgrounder and you are saying it is fraudulent.
HOCKETT: No, that’s erroneous, right. Now, there might be new details now that you know about that I don’t because I have been doing media all day. But the story all day —
CARLSON: Yes, I think that was actually in the document. I read it as it came out.
HOCKETT: Well, it’s the wrong document, Tucker. If that was —
CARLSON: Well, yes, well, it’s definitely the wrong document.
HOCKETT: That’s not us. No, we certainly don’t believe in anything like that, right?
CARLSON: So what you’re saying is, we’re getting rid of fossil fuels actually, even though you just said we were because —
HOCKETT: Yes. No, no, we’re rendering them obsolete for most purposes they are used for now, right?
CARLSON: BUT air travel is a huge source, a huge source.
HOCKETT: But that’s — hence the word “most” before, right? We eliminate them for most purposes for which they are used now by rendering them obsolete.
CARLSON: Okay, so — but that would include cars. So I have got two gasoline powered cars at home.
HOCKETT: Yes, but imagine how much better it is going to be when it’s cost effective to drive electric cars. But that can’t be done simply by individuals, right, you have to coordinate. You have to have charging stations everywhere and, of course, individuals can’t do that, right?
So in that sense, the government is acting like kind of orchestra conductor here, we are trying to coordinate some of that stuff that could only be centrally coordinated and enable everybody to act individually within that framework, right?
CARLSON: Yes, that doesn’t — I don’t fully understand what you are saying, but let me just, I mean on the low end, this would be the most expensive thing that the United States has ever undertaken including rural electrification in the Second World War and I am just kind of wondering in a country that has got more debt than it has GDP, how would we pay for that?
HOCKETT: Well, here’s the key, right? Remember that we racked up enormous debt to finance the Second World War effort and the deal and of course the interstate highway system in the 1950s. But here is a key point, he is a takeaway.
I want you to remember this, I hope everybody will remember this. Remember that inflation is a relation, right? It’s the relation between the quantity of money and the quantity of goods. Now, if the money that you are spending is resulting in the production of a great many more goods, you have no inflation problem.
More production absorbs more expenditures. The problem with the $7 trillion that was spent during the Bush years and then of course, in the last tax cut was that it wasn’t actually productive, but note, that even that didn’t bring about inflation.
CARLSON: Okay, we’re still not getting close to it, and by the way I am just getting all of this in my ear, we are actually going to follow up on this next week. That “unwilling to work” line which you are obviously embarrassed about and you should be of course.
HOCKETT: No, no, I am not embarrassed, it’s just not us.
CARLSON: That was in the document.
HOCKETT: It’s not embarrassing. No, Tucker. No, no. We are not embarrassed by what is not ours.
CARLSON: And we’re going to — paying people who are unwilling to work, there’s nothing more embarrassing than that.
HOCKETT: No, Tucker. We’re not embarrassed by what’s not ours. Okay, we will clarify this, it’s not ours.
CARLSON: Okay, we’re going to get to the bottom of that.
HOCKETT: Yes, we are.
CARLSON: We are going to prove it one way or the other and I hope you will come back.
HOCKETT: I will. I welcome it.
CARLSON: Professor, thank you.
HOCKETT: Thank you so much, Tucker.
CARLSON: I am glad — I am always grateful when people on your side come on, including you. Thank you.