Exchange between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Wells Fargo CEO (C-SPAN)

[KelleyKramer]

Wow, and remember this is the youngest member of the entire US congress, I'm impressed ...


Exchange between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Wells Fargo CEO (C-SPAN)

.

[TexasTowelie]

1. I know that she was trying to make a point about Wells Fargo acting against people

and I admire her enthusiasm, but I was not impressed with her questioning. While she may have a degree in economics, it appears that she does not have a solid understanding about banking, insurance, or law.

Her question about why shouldn't Wells Fargo be held liable for the actions of a pipeline company because Wells Fargo loaned money to the company seems like something covered in the first year of law school. It's why the pipeline companies have insurance. On a personal level, it would be analogous to why shouldn't Wells Fargo be liable if they loaned me money to buy a car and I injured someone in an accident?

Her question attempting to say a bank is liable for flooding in coastal communities because they funded companies that constructed a pipeline that caused climate change also seems ridiculous. I doubt that a jury would come into agreement that event A caused theory B resulting in payable loss C.

[KelleyKramer]

4. I think you are entirely missing the point

For starters, she is not an attorney litigating a criminal trial and there is no jury

(and a real lawyer is not held to a 5 minute stop watch for all questions and answers)

Asking why you should not be held liable is not the same thing as saying 'you are guilty of a crime'

And your analogy to a car loan is a strawman. Someone who buys a car is very very VERY unlikely to kill someone with it.

I can do strawmans too.. if someone goes to Wells Fargo for a loan to buy $300 million worth of machine guns and rocket grenade launchers... what are the chances someone will die as a result of that loan being approved?

She got him to admit they had reviewed it and it was a risk they were willing to take

It's really a moral question. To put it in simple terms.. if a bank is going to loan large sums of money and they know full well that approving that loan will result in people dying.. she is asking him to explain why they should not be held responsible for the deaths they knew would happen?

Also keep in mind this is the CEO of a bank that has repeatedly been convicted of ripping off billions of dollars in massive fraud stealing from their own customers

Plus as a bonus, it was fun watching that blood sucking vulture sweat a little because he didn't really know for sure where she was going with her questions.

[Uncle Joe]

7. +1

[TexasTowelie]

9. I understand the point that she is trying to make,

but it is speculation that either the bank or a pipeline company knows that what they will do result in people dying. The attorneys for the bank and pipeline companies could also argue that by undertaking this project in the United States that it may result in less deaths in the Middle East or elsewhere.

To extend what I wrote earlier, is bank A responsible (morally, in a civil case, in a criminal case) for pipeline company B taking an action (either with malice or without malice) that may or may not result in unproven theory C (climate change) to occur that may cause a loss D (people dying of a pipeline leak in the near future or climate change in the distant change). Perhaps a moral case can be made (which I respect), but trying to make a civil or criminal case is dubious.

I don't have an issue with anyone taking to task the CEO of Wells Fargo for the crimes they have committed, but I also think that Ocasio-Cortez making a moral case of fiscal irresponsibility that is tangentially related to the Green New Deal is a stretch.

[HootieMcBoob]

2. They concluded that it was a "risk we were willing to take".

because they knew that even if there were leaks or any other kind of environmental damage or destruction that they would not be held liable in any way and that any costs would be the responsibility of the public or the individuals who are directly affected. They make enormous profits while the public is stuck with the bill for the necessary cleanup and individuals are saddled with disease, destruction and devastation. It's a nice little system of corporate socialism they've set up for themselves.

[3Hotdogs]

3. I disagree. The direction of questions is not about the existing law.

It is about social and moral responsibility.

What was the focus of the hearings in the first place?

Did any other representatives, Rep. and Dem., ask any challenging questions?

[George II]

5. You do realize that members of a committee caucus prior to a hearing, work out the questions...

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

....that are to be asked collaboratively, and then the questions are divided among the members.

All most members do, the younger ones in particular, is read off the questions that the group as a whole established and doled out to each member.

[KelleyKramer]

6. Are you uncomfortable?

This is unrelated to the thread, but it reminds me of something that happened a long long time ago.

I got all twisted up like a pretzel, and I found it to be very uncomfortable

[True Blue American]

8. I am twisted like a pretzel

But it has nothing to do with AOC! It is the mess our country is in while others are discussing what one member of 435 said.

I would rather thinkof the 3 seats Democrats gained this week. One in Texas, another in Missisippi.

I forget where the third one was!

[murielm99]

10. I don't know WTF you are talking about,

but I find George's reply very relevant. Do not pretend that a freshman Congress person is divinely inspired and acting without direction from the committee chair and the entire Democratic membership of the committee. We are not stupid enough to buy into that.