6

There is a PDF circulating online that is purported to be an FAQ released by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (hereinafter referred to as AOC).

Here is a link to the PDF

Examples of high-profile claims that this was published by AOC:

Many other results in search engines talk about it.

There are two PDFs linked in the last article, one being the "Resolution on a Green New Deal" itself and the other purporting to be an FAQ about it.

Since the resolution is visible on the ocasio-cortez.house.gov website (as I've just linked to), I don't have any doubts as to its authenticity.

But the FAQ is another matter. I did find an apparent link to the official site indexed in DuckDuckGo, as you can see here:

enter image description here

But the page was taken down. I found it on the WayBack machine, though: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

But, this is only a blog post from the 5th of February, and doesn't match the text of the 7 Feb PDF I'm asking about which is the subject of so many tweets and articles.

Is there any concrete evidence that this PDF came from AOC or her office as widely claimed in online media?

A text version of the document can also be found at NPR. I will quote a portion:

LAUNCH: Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 AM.

Overview

We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so someone else can’t claim this mantle).

This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.

  • The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all.

...

The wording, particularly the parenthetical note, does not make sense as wording choices that would be used in an FAQ. This, plus the absence of any indication on the document itself as to its authorship, is the reason for my skepticism over its origin.

There are also basic typographical errors, as for example the missing word "moon" here:

...

Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.

  • When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.

...

EDIT: To be clear, I am not asking about the draft resolution itself, which is quite obviously authentic and in addition is actually hosted on AOC's website. I am only asking about the PDF which starts with the word "LAUNCH" and has "FAQ" in its name, and has nothing visible in the PDF which indicates who wrote it or even who is meant by "we" within the document.

Wildcard
  • 469
  • 4
  • 12
  • 2
    I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are skeptical about: is the origin of the document disputed by anyone? Otherwise what would you accept as a proof? We specifically do not accept questions like this, because... well in a week there will be way more evidence. I guess the question won't matter then. – Sklivvz Feb 08 '19 at 19:36
  • 1
    I guess I'm not understanding the gist of the question. If OP is not questioning the authenticity of the document, then it came from her or her office. Since her office works for her, and it's standard that elected representatives use their staff to do work on their behalf, does it matter whether it was her, or her office? Or is the question whether it is an official communication on her behalf, at all? – PoloHoleSet Feb 08 '19 at 19:37
  • Also, the file is linked by NPR which is reputable, and they [claim it's by AOC](https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline) so this question makes no sense to me. – Sklivvz Feb 08 '19 at 19:42
  • 4
    @Sklivvz, the question title was altered. The draft resolution is clearly authentic. The FAQ PDF, which is what I actually linked to, is nowhere near as clear in its provenance, given the lack of any headers or footers or authorship information inline, and the basic typographical errors, and the fact that it wasn't present on AOC's website (unlike the draft resolution). However, your point that NPR was given the file directly *by* AOC's office is a good one; I had missed that somehow. – Wildcard Feb 08 '19 at 20:09
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet, initially I thought the FAQ was a badly done summary document made by a third party, perhaps an opponent of AOC's, and only loosely based on her actual words and resolution. This is not unheard of in U.S. politics; for example, the [fictitious 28th amendment proposal](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/28th-amendment/). More generally, when a short, more digestible summary is made by a third party of an official document, *even when the summary is inaccurate,* I've seen commentators rely only on the summary and mistake it for an original (can't remember examples, sorry). – Wildcard Feb 08 '19 at 20:13
  • Okay, that's what I thought, initially, but the wording evolved. Thanks for clarifying. – PoloHoleSet Feb 08 '19 at 20:42
  • 1
    Statements from ACO: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1094331348813340672?s=20 – Martin Schröder Feb 09 '19 at 20:38
  • So this question has boiled down to "Is there a version of HR109 on the internet which includes some notes that have spelling and grammar errors?" – DJClayworth Feb 11 '19 at 17:28
  • 3
    Its the paying people “unwilling to work” and farting cows in the removed pre release FAQ that is the story. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/the-mysterious-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details – daniel Feb 11 '19 at 19:16
  • 1
    @DJClayworth It isn't trivial typos that is the issue so much as ambiguous claims on the part of AOC and unambiguous claims on the part of a staff worker that some of the more outlandish statements about e.g. paying people who were "unwilling to work" were never even in the draft but were fake news created by opponents. Either this is true or AOC (and staff) are being at best disingenuous about what the original draft contained. Either way, it seems like a reasonable question, so I am not sure why it is on hold. – John Coleman Feb 11 '19 at 19:25
  • You may think those are the story, but they are not actually in the question.Nor are they in the version linked to in the question. – DJClayworth Feb 11 '19 at 19:30
  • 1
    @DJClayworth, both "unwilling to work" and "farting cows" are indeed in the version linked to in the question. They are also in Ben Shapiro's article criticizing the plan, which is the first article I linked to as an example claim that the PDF came from AOC. Daniel's comment is exactly correct. – Wildcard Feb 11 '19 at 19:52
  • 2
    @Sklivvz, it appears that this question matters *more* now than it did when I wrote it, since as Martin Schroder noted AOC herself has claimed there are doctored versions floating around. – Wildcard Feb 11 '19 at 19:54
  • The question **as written** does not matter at all. If you think it should be about specific claims made about the alleged draft then edit the question to include those claims, not a load of stuff about missing words in the FAQ. – DJClayworth Feb 11 '19 at 20:27
  • 3
    Maybe you can use this as a source instead. Or it answers your question. [Ocasio-Cortez adviser admits he falsely claimed Green New Deal didn't promise security for those 'unwilling' to work'](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-adviser-admits-he-falsely-claimed-green-new-deal-didnt-promise-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work) –  Feb 11 '19 at 23:42
  • For me, this question just has a ton going on. If you can edit down to one or two paragraphs, it helps with general understanding. –  Feb 12 '19 at 00:11
  • 2
    A short, left-slanted article that's also relevant: [Ocasio-Cortez Team Flubs a Green New Deal Summary, and Republicans Pounce](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/climate/green-new-deal-faq.html) Seems no one is left denying the claim, that there was a faq published by Ocasio-Cortez's staff that said things unrelated to climate change, like economic security "for all who are unable or unwilling to work." –  Feb 12 '19 at 04:40
  • @fredsbend It does seem that the express reason given for putting the question on hold ("there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer") no longer holds, if it ever did. It is sad that politically biased news organizations rather than a dispassionate stack exchange community would be the sources of meaningful answers. It is hard not to see an element of political censorship in the closing of the question, although I do agree that the question as worded is too verbose and needs editing. – John Coleman Feb 12 '19 at 11:06
  • @JohnColeman I invite you to edit it—I won’t have time in the next couple days. I agree with your comment completely. :) – Wildcard Feb 12 '19 at 13:20
  • 1
    @Wildcard The problem now is that if it is no longer disputed then it seems like it is off topic for another reason (unless part of the purpose of the site is to document past controversies). The question, while still interesting, has become somewhat moot. – John Coleman Feb 12 '19 at 14:16

0 Answers0