AOC talks 2020 election, giving up social media and why she supports Rep. Omar

Barely a year ago, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
was completely unknown to the American public. She was at the time 28 years
old, a former Bernie Sanders organizer who was
shaking cocktails and waiting tables at a taco and
tequila bar in New York City. And yet, it’s no exaggeration
to say that, since then, nobody has made a
bigger splash on the American political scene. Since beating powerful incumbent
Joe Crowley in the primary race last June and winning
election in November, she’s become the
unquestioned star of the new Democratic
majority in the House of Representatives, a
charismatic outspoken progressive who has captured
the media’s attention and helped redefine what
her party stands for and the policies it
advances to the public. At the same time, however,
she’s become the bete noire of “Fox News” and
conservative media, including our hometown
newspaper the “New York Post,” which she’s
now encouraging her constituents to boycott. We’ll find out why while we
explore her views on President Trump, her colleagues
in Congress, the future of the
Democratic Party, and much more on this
episode of “Skullduggery.” [MUSIC PLAYING] RICHARD M. NIXON: Because people
have got to know whether or not their president’s a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. RONALD REAGAN: I’ve told
the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions
still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the
evidence tell me it is not. BILL CLINTON: I did not
have sexual relations with that woman. DONALD J. TRUMP:
There will be no lies. We will honor the American
people with the truth and nothing else. [MUSIC PLAYING] MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So, you know,
Klaidman, we usually start out these shows with a little
cross talk between you and me, in which we give
our take on the issues of the day or the week. But I have a sneaking suspicion
our listeners are going to be more interested
in hearing what our guest has to say than
anything you and I have to say. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yeah. Even though we are the
Desus & Mero of DC. He’s not going to
get that reference, but they’re fellow
podcasters from the Bronx. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I have no
idea what you’re talking about. But anyway, So let’s
get right to it. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,
welcome to “Skullduggery.” ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Thank you. Thank you both for having me. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
So look, there’s a lot we want to delve
into on this show and get your thoughts on. But in doing a little research,
I came across something that kind of blew me
away and I didn’t know about your background,
and that is asteroid 23238 Ocasio-Cortez. You have your own
asteroid named after you, and it was named long before
you were a member of Congress. Please explain how
Well, in high school– my first passion and my first
love in life, even as a child, was actually the sciences. And so and when I
was in high school I started entering competitive
science research competitions. I started leaving school
right after school and conducting experiments at
Mount Sinai Hospital on biology and the cellular
processes of aging. So I conducted this experiment. I entered the Intel Science
and Engineering Fair. I placed second internationally. And as a result of the research,
MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory dedicated and named
an asteroid after me. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So is
this asteroid visible to anybody who’s got a
telescope in their backyard and wants to find it? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I’ve never seen it. They sent over– they
actually– when it happened, the laboratory sent
over a whole bunch of documents and they showed– they showed the actual ark on
which the asteroid’s expected and where it’s plotted
to go, where it has gone and all of that. But I actually
haven’t tried looking for it in my backyard or– I don’t have a backyard, but– DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
More importantly, is there any danger of this
asteroid hitting the earth? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I think it’s a little far, so I think we’re good. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: I
mean, metaphorically speaking, I guess, we
could say it already has. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
Personified by you. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah.
Yeah. That’s true. We have an asteroid in
the White House as well. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yeah. All right. Well, I think, it’s
moving from the celestial right down to earth and
in kind of a sobering way. So on Friday the president
tweeted this video attacking your close friend and colleague,
Representative Ilhan Omar, for the way she
referred to 9/11. The quote was, not in
context, but was to some– “9/11, some people
did something.” And which some people
said minimized 9/11. She went on to talk
about the impact that this was going to have
on people’s civil rights. I guess the question is, do
you believe that the president deliberately– was
he deliberately trying to incite violence
against Ilhan Omar, against Muslims more generally? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I absolutely do. And I think this goes back to,
especially being a New Yorker, and I think this is probably
something about the president that maybe a lot of people
don’t get or understand unless you kind of have that New
York context, is he acts like– he’s one of these shady, real
estate developer guys that may or may not be involved
with a mob, that’s like the personality
type that is elicited. And like all New
Yorkers know that guy. Like, I’ve bartended
for that guy. I’ve waited tables for that guy. And the whole style of it is
that you do everything– even Michael Cohen talked about
this during his testimony to oversight, is that he
doesn’t say hurt this person, he doesn’t say bribe this
person, he doesn’t say do X, Y, explicit thing. He creates a huge environment of
suggestion, where if something happens, if that thing that
perhaps he may want to happen happens, he’s like, hmm. And that’s really
what’s going on. It’s creating this
pressure cooker. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: But I
want to be really clear, because there’s a difference
between using language recklessly that could
have those consequences– you believe he wants
people to act violently. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Because
you should say that– Sarah Huckabee
Sanders today said that he means her no ill will. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: OK. You do not– you do
not put that video and air it to 25 million
people, splicing images of the first hijabi
woman to be elected to any office in the
United States of America, when she was elected to the
state house in Minnesota, you do not splice together out
of context words with images of the planes hitting
the twin towers and not think that
you are trying to incite a stereotype of
all Muslims being terrorists. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Can you
understand why some people would have taken umbrage to
the way Congresswoman Omar described the events of 9/11? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I can see why people would take umbrage to how
that clip was taken and spliced out of context. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I’m
talking about her words, not what the president
said, but what she said. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right. And so what I’m saying is that,
as someone whose words are constantly taken out of context,
I could take any four words that you utter in a day and
take it out of the sentence and take it out of the
context that you uttered them and create outrage around it. I could easily do that. That is why we have to examine
what she was actually saying. Some people did something. You know how many times that
phrase is uttered about, almost anything, throughout a day? And then when you look at the
full context of the situation, you know, I think it’s just– I think that it’s so
clear what she was saying. She was literally talking
about in the Muslim community, and she had referred
to terrorism. And she’s always
referred to this. This is not like
a persistent issue that she– it’s not like she
struggles to call the events of that day terrorist acts. And also, I would
like to see most– I would like to see a lot of the
legislators on the other side of the aisle legislate
in their first language as well as Ilhan
legislates in her second. So I think this is another
layer that people deliberately are omitting from
this situation, is that Ilhan is a Somali
refugee and English– she has commanded and
mastered the use of English, but it’s also a second
language, English is a second language for me too. And so I think that that’s
an additional layer that’s almost being
deliberately omitted when we talk about these things. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Have you
spoken to Congresswoman Omar since this happened? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I’ve just checked in with her briefly. I haven’t had like an
extended conversation. But I basically said, hey,
look, if you need anything, let me know. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: And by the way,
you’ve been threatened as well. I mean, there was this Ohio
college Republican federation that sent out an
email calling you a domestic terrorist
in its subject line, other threats as well. What’s that like? How do you cope with
Well, I think that– what all of this– it all has a
commonality, which is that Republicans are
doing everything that they can to not talk about policy. They’re doing everything they
can to either create outrage on their own, to try
to provoke outrage, or to try to dig up
something to create outrage, because they don’t want
to talk about the fact that they don’t
think 9/11 responders should have access to health
care for their entire lives. They will not support the 9/11
victims compensation fund. They have no environmental plan. John Kerry came
in, and they wanted to spend the whole time
slamming the Green New Deal as some socialist conspiracy. And John Kerry said,
well, what’s your plan? They have nothing. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But look, the
larger issue that some people see in all this is,
you know, we have a polarized political
environment in which passions are inflamed on both sides. And, yes, clearly, the president
has contributed to that. But people on the left have said
a lot of inflammatory things as well. Your colleague Rashida
Tlaib, first thing she said in coming
to Washington is, “let’s impeach the
have said the president is no question a racist. And when you tweeted
about the wall, you said the entire
premise of a wall it’s based on a racist and
non-evidence based trope that immigrants are dangerous. So if you’re calling
your colleagues, your Republican colleagues,
who almost universally support a border wall, racist, or
at least being motivated by racist thoughts,
aren’t you contributing to the same sort of
inflammatory passions that is plaguing the country? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: So I think this is a really important
conversation for us to have. Because as a country, we do not
know how to talk about race. And the moment anyone uses the
word race, racism, or racist, everybody sees red and
starts confusing concepts. So I think a border
wall is racist. That is– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Does everybody
who supports a border wall, are they racist? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: So
that is the jump that the right wants people to make. Because I think that
there are certain policies that are absolutely racist. That doesn’t mean– I don’t always think
that a person– do I think everyone who
voted for Donald Trump, do I think all of those
people are racist? No, I don’t think
they’re outwardly racist. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Inwardly racist? I mean, people who
support a wall, is that– ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: No. And I think that if you support
a wall, depending on who you are and what your context is– I don’t know your heart. I think that the president
and I think that “Fox News” are duping a lot of people. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Well, but in
this– you mentioned “Fox News” in this very highly
reductive kind of political media environment. Isn’t that why maybe you should
be careful about language? And if you call a policy
racist and you call, say, the wall is racist,
you know at this point, having been through
this for a while, that that’s what happens. And so maybe the
better part of caution is just to not use
that kind of language, which is viewed as incendiary. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: So I
think that this is part of why we struggle so much
to talk about race, is because conversations
of race are incendiary and they shouldn’t be. This is why we are not
post World War II Germany. This is why we have not healed. This is why we struggle with
concepts like reparations. This is why we
struggle to acknowledge the injustices of our past. This is why we act
like the Civil Rights Movement was 150 years ago. It’s because we have
issues talking about it. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: You
think we can learn from post World War II Germany? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I
think that in some aspects we can. And I think that the fact
that acknowledging racism is seen and equated
with actual bigotry, it’s like calling
something that is racist racist is
almost more offensive than being racist in America. And the false
equivalence of these– so you want to talk
about like racism, if I make that argument,
that’s actually the basis of a conversation. You could say, well, why do
you think this is racist? The reason I think a
border wall is racist is because it is based on
a racial mythology that has no evidence to back up on it. Donald Trump says there is
already a crisis at our border, DHS just issued an assessment
in November of last year saying that they couldn’t
even increase the threat level at the border
because there’s nothing to facilitate that. So instead, what
Donald Trump is doing, is that he’s stripping all
humanitarian aid from Central American countries
to create a crisis to force a surge of migrants
to come to our southern border, so that he can
have this shutdown. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But
Congresswoman, there is a sharp increase
in the number of migrants coming from Central
America to the southern border. I think it was– just in the last few months
it was 47,000 in January, jumped to 66,000
February, 92,000 in March. And they are expecting
well over 100,000. There are a lot
of people coming. And I guess the question
is, what are your views on how that should be handled? Do we accept them all? Do we enforce our border– our asylum laws, which
would require denying asylum to a huge chunk of them? Less than 20% of those who
go through the asylum process end up qualifying
under our current laws. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, I think one of our issues is that we are always
struggling to treat symptoms because we don’t have
the political courage to treat the causes. So we don’t want to acknowledge
our interventionist policies. We don’t want to
acknowledge sometimes the unfair provisions that are
slipped into trade agreements. Like I just
mentioned, we are now moving to rescind a very large
amount of humanitarian aid that oftentimes help
stabilize regions and prevents those
migrations from happening in the first place. So now we’re going into– we are– this president
in particular is creating and aggravating
additional crises to create those
surges on our border. There’s argument over whether
we did or did not have a role in regime change in Honduras. And so there are these
conversations that people are happening, but what’s happening
is that our foreign policies, our trade policies, our economic
policies, sometimes don’t– we don’t always consider
the secondary effects when it comes to migration. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Bernie Sanders,
the candidate you supported in 2016, was asked
in Iowa the other day if he supported open borders. And what he said
is, “what we need is comprehensive
immigration reform. If you open the
borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this
world and you’re going to have people from all over the world. And I don’t think
that’s something that we can do at this point. Can’t do it. So that is not my
position, open borders.” Do you agree with him? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, I think the position of open borders is a fake. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Do you
agree with what Senator Sanders said in that statement? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I mean, I guess, on its face, I could– I see validity in his
statement, absolutely. But I don’t think
anyone in this– MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
That we can’t accept every economic migrant trying
to come into the country. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, it really depends. I think right now
in this moment, like if we’re taking
a snapshot of today, we definitely need
to accept more, even just economically speaking. We’re having hospitality–
even if you’re like– even if you’re not me, even
if you take corporate lobbyist money, the hospitality
lobby right now is lobbying to increase,
just lobby to increase the seasonal visa
numbers that we’re approving and accepting because
they can’t fill these jobs. There’s a lot of jobs
that are going unfilled. And so I think to
a certain extent, we need to increase more. Can we accept every single
economic migrant in the world? No. Because I think that what
we need to be focusing on are not– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Or every single
one coming up through Mexico from Central America. We cannot accept them. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, again, it depends on those numbers. I need to see the
numbers in front. I need to see what our
economic projections and how our economic
growth is looking here as opposed– and
what kinds of jobs we’re seeing, what
industries are growing. But I think it’s
clear that we need migrants in this country, just
purely economically speaking. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Do you
still want to abolish ICE? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: And replace it
with what, or nothing at all? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: No. So I think we need to replace– I think we need to abolish ICE. And this is part of
comprehensive immigration reform, because what we have
right now with ICE, just– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: And what
would you replace it with? DANIEL KLAIDMAN: In terms
of interior immigration enforcement, what
would the mechanism be? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: So
there are a couple of things. One is that I think that
when it comes to immigration enforcement, we need to have
mechanisms that are back under control and
oversight of DOJ, because what has happened
with ICE, what has happened with a lot of things
that have happened with the establishment of
the Department of Homeland Security– and these were the original
concerns when George Bush first created the agency, is
that there is not enough oversight or accountability. And when you have an agency
with the enforcement capacities and individual detention
capacities that ICE has, it’s almost a matter
of course for there to be some tyrant to take
office and for us to have almost a parallel system. Like, these detention
centers are black boxes. CNN was reporting
that kids were getting drugged in these
centers, forcibly injected with antipsychotic
drugs, children. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: That
wasn’t ICE though. It was the Office of Refugee
Resettlement who was doing it. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
And so when we have DHS, when you have ICE, when you
have CBP, when you have HHS, you’re able to
create this puzzle piece where you either have– you mess with fungible
funds, so you’re able to kind of rob
from every couch cushion that there is,
you’re able to have discussions like
Trump was having, entertain, cutting all– cutting the appropriated
funds from Puerto Rico, moving them to ICE. He took $6.6 billion
from the Pentagon and applied it to
his wall last year. And now they’re asking for
an increased defense budget. So I think that ICE in and of
itself poses a unique issue, but it’s clearly not
the only bad actor, and it’s clearly not
the only problem. I do think that
ICE in particular is almost a egregiously
lax oversight. And I think that when it comes
to enforcement capacities, we need to– if you are an
enforcement agency, I do think there needs
to be a link to DOJ, and I think that
there needs to be– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So you’re not
saying you do not want anybody to enforce the immigration
laws in the United States, you’re saying it should
be under the purview of the Justice Department,
not Homeland Security. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think we need to change the purview. And I think we need to
change what is enforced and how it’s enforced. And I think that we need
to change our laws as well. And so I do think that– well, I will agree with
the senator on the fact that we do need comprehensive
immigration reform. I also think that when a lot
of people throw that out there, they don’t even know
what that means. It just means we
need to change it, which I agree
with, I agree with. But I think there’s just
certain fundamental aspects to our immigration system. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
Well, so just back to asylum just for a minute. What’s been happening
at the border, I think most people agree
exposes some of the problems in our asylum system. And I think most
people agree that it’s not working the way it should. So specifically, what do
you think needs to be done? What kind of policy
changes would you want to make to
the asylum system to alleviate some of the
problems we’re seeing? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think that one of the issues
that we have, and it speaks to larger issues with
our immigration system, is that it’s overly Byzantine. So you have all
these different kinds of visas with all these
different kind of wait times with all these different
kind of quota lists, et cetera, or different wait
times for different countries and different processes
depending on what kind of visa you’re in. And I think that
contributes, A, to a very large amount of wait times, and,
B, I think it’s unnecessary. I have friends,
several friends of mine that are here on refugee
status or asylee status– one of my good friends,
a refugee from Venezuela, another refugee who came on
refugee status from Rwanda. And you can be in this
country as a refugee, but not have work
permission, for example. And so I think that a lot
of what needs to get done is to streamline our system. But also, it’s very clear that
our court system around this has huge issues. It’s very clear that there
are perverse incentives around detention in no small
part thanks to the fact that we run for
profit detention. And then so once you have
a for profit interest behind the incarceration and
detention of human beings, then you have a
political lobbying issue, and it creates all of
these negative pressures for this situation to be
a humanitarian crisis. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: One more
question on the border issue, and this relates to the
president who was reported this week told the head of
Customs and Border Protection that he would pardon
him if he faced jail for denying entry to migrants. Chairman Jerry Nadler of the
House Judiciary Committee said today that this showed
the president’s contempt for the law and that it was– for the president
to suggest that goal by deliberately seeking to
break the law is unforgivable. I assume you agree with him. The question is, what
should be the consequences? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I mean, I think this is largely a part– largely a question
for our leadership. I think this is a
very grave problem, but there are so many aspects
to this presidency that have posed a grave problem. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Is it
impeachable in your view? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I
think you could reach in a bag and pull so many
things out that are impeachable of this president. I support impeaching
this president. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well, your
colleague Congresswoman Tlaib, she’s introduced a
resolution to impeach. Have you signed on? Are you signing on? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: We hadn’t signed on when it
was first introduced, but we probably will. We’ll take a look into it. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
You think you will? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah.
Yeah. But there’s just so many things. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: What
would be your top three? If you were writing– if you were drafting
the articles of impeachment
for the president, what would be article
one, two, and three? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think number one is emoluments. I think it’s always
been emoluments. I think it’s always
been about that for me. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Two and three? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Two and three. I think two would be tax fraud. And number three– man– I mean, number
three– if there’s an investigation
on this, I think this is pretty potent as well. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Interesting that you don’t mention Russia in the topic. ALEXANDRIA
Because I think that for a lot of aspects of
the Russian investigation, as we saw with the Mueller
report, is that, A, I think there are a lot of
parts to the Russia issue that comes down to emoluments. It comes down to pay for play,
financial transactions, Trump Tower, it comes down to money. And if we had gotten something
from the Mueller report, then I would probably put
that up there as number one. But I feel like
it’s a little risky to put the entire
grounds of impeachment, put all your eggs
in that basket. And when I think that
a lot of this stuff happens through backdoor bank
accounts and things like that, so I think emoluments
kind of includes any misconduct, financial
misconduct in relation to– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: And
specifically on tax fraud, what do you have in mind? Is there something specific
like the deflating assets to the insurance issue? Those issues that you
brought up, I think, when you were questioning
Yeah, I agree. I think it comes to that. I mean, there’s just so much. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Let me ask you. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Like the census. You know, I can’t even– the tax bill. It’s like, what can– there’s just so much. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Let’s talk a
little bit about legislating, because you came to
Washington at least in part to pass laws and
develop policies that represent your constituents
and the country as a whole. And so I guess my
first question is, what have you
learned since you’ve been here about that process? And what specifically–
what’s your top priority legislatively? And what’s your timeline for
getting it through the House? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think I’ve learned a lot
about political dynamics since being sworn in, both
within the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus and
the interplay of those two. I think that there’s more
than one way to be bipartisan, and that for years,
we’ve only exercised one of those two ways. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
So, for example, I think the word bipartisan
is taken for granted. And it feels like almost
any time we pass or champion bipartisan legislation, it’s
done for the advancement of corporate interests, or
it’s done for increasing the military budget. And I think that, for example,
in passing the War Powers Resolution, the first one that
we’ve passed in decades to end our engagement,
involvement in Yemen, that shows a different
kind of bipartisanship, where it doesn’t
just have to advance one of two very narrow things. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I think you
signed a letter with Rand Paul the other day on Syria. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: On Syria. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Calling for
a full withdrawal of US troops from Syria, which is
something President Trump said originally he was going to do. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. So I do think that
there are places where, perhaps, for very,
very different reasons, we come to the same conclusions. And let’s just toss out debating
which rationale is better. If we at least agree
on the conclusion, then we can save people’s lives. There are millions,
millions of children that are starving in Yemen. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Well,
picking up on this theme, you, in an interview at town
hall with MSNBC with Chris Hayes, he was asking you
about the New Green Deal and even if the White
House, the Democrats take back the White House,
Congress and the Senate, you don’t have the votes
to get that passed. And I think your
response was, you said, I’m not here necessarily
to convince my colleagues, I’m here to go straight
to the electorate. But so the obvious question
is, how do you get things passed without your colleagues? How do you get things passed
without Republican support today? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think it’s by winning
an electorate, you win over my colleagues. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: OK. But, you know, you take
universal background checks, for example. 90% of the American
people support universal background checks. Congress won’t pass that. It hasn’t passed it. So it’s challenging. So I’m just curious,
thinking this through, what’s your game plan? How are you going to
move the electorate and then move your colleagues? Because, ultimately, you
do need votes, right? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right. And I do think that
there are some aspects. So when you talk
about my priorities for the next two years, looking
at the pieces on the field, you have a democratic
caucus that is very focused on
preserving and expanding a majority in the House. Then we have a Republican
caucus in the House that is just very motivated to
obstruct and to make people’s lives difficult in every way. Then you have a
Republican Senate and you have a Republican
president, if you even want to call him Republican. I think he kind of like floats
out of ideology in some ways. And so I feel like a lot of
where we can produce on this– what we can produce
on, I think that job creation infrastructure
and green energy is a huge aspect of– there’s a huge amount that
we can accomplish even given those limitations,
which is why I introduced the Green New Deal. Now, is the scope ambitious? Absolutely. Will we get a vote
or even a pass on it? Probably not. But I think that by charging
forward with that resolution to show what our big picture
looks like, then we can go after the little things, whether
it’s increased appropriations in renewable energy,
whether it is investing more and transitioning our
elevators and buildings, working with union
workers and labor groups to attract that
infrastructure funding, tax cuts for
regenerative agriculture. I think that it’s in
those small details that we can accomplish
a lot, but it needs to add up to a larger vision. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Are
there any Republicans in the House you have
a relationship with and believe you can work with? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. I think there are
a decent amount. And I think that it is– I think it’s actually
kind of funny. I don’t want to risk anyone’s
career sometimes by name. They get really nervous. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: This is
the way you can sabotage. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: No.
Exactly. No, I think if I really wanted
to do damage I would endorse Mitch McConnell in the primary. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I don’t think
that’s one of the Republicans you have a relationship with. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
No, definitely not. No. It is interesting. It is an interesting
political dynamic though, because there are Republicans
that I have a relationship with, but they’re very
nervous about people finding out that we can
actually work together well. They’re scared of
getting primaried. But there are actually
a decent amount. And I think about
one in particular. And the more I talk
to him, I’m like, this guy’s an anti-capitalist,
he’s against– he’s like against
Walmart and corporations. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Now we
want to know who he is. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yeah.
Now you gotta give it up. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
You’re teasing us here. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: No, no. But the thing is,
but that person thinks he’s the most
capitalist guy in the world, but he hates Walmart. And he thinks they’re
taking all of our jobs. And he thinks that– and they hate the role
of special interests and how industry is
taking over government and all of these things. But he in his brain
thinks that he is like the most
like free-market dude in the universe. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: What’s the– so you’re following up on that? Because I had another–
to know, now that you’ve been here in Washington now for– how long has it been? How many months? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Three– four months. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: OK. Enough time to make
a couple of mistakes. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So what is
the biggest mistake you think you’ve made since
you’ve been here, and the biggest
lesson you’ve learned? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think– I’m trying to think like
more in a big picture. I do think that our GND
rollout was really difficult. And it was done in a way that
it was really easy to hijack the narrative around it. It was like too fast. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: It just
wasn’t vetted carefully enough. Some of that language could be– ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well,
I actually think the resolution itself is very solid. But between how it was rolled
out and some of the– there were like competing documents
that were rolled out, some prematurely that
muddied the waters and took the messaging off– DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
So that everyone was talking about cow farts– ALEXANDRIA
banning hamburgers. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right. When none of those things
are in the resolution itself. So that was probably– that was a big one, because
it was just frustrating, just intensely frustrating. Yeah. I mean, I always feel like
when I reflect on things, it’s less– I feel like it’s less feeling
like things are mistakes, but things may be– I feel like I’m fine tuning. So I have to dial
things back a little bit to get that pressure closer
to where I want it to be, and it may be too much,
or may be too little. But I don’t always– I don’t feel like there was
anything major that was like, I really wish I didn’t do that. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: You
made a big splash early on by speaking out
against Amazon’s deal to put up their headquarters in Queens. There was a Siena
College poll just this past week that showed
57% of voters in your district thought that Amazon’s
withdrawal was bad for the city, and 58% thought it would be
good for Amazon to reconsider. Do you have any
reconsidering thoughts on your end about your
opposition to a deal that would have brought
25,000 jobs to Queens? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: So here’s a couple of things on that. One is that, and I said this
from the very beginning, where does that 25,000
number come from? Everyone always
cites this number and it is almost
completely unsubstantiated and it almost feels like it
only comes from Amazon that’s saying, that’s promising this. When you actually look– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So what
if it was only 15,000? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: And
so even then, my opposition was less, and is less about
something personal with Amazon, and is more about the
structure of the deal. And when you’re looking at
3 billion, which includes, it’s not all tax cuts. A lot of people say, oh,
this thing pays for itself. First of all, revenue neutral– I don’t know if revenue
neutral is the goal that we need right now. Secondly, 25,000 jobs
at $150,000 dollars is what was promised,
does that sound realistic? Does that sound like
something that’s going to happen, first of all? Second of all, do
we really think that Amazon is trying to give
150K jobs to kids in NYCHA? Third of all, our subway
is literally falling apart, literally falling apart. So for me, my
opposition was less. And by the way, my opposition
being like five tweets. And apparently five
tweets took down the richest man in the world
and I’m responsible, right? MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Everything
you tweet is scooped up by your 3.8 million followers. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: And so I think that I don’t
regret opposing it and vocalizing my
apprehensions about this deal, because it smelled fishy. Now, was it my– did I think that Amazon
was going to say, well, it’s our way
or the highway, we’re not going to negotiate
any aspect of this deal, and you’re either going
to accept what we tell you or we’re going to leave? Did I think that Amazon
was going to try to bully their way into our district? No. I didn’t think– I thought that they
perhaps would pursue a reasonable course of action. And either there would
be some explanation of this deal, some
negotiation of some aspects. Perhaps there would be increased
expenditures or investments into the district. Perhaps we would
create a CUNY pipeline to train kids to CUNY coding
skills to jobs at Amazon. Perhaps we would be able
to get any of those things. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: But
you would have preferred that than Amazon pulling out? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I mean, I was open to multiple possibilities. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So after
you spoke out or tweeted out on the issue, Andrew Sorkin,
who’s a columnist for “The New York Times,”
financial columnist, wrote, “there is a financial
literacy epidemic in America. Quick lesson, New York City
wasn’t handing cash to Amazon. It was an incentive
program based on job creation producing tax revenue. There isn’t a $3 billion
pile of money that can now be spent on subways or education.” ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, again, people weren’t reading this deal. People think that all 3
billion were in tax cuts. A lot of it was tax cuts. We have $500 million
in capital investments that we were literally
giving– we were building– it was written into the deal
that we were going to build a helipad even for Amazon. We were actually
putting hard capital into helping them build their
campus, while we’re constantly told that there isn’t
enough hard capital to heat the rooms in NYCHA last year. I mean, this was a real
political issue as well. This is not just– it’s not– when you’re
in a position like mine, you have to look at
a couple of things. You have to look at the policy. You also have to look at the
politics to secure that policy. That’s what you all
were just asking me. This is what you want, how
are you going to get it there? And when you look at the actual
political landscape of New York City, we have surging cost
of living, a, quote, unquote, “affordable apartment” in– oh, sorry.
Yeah. I’m saying NYCHA. It’s New York City
Housing Authority. It’s public housing.
Sorry. I’m getting into– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Our
fact checkers here. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Yeah, I know, I’m getting to jargon here. No, but you have– here are some of the
main political pressures that are happening
in New York City right now, surging
cost of housing. And so rent has gone up
for a two bedroom 80%, by 80% in some neighborhoods
where people have been living there for 20 years. And so you have surging rents. You have crumbling
public infrastructure. It used to take you 45
minutes to get to work, now it’s taking you an
hour and a half, two hours to get to work. And so all of these
are about lack– A, it’s lack of
affordability, and then, B, you have lack of
investment in public goods. And it’s creating a
cost of living crisis and a quality of living crisis. So what we’re talking
about is creating more jobs in two bureaus that are already
experiencing the highest levels of economic growth. So job creation is already
happening in the Bureau. This is not like a rural
area where we desperately need to hinge our hopes on
a Walmart to create jobs, because we’re already
kind of leveraging certain economic policies
to spur economic growth. Where people really need relief
is in the cost of living, it’s in their rent. And what this threatens to do
is displace entire communities. And so that’s when people are
saying like, 80% of the city was pro Amazon,
or 57% of the city was pro Amazon, until
it’s in their backyard. And so I think that these
were some of the issues that we were having
to reconcile. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Right. So staying on big tech,
Elizabeth Warren a little while ago traveled to your backyard
where she announced her policy to break up the big
tech platforms, Amazon, Facebook, Google, et cetera. And you’ve been highly
critical of big tech as well, everything from
online harassment to fake news to undermining the
journalism business model, bless you for that. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I
take it, by the way, you don’t have an Alexa
in your new apartment? ALEXANDRIA
I guess the question is, what are your proposals? Do you back Elizabeth
Warren’s plan? Do you have proposals
of your own? And since you do have such a
large social media platform and presence yourself, would
you consider, as many Americans have done, giving up some of
those social accounts just to make the statement? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I do think that a lot
of the most pressing issues in tech that
we’re seeing right now has to do with anti-trust. And I think that
Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility
around antitrust, not just in tech but across
a lot of different sectors. And as a result, we’re
seeing increased problems. One of the central parts
of Warren’s proposal is that these tech companies
need to decide what they are, but the fact that you
are going to be both the platform and the
vendor represents a very large antitrust problem. And the fact that
they are consolidating and gobbling up 18 different
business models into one is a huge issue. And I think that this is also
a huge part of a social shift that is happening. The political views
of young people are very much formed by– I think previous
generations, when they talk about democratic
socialism, it’s like– everyone’s like– it’s
like the Red Scare. And I have to reiterate to
folks that I was born after– well, right before
the Berlin Wall fell. I have never seen a Soviet
Russia in my lifetime. That was something
in my history book. What I have seen is single payer
health care systems in Norway, in Canada, in France. What I have seen are
really innovative housing structures and housing
policies in Europe as well. And I think that when we talk
about tech and antitrust, perhaps older folks
are really scared of– that saw some of the
horrors of going too far in that direction, saw the
dangers of government taking over all business and industry. But what we’ve
been raised with is industry and business
taking over our government and oppressing our wages. And in many ways, you check
a lot of your civil rights at the door when you
go into a workplace. And I think young people, when
you see the logical end result of these platforms where they
predicate on scale and monopoly power, and then you pair
that with our information and you pair that with how
information is distributed– I was just thinking this week– I was thinking about
this particularly after the president tweeted
what he tweeted about Ilhan about how if a lot of
people tweeted that perhaps Twitter would have
taken the tweet down as targeted
harassment, but perhaps they don’t want to show
their hand because they could singlehandedly cut the
president’s power by 30% to 50% overnight if they
banned President Trump from the platform. That’s his bully pulpit. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: You tweeted
the other day about a boycott of the “New York Post.” Bodega owners
across New York City are banding together to reject
sales of the “New York Post–” the bodegas citywide. And you were endorsing
this boycott. Why do you want to boycott one
of your hometown newspapers? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I don’t know what makes it
a hometown newspaper given that it’s owned by Murdoch. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well, I mean,
“The Washington Post” is owned by Bezos in Washington state. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: No, but I think that this is the “New
York Post,” in being owned by Murdoch is now it’s a toy. I think that especially– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But
this is because they’re being really tough on you. And you might want to use a
different adjective than tough, but they’re going
after you repetitively. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: They are. And it’s like, whatever. It can be annoying or agitating. But I didn’t call for this
when they were going after me. I think that that cover
that they had published– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: What cover? DANIEL KLAIDMAN: The Ilhan Omar. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
The Ilhan Omar cover was just beyond the pale. And whatever, there’s
aggressive politics, there’s people that won’t
be fair to you and things like that. And I understand
that that’s part of the field that comes
with it, but I think that this is unacceptable. And also, I think it
is important to assert that I didn’t call for a
boycott of the “New York Post.” I’m amplifying organizing
that’s happening on the ground. And I do think that there’s
a substantive difference between the two. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well,
by tweeting about it you’re implicitly endorsing it. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I mean, I endorse it. I do endorse it. But I wasn’t– I think there’s a difference
between endorsing this action, because– MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
What’s your goal here? Do you want to
get them to change their editorial policies? Are you trying to shut
them down as a newspaper? What is the purpose of
boycotting a newspaper? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well,
for me, my perspective is– my focus is actually less– in endorsing it, my
focus is less on the post and more on the
many bodega owners and building the power and
solidarity of immigrant groups in New York City. That to me is what was
exciting and inspiring about this action. Because these are the same
folks who shut down almost every bodega in New York City
in protest of the Muslim ban. And what that does is that
it elevates the consciousness of all New Yorkers. I remember that day. It was before I won my primary. And it was very early, it
was probably around the time when I started running. I remember getting up
and going to my bodega to get a cup of coffee
and it was closed and there was a sign saying why. And I remember thinking
and seeing that and being really proud of these
people that I see every day. And sometimes protest isn’t
about what you’re against, it’s about what you’re for. And that I think was the
inspiration and impetus. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: You mentioned
earlier the war in Yemen and US withdrawal from Syria. I have one more foreign
policy question for you that’s quite current right now. Prime Minister Netanyahu has
just apparently re-elected in Israel right
after saying that he intended to annex the Jewish
settlements on the West Bank. Do you believe this
should affect US policy to the state of Israel? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think these are part of
conversations that we’re having in our caucus. But I think what
we’re really seeing is the ascent of
authoritarianism across the world. I think that Netanyahu
is a Trump-like figure. And I think that we– there are so many ways
to approach this issue. Betty McCollum
even has a proposal that she’s advanced
asking the US not to fund child detention in– Israeli child detention
of Palestinian children. There’s different
ways to signal it. I would hope and wish that
a diplomatic approach could change some and impact policy. It doesn’t all have
to be legislative. But I think if we just
sit on our hands– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yeah. Would you be in
favor of reducing military or economic
aid to Israel? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I mean, I think it’s on the table. I think it’s certainly
on the table. And I think it’s something
that can be discussed. And I think that– and I also acknowledge
my role in this as well, in that I
think that I hope to play a facilitating
role in this conversation and a supportive role
in this conversation, but I also know that
there are people who have been leading
on this for a long time, like Congresswoman McCollum. And so I think
it’s important to– but I think that
we need to expand what those policy conversations
are, because I would– as just a citizen
of this country, I would be very concerned if
Trump started really pursuing more and more and more
increasingly dangerous policies and everyone
just standing aside and say this is normal,
this is just like before. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
I want to get back to social media for a
second, and, actually, your social media habits. You talked about the social
media platforms and children. And, of course,
you’re very present– I see you’re particularly
on Instagram, because my kids are
on Instagram a lot. And you’re, I think, an
inspiration to a lot of kids. I know my daughters
and all their friends are following you religiously. But there’s also a dark side
to social media for kids. There’s this kind
of sense of a kind of chronic behavioral
addiction in our society, and a public health problem. It reduces healthy
social interaction, it promotes bullying, it
creates so-called FOMO, fear of missing out,
self-esteem problems, even developmental problems. So I guess my question
to you is, have you thought a lot about this? What do you think
should be done about it? And, I guess, I want to go back
to my question from before, have you thought about, at
least for some periods of time, giving up social media
to make a statement? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. There are some. I personally gave up Facebook. I actually– which was
kind of a big deal, because I started my
campaign on Facebook, and Facebook was my
primary digital organizing tool for a very long time. I gave up on it. We still kind of have
accounts on it, but– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: The kids
aren’t really on Facebook. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. I guess that’s true too,
so I’m doing that as well. But I actually think that social
media poses a public health risk to everybody, regardless– I mean, there are
amplified impacts for young people, particularly
children under the age of three with screen time. But I think it has a lot
of effects on older people. I think it has
effects on everybody, increased isolation, depression,
anxiety, addiction, escapism. So I think that it poses
these issues to everyone. I do think about that, both as
a person with a larger audience, but also just as an individual
user of these platforms. I’ve started to kind of
impose little rules on myself. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Such as? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
So every once in a while you will see me hop on
Twitter on the weekends, but for the most part, I
take consumption of content, when it comes to
consumption and reading, I take the weekends off. And so I’m not scrolling through
trying to read everything online that
journalists are writing and things like
that on weekends. I try to do that
during the workweek. Or, I guess I should say
Monday through Friday, because I work on weekends too. And I– yeah– it takes a lot to kind of
try to unwind other habits. There are a couple of
great books about this. There was this one book– I’m going to mess up the
title, but it was basically like a 30-day program to– “New York Times”
covered this as well. It’s like a 30-day program
to change your relationship with your phone. It’s a huge thing. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Are you going to do something about robocalls? The biggest threat. ALEXANDRIA
American peace of mind. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I mean, but it does pose a
technology problem, because, really, the reason
people are able to get away with all these
robocalls is because of these spoofing technologies. So this is another
concern that I have too, is that Congress is
fundamentally slow and technology is fundamentally
fast, only getting faster. And so the problems that
can develop in three months can be exposed, as we
saw in the election. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: By
the way, do you write– I know you write
a lot of tweets. But do you also have
staff write tweets? Or do you write all your tweets? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I write all my tweets. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
And Instagram posts? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yup. And Instagram posts. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: And they
seem to be with better grammar and spelling than the president,
the other major tweeter in our public life. So look, we were
really impressed with, I think it was
one of your first questioning in Congress during
the congressional hearing when you did the lightning
round, right? I think it was campaign
finance questions. So to close this out, we’ve
got a lightning round for you. So we got a quick– we’re going to give you some
questions and quick answers. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: OK. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: OK. Who’s your candidate
Oh, I don’t– I truly do not have one yet. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I mean, you
supported Bernie last time. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I did. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: That’s
the second question, man. That my line. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Go. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: You were
an organizer for Bernie in 2016, are you with him now? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I mean, I’m very supportive of Bernie’s run. I don’t officially– I haven’t endorsed anybody, but
I’m very supportive of Bernie. I think that– I also think that what Elizabeth
Warren has been bringing to the table is truly
remarkable, truly remarkable in transformation. I’m very supportive
of Bernie too. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All right. A bit of a waffle there. Could you support Joe Biden? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I don’t know. I mean–
Like, I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is.
DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So you will? Whoever the Democratic
nominee is– ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. Whoever the Democratic
nominee is– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But you’re
not excited about a Joe Biden candidacy? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I’m–
that does not particularly animate me right now. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Because? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I think a lot of issues. One, I think that there’s a– I can understand why people
would be excited by that, this idea that we can go back
to the good old days with Obama, with Obama’s vise president. And I think there’s an
emotional element to that, but I don’t want to go back. I want to go forward. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Do you want
to run for higher office? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I don’t know. I really don’t know. I think about it
every once in a while. But, A, this is
pretty hard already. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: You’re
doing pretty well. ALEXANDRIA
you think about it, what are you thinking? ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I just– I just want to be useful. I just want to be most useful. And I’m not trying to kind of
impose some personal ambition. I think that if a
window opens and I feel like I can do
well and do better and offer more to people,
then I would consider it. But I also– I don’t have a 10-year plan
or a 5-year plan or anything. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I
got the last one, but you want one before, right? DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Well,
actually, two really quick ones. And then you can go.
What are you reading? And what book has had the
sort of biggest impact on your politics and
your outlook on life? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I’ve
been reading Rebecca Solnit’s small book “Hope in the Dark.” And I really love it, because
I think what we saw in ’08 with the hopey-changey
stuff, but in that book, which is kind of like this
larger essay that she wrote actually around Iraq
and Afghanistan, around our involvement there,
it’s like it breaks down hope as a political tool, why hope
is potent and how it can drive change, and the ways that we
can actually have hope about our future in a very tangible
way, taking lessons from history, policy, et cetera. And I feel like I’m learning
a lot about how we can build support around any number
of issues from that essay and from that book. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Cool. Now, one last question from me
and then he’s got the last one. I understand that you’re
a “Game of Thrones” fan. OK. So the last season
goes on air just a few hours from this taping. Who’s going to end up
on the iron throne? Who’s going to win
the “Game of Thrones?” ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Could you imagine if no one
ends up on the throne and they transition
to democracy? Wouldn’t that bad? DANIEL KLAIDMAN: That is
such a skillful answer. But that’s your hope? What is your expectation? ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
I mean, another hope would be like maybe John
Snow and Daenerys just take the whole thing and
they build another one, build a second one. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: OK. Last one. And I’m told you’ve been
ducking this one for some time. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: What? Oh gosh. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So no
dodging on this one. You have a district
that includes the Bronx and the Queens,
I’m in trouble. OK.
So here you go. You guys are breaking news. I have been raised a Yankees
fan through and through. However, this is a
huge feud in my family because a big part of the
Bronx side of my family are also Mets fans. And Citi Field’s in my
district, so in some ways, I have to kind of learn
to be a Mets fan too, but I’m primarily a Yankees fan. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yes. We got three. You got three Yankee
fans in this room already with Anthony– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Although,
I live in Washington. I have a 9-year-old. I’m a big Mets fan too. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
When I was a kid too, like, I grew up with that Yankees
dream team, like Jeter, Posada, Mariano Rivera, like– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Excellent. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Like, you can’t not when that’s how you grow up too. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Wherever
the Yankees comes up, I always have to
give him a hard time and say, this guy actually
saw Mickey Mantle. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Play, play, play. Saw him hit a home-run
in the Yankee stadium. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
So some deference, some deference,
Klaidman– some deference. Anyway, thank you very
much, Congresswoman. This was a great discussion. And we hope to have you back. ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Thank you. Really appreciate it. [BOOM] DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
Thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for joining us on
this episode of “Skullduggery.” Don’t forget to subscribe to
“Skullduggery” on Apple podcast or wherever you listen
to your podcasts. And tell us what you think. Leave a review. The latest episode is also
on Sirius XM on the weekend. Check it out on POTUS
channel 124 on Saturdays at 3:00 PM Eastern Time,
with replays on Sundays at 1:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Be sure to follow us on
social media @skullduggerypod. And now you can watch the
podcast on, YouTube, and Roku
Saturdays and Mondays at 8:00 PM Eastern Time. Talk to you soon.

About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *