The Democratic congresswoman criticized the corruption of officials in the United States and pointed out that there were personal interests on the part of one of the members of the Supreme Court when deciding on the vulture funds trial.
In a new speech by the congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States House of Representatives, the young politician He targeted corruption in his country and accused a judge of the Supreme Court if there is ruled against Argentina in the vulture funds case for personal interests.
The congresswoman began her speech by stating: “We have extraordinary corruption and a wholesale purchase of members of the Supreme Court.” “It also makes me laugh at what we just heard from the Republican side: ‘Why do we want to talk about this?’ Because women lost the right to decide, because indigenous communities lost rights, because minorities lost rights, because workers throughout the country lost rights for this level of corruption“he emphasized.
It was then that he specifically criticized the Judge Samuel Alito for a luxury trip that he took on a private plane and whose expenses were around 200 thousand dollars had not been presented to the State. In the middle of Ocasio-Cortez’s presentation, the lawyer Katherine Clarka member of the United States House of Representatives, explained that “under the Government Ethics Act – a code that regulates the actions of public officials – he would be required to disclose his expenses” and that Alito “had not presented it”.
Continuing with her argument, the Democratic congresswoman pointed out that “The millionaire who generously financed this trip was Paul Singerwho did business with the Court at least ten times and the legal press and media concealed his involvement.”
Alito and Singer.jpg
ProPublica
It was then that he referred directly to the cause of the “Vulture funds“: “In 2014 in fact, the Judge Alitotogether with the Supreme Court, agreed to resolve a vital issue after a Decades-long legal battle between Singer and Argentina hedge funds“.
“Do you think Alito excluded himself from this case? He didn’t exclude himself from the case and he even used his place on the Supreme Court, after all this, to rule in Singer’s favor. After the decision, Mr. Singer’s hedge fund was finally paid 2.4 billion for this ruling“.
“It was not a bad profit after the investment in that fishing trip“he concluded.
“The trial of the century”: what happened to the vulture funds
He vulture funds trial against Argentina It was a case presented by creditors who did not accept the debt swaps proposed by the Government. Judge Thomas P. Griesa presided over the trial and in 2012 issued a ruling in favor of the vulture funds and ordered that Argentina must pay the entire amount claimedto the holdouts that had not accepted the previous agreements.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court determined in June 2014 that it would not review the file presented by Argentina, and He left Griesa’s sentence final.
Source: Ambito
