"🚨 MASSIVE LEGAL EARTHQUAKE: AOC FOUND GUILTY — THE BRUTAL PUNISHMENT REVEALED!"
Far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez broke House ethics rules by accepting more than $3,700 in gifts for her appearance at the 2021 Met Gala — including the now-infamous “Tax The Rich” dress — but paid less than $1,000 for the items.
The House Ethics Committee found that the New York Democrat failed to follow House rules on gifts and improperly gave her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a free ticket to the exclusive $35,000-per-head event.
However, the panel has decided not to issue any formal sanctions.
The committee concluded that Ocasio-Cortez’s conduct violated House rules, laws, and standards of conduct — both in accepting the gifts and in delaying repayment. Once she repays the remaining value, the committee says the matter will be considered closed.
According to the committee, the fair-market value of the rented Brother Vellies dress, shoes, jewelry, handbag, and hairpiece totaled $3,724.04. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign delayed payments for months and eventually paid just $990.76 — most of it from her own pocket.
Her staff also disputed some of the invoices and tried to reduce costs by comparing the couture gown to cheaper rentals online.
“Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s attempt to apply a retail rental cost to a handmade couture gown was unrealistic,” the committee’s report said.
The report noted that most vendors weren’t paid until after they made repeated attempts to collect — some even threatened legal action.
That led to subpoenas from the committee and a more than three-year investigation.
While the panel said it found no evidence Ocasio-Cortez “intentionally” underpaid for the goods, it did place blame on her former staffers, including ex-campaign manager Rebecca Rodriguez.
Rodriguez was caught trying to negotiate down the cost of the dress — from $1,300 to $300 — and left a $477 hairstylist bill unpaid for nearly six months.
The hairstylist eventually threatened to report the congresswoman’s campaign to the New York Department of Labor.
The Ethics Committee said no punishment would be necessary — as long as Ocasio-Cortez donates $250 to cover her boyfriend’s dinner at the event and pays an additional $2,733.28 to the designer.
AOC’s chief of staff, Mike Casca, said in a statement, “The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House.”
“She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process,” he added.
Under House rules, members of Congress are barred from accepting gifts — with a few exceptions, including tickets to charity events if invited by the organization hosting it.
In this case, Vogue editor Anna Wintour invited Ocasio-Cortez and her boyfriend personally, as guests of Vogue — not the museum that officially hosts the gala.
Wintour also instructed the Brother Vellies designer to custom-make the dress — something the designer called “insane,” since she normally only makes shoes and handbags. Despite being told to keep expenses low, AOC’s team was met several times with responses like, “Met Gala attendees don’t normally pay for this,” according to her lawyer.
The rented shoes had a retail value of $635 but were rented for $160. The Brother Vellies handbag was worth $995 and rented for $157. Jewelry was rented for $78, and a paper hibiscus flower for her hair cost $35.
A year later, in May 2022, AOC’s team received another $5,579 bill for car service, hotel rooms, and accessories like Roberts’ bowtie and cummerbund.
The report noted that the committee never got a clear answer about why the designer didn’t ask for payment up front.
“No one appeared to be thinking about the cost of anything, despite the fact that they were told to keep the costs down by the Congresswoman’s staff because the Congresswoman had and has limited financial means,” her lawyer said.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
