‘EXCUSE ME, THAT IS INCORRECT’: Watch Bank CEO Turn AOC’s Scathing Hearing into a Total Disaster

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Humiliated as Bank CEO Dismantles Her Allegations, Leading to Visible On-Air Meltdown

In a congressional hearing widely anticipated by the progressive left as a public “take down” of a major Wall Street executive, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) instead found herself cornered, corrected, and ultimately defeated by a series of precise rebuttals from a prominent Bank CEO. The exchange, centered on the controversial Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), devolved into a viral moment of political humiliation, culminating in the Congresswoman visibly struggling to proceed, admitting, “I’m sorry. I’m just uh having a a tough time.”

The failure was not merely a loss of a debate point; it was a devastating tactical collapse, exposing a fundamental flaw in the Congresswoman’s approach: approaching a complex financial issue with moral activism and insufficient factual preparation. What should have been a headline-grabbing moment of accountability for banks accused of exploiting small businesses turned, instead, into a cautionary tale about the importance of knowing your facts.

.

.

.

The Initial Fumble: Opting Out of the Portal

The dramatic failure began with the very first line of questioning. Ocasio-Cortez attempted to establish a damning premise regarding the $793 billion Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to help 11.5 million small businesses retain employees during the pandemic.

“So, um, for your awareness, uh, your banks have opted out of paycheck protection program forgiveness,” she stated, attempting to frame the move as a wholesale refusal to cooperate with the spirit of the program.

The Bank CEO, however, immediately cut her off with a sharp, clear correction that shattered her opening salvo.

“Excuse me, that that that isn’t correct,” the CEO responded, calmly differentiating between the process and the result.

This seemingly minor correction was a fatal blow to AOC’s credibility. The issue was not that banks refused forgiveness entirely, but that multiple major banks had opted out of the SBA’s official forgiveness portal—the government-mandated online system. Instead, they built their own proprietary systems. While the intent of Ocasio-Cortez’s question was clear—to highlight that banks created an opaque, difficult process—her lack of precise language allowed the CEO to dismiss the core premise as factually wrong, fundamentally rerouting the public narrative.

The Incentive Problem

The controversy stems from the banks’ powerful financial incentive structure. While they earned billions of dollars in commissions for issuing the PPP loans, there was no significant financial incentive to process the forgiveness applications quickly. By creating their own portals and procedures, critics allege, banks slowed down the forgiveness process, leaving small business owners in limbo and facing the threat of mounting loan repayments.

Ocasio-Cortez was correctly aiming at this issue, noting that the bank’s internal systems made it “very difficult to appeal these decisions.” But her inability to defend her initial statement allowed the CEO to bypass the systemic critique and focus instead on glossy success metrics.

The CEO’s Counterattack: Facts and Deflection

In response to questions about the volume of loans, the CEO delivered statistics that painted an overwhelmingly positive picture, effectively minimizing the scope of the problem Ocasio-Cortez was trying to highlight.

“About uh almost 500,000 [PPP loans] and 95% are forgiven or repaid already,” the CEO stated, adding, “and we’re finishing up the rest of them.”

By repeatedly emphasizing the 95% completion rate, the CEO framed the issue as an insignificant matter of administrative clean-up involving only the “last 20,000 or so loans.” This defensive tactic successfully shifted the focus from the alleged exploitation of the 5% of struggling small businesses to the vast majority of loans that were successfully processed.

Ocasio-Cortez attempted to regain traction by repeatedly pressing the CEO on whether the 95% figure represented full forgiveness or partial forgiveness—a crucial distinction for small business finances. Yet, the CEO remained firmly evasive:

“The vast majority are full forgiveness, but I can get the data to you… The borrowers are applying for the forgiveness entitled in the program.”

This non-answer allowed him to maintain a positive statistical veneer while refusing to provide the granular detail necessary to substantiate the Congresswoman’s claim of systemic partial forgiveness.

The Fatal Miss: The Untapped Lawsuit Weapon

The most devastating element of the hearing was the powerful, factual ammunition AOC had but completely failed to deploy. As the background commentary revealed, Bank of America was, at the time, facing multiple lawsuits alleging highly specific and potentially fraudulent actions concerning the PPP.

Had Ocasio-Cortez incorporated these facts, the tenor of the hearing would have shifted instantly from a theoretical debate about portals and percentages to a direct accusation of corporate malfeasance. The critical, untapped evidence included:

The 1099 Worker Deception: Allegations that the bank “instructed small businesses to include expenses for 1099 workers” despite knowing these expenses did not qualify for loan forgiveness under the program’s terms. This alleged deception secured the bank larger commissions on higher loan amounts.
The $179 Forgiveness Scandal: The shocking example cited in the background commentary—a Maryland business approved for a $37,500 loan only to find out later that a mere $179 of it was forgivable.

The ability to confront the CEO with specifics—“Mr. CEO, can you explain why your bank advised clients to include 1099 workers to boost your commission, leading to a loan of $37,500 where only $179 was forgiven?”—would have bypassed his generalized statistics and forced him onto the defensive. By relying on general, poorly researched points rather than these specific, legally documented cases, Ocasio-Cortez “missed the mark entirely.”

The Final Meltdown and the ‘Math’ Dismissal

The climactic moment arrived when Ocasio-Cortez attempted to return to her original technical question: What is the reason Bank of America chose to opt out of the SBA portal?

The CEO, clearly having taken the measure of his interrogator, dismissed the query again and again, claiming he didn’t know the exact reasoning and assuring her, “We will get you the information.”

Unable to elicit a direct answer and struggling to frame a follow-up question that wasn’t already deflected, Ocasio-Cortez reached her breaking point. She paused, struggled for words, and then uttered the line that instantly went viral:

“I’m I’m sorry. I’m just uh having a a tough time.”

The CEO immediately seized the high ground, dismissing her and others criticizing the banks as simply not understanding “how the math works,” and claiming their information was “old.” This move, ironically echoing the common defense used by large institutions after the 2008 financial meltdown, served as a final public indictment of Ocasio-Cortez’s preparation.

The episode underscored a painful truth: in Washington’s highest-stakes confrontations, moral outrage is no substitute for forensic financial and legal preparation. The Bank CEO turned what should have been a moment of institutional accountability into a personal disaster for one of the most visible faces in Congress.