I think in oversight, we should be talking about tax, tax, taxes and as bank account,

his bank account, his bank account, his financial statements, statements, statements, because that's where I think actually some of the most troubling practices are with direct relevance to the American people under the...

There you go, AOC saying no more. Talking about the Russian collusion, we need to talk about taxes, taxes, taxes, business, business, business.

Old Madeler, who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee, has dropped what 80 requests for various pieces of paper, including the taxes and that sort of stuff, as they get into that and as said the Mueller report to a side, what we need to get into is so they just have moved on from that.

And the real proof to me that the word on the street is the Mueller report is going to have nothing there there for impeachment and Russian collusion, because the fact that Don Jr. was out today saying the Mueller report needs to come out fully. Every bit of it needs to come out full-transparent.

Wow.

So you've had the sides kind of switch on that. Clearly somebody's leaking that.

Something's out. Now there's not going to be anything worth pursuing for impeachment out of the Mueller report. So now it's going to move on to family taxes and that sort of stuff and that'll be a completely different sort of conversation for the country.

Boy, I'm not saying this because I hope it's true. If they go big on, you know, some apartment complex, Trump undervalued it in 2006.

Got a couple of course. Some examples of golf courses that AOC brought up during the hearing last week and they go big on that and they're talking about that all the time.

What's going to be the reaction from the American voter? The average American voter. I'm not sure it's going to be what they think it's going to be.

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know from the crowd that's already bothered by by him and that, of course, though, they'll hate that. But I will it. The people that can be persuaded one way or the other. I don't know.

I don't know, but it is going to be a political question. Do you feel that it's someone should be allowed to have a for a property?

Have it evaluation of that property that is one thing for insurance and a different thing for taxes?

Well, from what I understand that is the way it works anyway under the law. But if he was exaggerating as much as AOC claimed 50 million dollars when he was barring against it and saying it was worth it.

I don't know. A couple hundred bucks. I mean, you know, I just I got to admit to some curiosity about how that works because nobody's ever taken my word for how much of property is worth when I borrowed against it.

No, they reached it rather carefully. And we're talking about meddling sums and local credit unions. Not borrowing against some giant office.

I don't think so. I don't know about. I don't know because I've never had that opportunity either.

So the question will be though. If if say he did that sort of thing. Is that a boot somebody out of office sort of situation?

Or I assume guys like him do that sort of thing. Doesn't mean I like it.

I just assume that that's the way the rich and powerful get to live. Don't mean I like it.

But I need to get booted out of office for that. I guess we'll have that discussion in America.

...