you were to give an employee a benefit sort of off the books somehow, you don't get the tax benefit. Now you could argue the Trump Corporation wasn't paying a lot of taxes because they had so many legal write-offs that it wouldn't matter if they included that expense or not. But I don't think so. I think it does matter, doesn't it? So I need a tax opinion on this.

Is there any way that the Trump Organization itself would be better off by not recording an expense? Because that's something you do for the benefit of the employee. That's not for the benefit of the corporation. And why would they do that? They would want all of their costs to be recorded because that's how they reduce their taxes. If they're being accused of trying to cheat on taxes, why would they do it that way?

Now you do have a tax differential. Let's say that the individual would be taxed at the maximum because an individual doesn't have as many tax write-offs. So maybe it made sense because let's say the Trump Organization wasn't going to pay any taxes for a long time because of write-offs but maybe the employee would have. So if you kept it off the books do you come out ahead? I need a little bit more clarity on what the charge even is because I don't see a way that the Trump Organization comes out ahead. And it's the organization that's being accused, not individuals, right?

So the Trump Organization, the entity, is being accused of doing something that's good for somebody else, an employee, and bad for the entity itself. What the hell kind of crime is that? Or is there something I'm missing? Am I making some major analytical assumption that's not true? I don't know what I'm missing here. So at the very least we need some clarity.

The other things that are being rumored is that there's something about the Trump Organization put different values on some of their properties for the purposes of taxes than they did for the purpose of getting loans or paying property taxes or something. Now why would that take so long to investigate? Let me ask you this. The simple question of whether their assets have been inflated for one purpose and minimized for another, that's just documents, right?

You don't think that the prosecutors have seen all the documents they need to see? You don't think that they had time to send out maybe an independent evaluator to say no this building is worth more or less? And how in any possibility does it take this long to know if somebody inflated an asset? Now I s