so those state returns could have a lot of the same information. they could cast light on whether he s making money or losing money. we had a report out in the times two weeks ago showing he lost almost a billion dollars over the course of a decade in the 80s and 90s. this would be newer information that could cast light on his financial paralysis. when i look at this bill, president trump s name isn t on it. when there is discourse surrounding it, it focused on the president and being used in this specific case. 100%. republicans say that it s a piece of legislation that is aimed at a single person. in the assembly, there are concerns about drafting a bill that does seem so specifically targeted on a single person. their reasoning and i think that the why the bill is slow to make
there are investigations, they will be on their own timeline here and that s something that the administration doesn t know how to deal with because there is no way to deal with it. they have to deal with so many different things here. all that said, this is hugely significant because so much of the president s life, career, business is based in new york and you have people leading the government in new york who have been pretty explicit about wanting to conduct real oversight into the president and where you have all sorts of obstruction you could call it in the federal government from administration towards congress. don t have anything like that here. last question to you, what have we heard about both of these bills. governor cuomo said he supports the bill to allow the congressional committees look at the president s state returns and issued a statement saying double jeopardy bill so presumably if they get to his desk, he will sign them. jessie mckinley, thank you, joining u
subpoena from the body of norew york state. state regulators or city regulators speaking to the manhattan district attorney s office, there have been instances where there is even an investigation or something that comes out publicly or has been publicly reported. i m thinking about michael cohen s guilty plea with his taxes. i am saying i committed tax fraud on my federal returns. pretty good chance he did it on his state returns. something has come out publicly and opens the doors wide open to get a subpoena which is not usually much of a legal hurdle for the regulatory bodies to take a look at it. if it s a foul from the regulatory process that the trump organization did if this did occur, did inflate assets in regards to the insurance policies and at that point they make a criminal referral to the office. i don t know if it s a fair question, but you know every one
and tax fraud charges against paul manafort in the states of virginia and new york and potentially other places based on his guilty plea. he s admitted to evading taxes and defrauding banks, and if he evaded federal taxes, one can presume that his state returns had the same errors and fraud on them, and so a federal pardon by donald trump of paul manafort would not absolve him of state criminal charges, craig. ken delaney stand by for me if you can just for a moment. i want to get to hans nichols here. hans, this new report coming a day after the special counsel s accusation that manafort lied repeatedly to investigators. what has been the reaction there from the white house? reporter: well, look, the president criticizing bob mueller s investigation is not new. what s new this morning is the sharpness and the focus of the president s attacks, a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue skbr , and it appears to be coordinated with what rouge is saying, the president s lawyer, where they see
federal returns and on state returns, and it wasn t legal expenses. no. and i m sure that there are many, many examples like that where they have taken personal expenses, inappropriate expenses and used them on the tax returns. and as a general rule, given the way donald operates, weisselberg may do minor things on his own, but anything sensitive like this, he s going to deal directly with either an instruction from donald or a discussion with donald, which means that not only do you have a tax crime, many tax crimes, but you are going to have a conspiracy between the two of them. we have very tough conspiracy laws. and potentially article 460, of the new york penal code, which is racketeering could even apply because the law, although intended for mafia families, read literally can apply to any organization like the trump organization whose purpose is criminal activity. and, harry, i m sure you know