This all makes sense. When he says "they might have made decisions or taken actions without a full appreciation..." is he just talking hypothetically or is it in relation to a specific part of the...
The $100M tax bill would be because he claimed to have lost $800M and then played a shell game to minimize the damage, not because he made a bunch of money.
Did you just take Tucker's guest at her word or did you read the law, from 1996, that she did a deep dive into, in 2024, and exposed this bombshell loophole?
Everyone wants to believe that they somehow know better, that they couldn't possibly be part of the problem. It's those fukkers over there who caused all these things I don't like.