ngs that aren't true. It's the main tool. And the Overton window takes it away. It's brilliant. I've never seen anybody do it like that before but it's brilliant.

So here's where we're getting close to the line of what is too far. And I do not mind when the Trump administration gets close to the line of what's going too far because often that's the only place that works. Sometimes you got to be close to the line of what's going too far and that's exactly where you want to be. And I would argue that in much of what's happening, getting real close to the line of going too far is right where I want them to be. But I don't want them to go too far. So with that context, apparently the Trump administration has gotten a hold of the names of all the FBI officials who worked on January 6 cases. So they've all been identified I guess or five or 6,000 of them. And there were 2400 cases. Now what the, yeah there are 5,000 of them have been identified.

So here's the thing you need to know. These are more the worker bees. These are not the leadership. So the FBI officials who are working on a case are the people who would work on other cases too and they would be very experienced or they wouldn't be in those jobs. So if you lost 5,000 totally experienced people who were simply doing what their boss told them to do, that would feel like too far if their only crime was to go to work and do the assignment their boss told them. Too far. But apparently they're all going to be given a chance to fill out a questionnaire in which you'll ask them what exactly did you do. And my hope is that they look at each of them individually. I think it would be a mistake and obviously Trump knows it would be a mistake to just fire them because again they were not the decision makers.

But I do imagine that if the questionnaire is correctly stated and let's say they're under oath to, I don't know if they'd be under oath but they should, it's at least a fireable offense if they lie on the document I would think, government document. So let's get them on record. And if they ask the right questions and they're not gotcha questions, I will not put up with any gotcha questions. The no fake questions on the questionnaire, that's not good enough. But if it identifies something like a strong bias and I'm not sure how they would, then maybe in some cases those people got to go. If 4,000 of them get fired I'm not going to be delighted because I don't know that they really looked at them individually and found out something that was decision-making on their part. But they might. They might. So this one is definitely right on the edge of too far.

The thing that makes me pull back is that they are going to look at them individually. As long as you're looking at them individually and you tell us this needs to be transparent, you need to tell us what criteria you're using. If of them are fired and I got to know that the criteria is being evenly applied and it's a criteria that passes the sniff test. All right.

So remember what I say over and over again which is if you supported Trump you're part of the team and part of that team means that you need to be a guardrail wherever a guardrail needs to be put up. Now we do like that DOGE and Trump have a wide operating berth. You know that they can operate without being constrained. But that's even more important why the supporters need to be the guardrail. So let's make sure that we don't lose our own center on this. Make sure that you're helpful because if you're in the fight and Trump's in the fight, yeah Elon's in the fight, you could easily just accidentally lose sight of where that line is. So let's make sure that doesn't happen.

So one of the ideas that Trump came up with is the sovereign wealth fund. And I realize that not everybody knows what that is. T