a lot of people. And apparently that's what happened. And the only way that could happen, says me, is if people are afraid of being called racist. So when you calculate the damage of DEI, if I were doing the analysis of what is the damage of DEI, you could come up with a long list, but you'd have to add trillions because of this. Trillions, the cost of DEI.

Now, here's more good news that may not turn into good news. But if you're on social media and you're watching the bubble that I'm watching, you see people like Elon Musk talking about the fraud and DOGE and talking about it. You'll see people like David Sacks and Chamath and lots of other smart people. So the good news is that the smartest people in the country, Bill Ackman would be another, the smartest people in the country are very engaged and trying figuring out how to fix this because all of their wealth at least anything that depends on the United States is completely at risk. Now, I don't think that's the only reason that they're so engaged, but they've not been engaged before. And they are the exact same people you would want to fix any big problem. Right? If you said, "We have this big problem that nobody's been able to fix. We need the smartest people in the room to really get engaged." Well, we got that. Amazing. We finally have the smartest people in the room all on the same side for the most part and focused.

But here's the problem. We might have too much diverse energy. So they're not all saying exactly the same thing and it's unclear what plan would be the best as Cernovich, add him to the list of the smartest people. So my question is this. How do we get to the point where we've focused all that smart energy? Because we're not really at a place where we can focus it. So if you said, but Scott, that's easy. All you need is a fraud czar. I don't think so. I mean that might be part of the solution but the fraud czar would get destroyed the same way they went after Musk. Now Musk is you know there's only one Musk. So he's managed to recover and even grow his business and get his compensation from Tesla and everything else. But that's rare. I don't know how many people could have survived the attacks that went after Musk. So it would really be hard to get a fraud czar who had that much risk tolerance but also had the skill and I don't know if it's enough.

And we also know that justice moves too slowly. I've heard a number of people say, "Scott, all they have to do is prosecute some high level people and this will stop." You know, if Keith Ellison, the AG in Minnesota, let's say he quickly got indicted. Well, I don't know. Would that stop anything? How long would it take? So justice moves too slowly to be the biggest part of the answer but obviously has to be part of the answer. But I like the fact as I mentioned before that finding the fraud and doing something about it is a competitive sport. So I think the best case scenario is that private companies find a way to free market this situation. So you've got Palantir and other AI companies that could be helpful. So they might have a massive potentially they might have a massive financial payoff. Rico would be slower because you have to pull together like years of everything. I mean that would be slower. We need to do it probably but it would be slower.

So what was I saying? So if you added the AI companies that might have some incentive to spot the fraud and then you add to that the qui tam rule that I didn't know about but apparently it's been a thing for years that allows you an individual private person to ask the government to sue somebody who has been ripping off the government and then if you as the whistleblower, let's say. If they succeed and they claw back some money, you get a portion of it and it could be big. It could be very big money. So here's the good news. When I talk about the smartest people being fully engaged, they're also the smartest people at creating new businesses that didn't exist. Right? Every one of them that I mentioned has done entrepreneurial things. They've got a track record, right? Every one of them. And that is exactly the people you want designing a new system. So it might not be that there's one path to fixing it. It might be that the free market has now surfaced what looks like a set of variables that could sort of automatically drift in the direction of getting rid of the fraud because essentially it would monetize getting rid of fraud, which hasn't really been the case. Well, it has been the case, but not everybody knew it. And now lots of people know it. So that's the good news.

All right, let's talk about Pam Bondi, who is not working fast enough, people say, and has prosecuted no high-profile cases. So I'm going to wade into this at my risk. You may have heard me say this on social media. And it goes like this. If I put the what I call the Dilbert filter on this situation, how do we know, we who are not lawyers, how do we know how long something should take? How do we know how many cases she's working on? How do we know how hard it is to staff when you can't get lawyers who are like 90% Democrat, but you don't want to staff up with Democrats if the whole job is to go after Democrats? How long does it take to staff up? What kind of cases is she working on that are exactly where she should be working on but they just take a long time because they're complicated? So the higher profile the case and the more complicated the case the more you should expect it would take longer than a year even to get to indictments.

So case in point, I guess Kash Patel has recommended the Department of Justice to look into the whole situation with the Russia collusion hoax. Now the Russia collusion hoax is massively complicated. It involves everybody from the ex-CIA and it involves two parts. One is making it easier for Democrats to get elected and the other is making it harder for Republicans to stay out of jail. So it involves everything from the original meetings that Obama had, the special counsels, the raid on Mar-a-Lago. There are so many moving parts. If Pam Bondi only had one thing to work on for the rest of her life, how long would that take? Then you multiply that by a thousand because remember, you've got the J6 stuff. How complicated would it be to get the other side of the J6 stuff that that was all a plot and then to wrap it all into a RICO? Because a RICO case has to show a pattern of behavior that has stretched over time and involves multiple people.

So let me say this as clearly as possible. I am as frustrated as you are that nobody important goes to jail. Can we all get on the same side of that? None of us think it's fast enough, but we also don't know what would be fast enough. What would it look like if she were doing a great job and what would it look like if she were not? Could we tell? So one lawyer online said to me, Scott, what you're missing is that big law firms are already staffed up to surge like whole groups of people into different jobs for the government or for a private company. So the thinking is that it's just business as normal to be way overworked, but to instantly or quickly correct the fact that you have too much work by going to big law firms and say, "Hey, we need two dozen lawyers today. Can you just give us a whole staff?" And then those law firms, I didn't know this by the way, are routinely set up to do that.

However, how does it work when the people you're going after are Democrats? Do you think there's a big law firm that can give you two dozen lawyers that are both good at what they do, not doing anything more important? You know, somebody said it's not the best lawyers that they send for that, but I don't know about that. And that they would do a non-biased job instead of dragging their feet because all you would have to do is get an anti-Trumper in the mix, one lawyer who drags their feet and they can just drag this thing forever. So I am skeptical that the existing model of surging lawyers into a high-profile, high workload situation could work in this situation. It might work in normal situations. And how long will it take before John Brennan is indicted?

Anyway, so don't get mad at me. I am the Dilbert filter messenger to tell you that if there's a lot of people involved and it's complicated, it's going to take way longer than you wanted to. Does everybody agree with that? Just that we're all equally frustrated, but whenever you have this complexity and this setup, it's always going to take longer than you want. And that would be sort of normal, just normal life.

Anyway, so apparently according to Wall Street Apes on X, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, this is Wall Street Apes' framing of it, admits the Somalis were imported to vote Democrat. Essentially he did. He said, quote, "Well, the Somali community is critical in my own election. I wouldn't be in office without the help of the Somali community." Okay. Now, that alone is not illegal. But we do know that the Somali community has made a difference not just in Minnesota, but also in Ohio and Virginia, maybe some other places. So at what point does it become illegal? It's not illegal to have people legally enter the country. If they entered legally and then they were legally allowed to vote, it would just be a good strategy, but it wouldn't be illegal, right?

However, did you know Scott Presler was reporting this yesterday and just think about the fact that what I'm about to tell you, you probably did not know and it's been true for a while that if you work for a building, so if you're an employee of some large apartment building, it doesn't matter what kind of employee, you can vouch for