CRABBY : Will ICE Be Kicked Out Of Minnesota?

Summary

Garage Logic (Gamut Podcast Network)

Episode: CRABBY : Will ICE Be Kicked Out Of Minnesota?

Date: January 15, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This lively and revealing episode finds the Garage Logic team (Jay, Kenny) joined by constitutional law expert David Schultz and seasoned attorney Dave Finewalks. The team dives into explosive recent news: Minnesota’s lawsuit to halt ICE operations, a major exodus at the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s office, and the federal government’s unprecedented threat to withhold $2 billion in Medicaid funding over rampant fraud. The tone is classic Garage Logic—irreverent, blunt, but deeply informed and passionate about government accountability.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Minnesota’s Lawsuit Attempting to Curtail ICE Operations

• Summary of Legal Maneuvering:
  The state, via Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, recently sought a federal temporary restraining order to stop ICE operations in Minnesota, arguing violations of equal protection, political targeting, and, most notably, interference with “states' rights” under the 10th Amendment.
• Judge’s Response (03:07):
  • The federal judge (Menendez) did not immediately grant the restraining order, instead scheduling further argument for the following week so the federal government can respond.
  • Quote:

    “The judge punted for now... you don’t get those kind of orders unless the judge... can conclude you’ve got a pretty good chance of winning at this point.”
    —David Schultz, 03:07

• States’ Rights vs. Federal Supremacy (08:13):
  Discussion centered on whether federal immigration enforcement can override Minnesota’s claimed sovereignty.
  • Quote:

    “Do we want the federal government... strong arming states into doing a variety of things?”
    —David Schultz, 08:17

  • The “Supremacy Clause” means federal law generally trumps, but compulsion of states is questionable.
• Precedent-Setting Potential:
  If Minnesota prevailed, it could create significant new legal precedent on state-federal boundaries, especially for immigration.

2. Resignations at the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office

• The Sudden Exodus (11:26):
  Six top attorneys, led by Joe Thompson (the office's white collar/fraud chief), abruptly resign amid reports of D.C. pressure to investigate the widow of Renee Goode, who was killed by ICE agents. The team compares this "protest" resignation to the Watergate era’s "Saturday Night Massacre."
  • Quote:

    “Back to Watergate? It sounds like echoes of Watergate.”
    —Jay, 14:55

  • Resignation likely driven by legal ethics: refusing to pursue a case they viewed as improper.
  • Loss of institutional memory is a disaster for ongoing fraud investigations.

    “You just can’t move a bunch of attorneys from one part over to somewhere else.”
    —David Schultz, 20:02

3. Escalating Federal-State Conflict Over Medicaid & Fraud

• $2 Billion Medicaid Threat (30:00):
  Joined by Dave Finewalks (Minnesota Hospital Association attorney), the team unpacks the federal threat to withhold billions in Medicaid funding due to what they call Minnesota’s total failure to police fraud, particularly in “waivered” experimental programs.
  • Quote:

    “It looks to us like you’re not even trying to prevent fraud.”
    —Dave Finewalks, 31:33

• Scope and Impact (34:20):
  • Fraud is ballooning to estimates of $9–20+ billion, affecting over 1 million Minnesotans—particularly “innocent bystanders” such as the elderly and disabled.
  • The most egregiously compromised services: “housing stabilization” and other waivered programs, allegedly designed for easy fraud.

    “Looks like the program was set up just to bleed federal money.”
    —Dave Finewalks, 35:56 “90% or greater of housing stabilization was fraud.”
    —Jay (relaying Joe Thompson), 36:05

• State's Response Deemed Inadequate (38:00):
  • Federal review called responses from Governor Walz’s administration “babbling bullshit” (citing plans to hire consultants as insufficient).
• Why It Matters:
  Not only is real aid at risk, but new concerns have emerged—evidence suggests fraud proceeds may be funding terrorism, prompting the federal clampdown.

4. Constitutional and Civil Liberties Angles

• ICE Enforcement Methods Under Scrutiny (24:26):

  • Allegations that ICE carried out home raids and arrests without proper judicial warrants—raising red flags among all sides.

    “I don't want the government knocking on my door... Show me the warrant.”
    —David Schultz, 25:14

  • Discussion of the Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights, and universal interest in government accountability.

• Political and Community Fallout:

  • Mayors, including Minneapolis' Jacob Frey, and public figures are denouncing ICE operations; episode notes rhetoric escalation isn’t helpful.
  • Concern that federal tactics are fueling community fear and could lead to unrest reminiscent of the post-George Floyd era.

5. The Bureaucratic Tangle & Institutional Paralysis

• Multiplicity of Investigations (19:03):
  • Now up to nine overlapping federal investigations, after the state’s systems failed.
  • Widespread worry about capacity to continue prosecutions after loss of expertise at the US Attorney’s office.
  • Lament that the state can’t or won’t “prosecute itself” due to deep conflicts of interest.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On the State’s Legal Filing:

  "They wrote a B minus or a B, a B complaint. They could have written a better one... But it’s not a bad argument to say that [the Feds] can't push the state around."
  —David Schultz, 09:15

• On Legal Ethics and Attorney Resignations:

  “The threat of being investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility... is so great that for 99 out of 100 lawyers, that’s enough to say, ‘that’s it, I’m done, folks.’”
  —David Schultz, 16:00

• On Medicaid Fraud:

  “It’s a buyer’s market for fraud in Minnesota at this point.”
  —David Schultz (coined phrase), 19:35

• On State’s Defense Against Federal Medicaid Cutoff:

  “Walz issued an executive order decreeing that fraud would stop.”
  —Dave Finewalks, 39:05
  “Here’s what the Walz administration says they’re going to do…With your permission, that’s some babbling bullshit.”
  —Dave Finewalks, 38:01/46:18

• On the Failure of State Oversight:

  “Our legislative auditor…said, ‘I’ve known this all along. I warned them.’”
  —Dave Finewalks, 32:38
  “A bunch of your people just created fraudulent documents and backdated them to give to our auditor. And you’re referring it to HR—why, to calculate their bonus for the year?”
  —Dave Finewalks, 41:23

• On the Unprecedented Nature of It All:

  “I have never seen anything quite like this before.”
  —Dave Finewalks, 46:51

---

Segment Timestamps

• 01:20–04:54: Introduction, missing guest, and breaking news on Minnesota v. ICE lawsuit
• 04:54–11:26: David Schultz explains legal fundamentals and the state’s complaint
• 11:26–20:31: US Attorney’s Office exodus & possible motivations; Watergate comparisons
• 20:31–23:39: Discussion on the limits of prosecutions, expertise, and institutional memory
• 23:39–29:13: Civil liberties concerns, ICE’s enforcement tactics, political rhetoric escalation
• 30:00–39:51: Dave Finewalks breaks down Medicaid cutoff, why the feds are acting, and state responses
• 39:51–46:51: Federal skepticism of Minnesota’s efforts; prospects for receivership and deeper federal intervention
• 46:51–50:02: What federal control could look like; underlying Medicaid structure and fraud prevention
• 50:02–53:38: Reflections on the magnitude of the crisis, closing banter

---

Memorable Closing

“If we get rich off this phrase, it’s a buyer’s market for fraud, we’ll thank you. But you’re not getting a cut of it.”
—Jay to David Schultz, 29:23

“Can you believe where we are in this state?”
—Kenny, 52:10

---

Takeaways

• Minnesota is at the center of an unprecedented state-federal showdown over immigration enforcement and Medicaid fraud, with massive practical and political stakes.
• Legal complexities abound: Cutting-edge arguments on states’ rights, federal supremacy, and constitutional protections have real-life consequences.
• Institutional breakdowns—from resignations of top prosecutors to failed state oversight—have prompted the federal government to intervene dramatically.
• Billions in fraud, potential links to terrorism, and basic governance failures are now under the harshest federal scrutiny.

Every day brings new developments in what may be the biggest government showdown Minnesota has seen in decades.

Transcript

[John Randall]

Join me, John Randall at the North American Banking Company Minnesota Golf Show, February 13th through the 15th at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Test your skills in the long putt contest for a shot at a $100,000 prize package. Plus, try the latest gear from top manufacturers and get free lessons from local PGA pros. Don't miss it.

[Bernie Lauer]

Tickets on sale [e-mail] Save $3 with advance purchase. Each ticket includes 14 free greens fee passes at area courses. Learn [e-mail] the 2026 Minnesota Golf show is swinging into the Minneapolis Convention Center February 13th through 15th, and we want your business on the green. With thousands of passionate golfers roaming the floor, this is your chance to get your brand in front of this quality demographic with a vendor booth or larger sponsorship. And this year's ambassador, NFL hall of Famer and Viking legend John Randall. So yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

[Jay]

Want in?

[Bernie Lauer]

Don't wait for your invitation to land in the fairway. Call Bernie Lauer at 651-632-6646 or email blaurpi.com before the best spots are gone.

[Kenny]

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you. J. Coles, how are you now?

[Jay]

I'm doing pretty well. Has anything been happening lately?

[Kenny]

Kenny wow. Wow, right?

[Jay]

Is it what's good? Is something happening in the Twin Cities? What's going on?

[Kenny]

It's kind of a good time to start a podcast, isn't it? The news is coming to us. Say I promoted on Garage Logic towards the end of the show that we were going to have former U.S. attorney Tom Heffelfinger on with us. And he's not here.

[Jay]

No.

[Kenny]

And we're kind of worried because Tom Heffelfinger is very trustworthy and always says when, when he says he's going to be there, he's there.

[Jay]

I've inter interviewed him for many, many years and I've never not been able. So yeah, we'll find out. For some reason, Tom is not here today, but we've got the one and only secret agent man, David Schultz from Hamline University, Constitutional law expert.

[Kenny]

Yeah, thank you for joining us, David. Appreciate it.

[Jay]

David, thanks for having us. I was joking with Kenny going, wow, well, we just started this podcast around three months ago and is there a better time because there's so much news happening. And again, Kenny and I talked yesterday and he goes, I think we've got a show set for tomorrow. And I said, Kenny, we got 12 more hours till we do the show or 14 more hours, it's probably gonna change by 3 o'.

[David Schultz]

Clock.

[Kenny]

And it did.

[Jay]

And it did. And the latest thing to happen today that we wanted to get your take on, David, was Attorney General for Minnesota, Keith Ellison suing in federal court, trying to get DHS to end the ICE operations. And we heard from the federal judge today. Can you update us and our list and our viewers, what happened today with the federal judge and Minnesota's effort to kick ICE out of here?

[David Schultz]

Well, well, first off, I'll say the judge punted for now. And what I mean punted for now is the sense that when the Minnesota showed up, they filed a lawsuit, probably, what, no more than what, maybe 24, 36 hours ago or something like that, however long ago it was like that. And the feds apparently didn't show up in terms of being prepared at this point. And so what the judge said is, for now, we're not going to give you temporary restraining order. You know, we're going to schedule this, put it on the docket, give the federal government an opportunity to be able to respond and then go from there. And that's probably the right answer. It probably is. And the reason why I say that is that for a judge to issue a temporary restraining order, what you have to show is that you're more likely than not to win on the merits of the case. That's kind of like a standard here. And given the fact that the feds didn't show up, didn't make their arguments, judge doesn't have a lot of information at this point. And judges are hesitant, especially in the middle of an operation like this. Whether you like it or not, what ICE is doing, they're engaged in a major operation. I think judges are pretty loath to want to stick their nose into it and say until we actually have a lot more information, not gonna do anything. So no surprise there, just in terms of what happened.

[Jay]

So not a loss for Minnesota and the attorney general. And if I read correctly, David, I think the judge is Menendez. Judge Menendez, I think is the name of the judge. She said, come back on the 19th to the feds, which is next Monday, and then the state's gotta respond by the 22nd. So just so there might not be a temporary restraining order today doesn't mean we might not get one next week. Is that possible or would it take possibility?

[David Schultz]

Absolutely. It's entirely possible at that point because the judge has now put the feds on notice. Be here, be ready to argue. The judge could possibly do it for restraining order. Now, remember, that would just be a temporary restraining order. It's not saying that the feds are right, the state's right. It would just be to say at this point that we're going to, we, we, we're, we're going to put a thing on hold. But again, generally you don't get those kind of orders unless the judge, and this is the legal standard, can conclude that. Yeah, once we actually hear the whole case argued out on merits, I think you got a pretty good chance of winning at this point. So it's almost like, it's almost like a preliminary ruling, if I could call it that. In terms of what is. But, but, but, but I want to add a little bit to this here in terms of discussion, because if you look at Ellison's complaint that he filed, it was actually kind of interesting. He raises three arguments of which I think there's one good, really good argument in there. Okay, so he first says that it is, it's about an 80 page complaint, by the way. He first says that ice coming in here and doing all the stuff they're doing is a violation of the equal protection clause. They're targeting people on the basis of race. Not a bad argument saying that, you know, we're going after that. They're going after people based upon their race and that's a violation of the Constitution. The second argument is they're picking on us politically because we're Democrats. Probably true, but not a good legal argument. The argument that I thought that was the most interesting was the one that says that it's interfering with our 10th Amendment rights as a state. It's a federalism argument. And let me explain what I think Ellison's trying to say, although I don't think he argued it or presented it as well as he could have in his brief. Basically, what I think he's trying to say here is that, listen, as a state, we've got some core responsibilities. We're out here protecting the health, safety, welfare of our people. And you, as the federal government are coming in, are making it impossible for us to be able to do that. Basically, my language, not there's, you're mucking around in our business, making it hard for us to do our job. And what you're trying to do is to force us or compel us into submission. That's a pretty good argument. And the reason why it's a good argument is that the Supreme Court, U.S. supreme Court has consistently said that the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government except in Rare circumstances prevents the federal government from forcing states to do things. The most famous example is when the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare became law. One of the things that Obamacare wanted to do was expand Medicaid coverage. Good idea. So more people are being covered. So what it said to the states is that if you expand Medicare coverage, we'll cover it, but if you don't expand the coverage, we're going to dock you. We're going to take away some of your federal funds. Supreme Court said you can't do that. That's coercive. Got it. Yeah.

[Jay]

So kind of a, it's kind of a states rights thing, right?

[David Schultz]

It's a states rights thing. Now, I, I lived in Texas for a few years. I always hate hearing the worst states rights because it conjures up some really bad images here, too. But it's essentially. Yeah, I mean, I mean, I'm serious. But this is a states rights argument. Is that do we want, do we want the federal government basically, in my words, strong arming states into doing a variety of things? And I think what Ellison could have argued even better is to say, look at, look at, not just at ice, look at the cutting off of all the different funds, et cetera, et cetera, in the state. They're basically, basically trying to, what? I don't know, compel the state into submission or something like that. I think that's not a bad argument to make there. And this U.S. supreme Court might be sympathetic to it. So I was kidding with somebody and saying, I think the state wrote, again, remember, I'm a professor, they wrote a B minus or a B, a B complaint. They could have written a better one at some point there. But it's not a bad argument to say that can't push the state around.

[Jay]

We'll see you next week.

[Kenny]

David, what about the Supremacy Clause that says in the Constitution that federal laws made pursuant are supreme laws over state laws.

[David Schultz]

No, you're absolutely correct. When I teach, I talk to my students, tell my students that we have to think about the Supremacy clause and the 10th Amendment as an attention that the feds generally win, Feds generally win. Now, do the feds have the right to come in and enforce immigration laws? They absolutely do. No question about it. They have the jurisdiction and authority to be able to do that. The question is, are they trying to compel or force the state to go along with. Yeah, and that's what the court has to decide next week. Have the feds crossed that line over into compulsion? And that's what I'm saying it's not a bad argument the state is making. I don't know if it's a winning argument.

[Kenny]

Is it precedent setting? Is it precedent setting if in fact Minnesota wins?

[David Schultz]

It would be precedent setting on this one. Now, again, remember, the Supreme Court agreed with the states on the Obamacare one.

[Kenny]

So. Okay, this would be.

[David Schultz]

Yep.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah.

[David Schultz]

So this would be unusual in terms of, let us say, a. For an immigration issue, too. Now we should also point out, by the way, is that the authority to regulate immigration is textually given to the. To the federal government. Textually given in the Constitution to the federal government. So I just mentioned that because the feds do have a lot of clauses of the Constitution on their side here, as does the state of Minnesota. So that's why this is the job of judges to figure this out.

[Jay]

Well, something Kenny and I talked at length yesterday. Something extraordinary happened yesterday with the US Attorney's office here in Minnesota. Right. David, you're well aware of that. Joe Thompson, who's no stranger to anybody lately, and five of his colleagues stepped up and said, we're done, we're out. We don't have any official word yet, but we've got some information from the New York Times that's been sourced.

[Kenny]

Jay, I want your opinion on that. Sour. Because I asked you yesterday, I guess we don't have any sources named and Joe and the gang have not come forward to tell us. Why do we trust the New York Times as a source?

[Jay]

That's a really good question. Here's. I can best answer that. It is the New York Times. They have a pretty high standard. I've used sources that I don't name. But with something like this, I can tell you you would have had to have three. Right.

[Kenny]

That was my next question. Thank you.

[Jay]

Yeah. Yeah. You don't go with one on this. All three sources would have to be direct sources. Right. With firsthand knowledge, something to this level. Yeah. And do I think the New York Times, with its prowess, could have three really good sources at the Department of Justice? I do. I'm not so sure it came from the people who work here at the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota, but it certainly could have come from Washington D.C. where I would bet there are New York Times reporters pretty plugged in. So the New York Times is reporting, as Kenny pointed out, and it is important to note they're anonymous sources, that the reason the six, Joe Thompson and the other five left was a bit of a protest. Again, this is from the New York Times reporting this, that they were Getting pressure from dc, The Department of Justice in DC to investigate the wife of Renee Goode. Renee Goode was the one who was shot and killed by the ICE agent. Rebecca Goode is her wife. And that's why the six left. Again, we can only. We can only speculate, but if the New York Times is accurate, that's quite a development. And this is a great area for David to jump in too, because he's been around a long time. Constitutional law expert. David, have you seen anything quite like this happen? Well, certainly not here, but at any time in recent history, have you ever seen anything like that?

[David Schultz]

Depends on what you define by recent history. When you and I were talking before. We're talking before, the closest that I can think of. And it's not quite a parallel. It's what? It's 1973. It's Watergate. Nixon is president, and he doesn't like the fact that the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, is getting pretty darn close to him. So he. He calls. Who is it now? He calls the Attorney General and tells the Attorney general, fire Cox. And the Attorney General says, I'm not firing Cox. I quit.

[Jay]

Was that guy Ellison Ellerson? What was his.

[David Schultz]

Elliot Richardson?

[Jay]

Yep.

[David Schultz]

Elliot Richardson was the ag. Then he turns to William Ruckel's house, who's the Assistant ag, and says, fire him. And Ruckelhouse says, I'm not gonna do that either. So. So we're back to the water.

[Jay]

So, David, you're telling me we're back to Watergate? It sounds like echoes of Watergate. Okay, all right, great, great.

[David Schultz]

So. So let's. So let's do just a little bit of speculation here. Okay, so first off, the reason probably why Thompson et al, are not speaking or saying anything at this point, they're probably bound by attorney client privilege at this point. Let's say for the sake of argument.

[Jay]

Their client being the U.S. attorney. Right. Being the government.

[David Schultz]

Exactly.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah.

[David Schultz]

The federal government at this point. And they're being told by their client or being told by their superiors, you know, go investigate this person there. And they've said they're not going to do it here, more or less. They're bound not to go public and say anything. Now, there's going to be some exceptions, but for the most part, I can see why they're doing it. Okay. But the other thing that is interesting here, again, assuming the New York Times is accurate, assuming, you know, that some order was barked down to say, go investigate this other person here, they may have been required, had an affirmative duty actually to to quit the case or resign.

[Jay]

What's an affirmative duty?

[David Schultz]

Affirmative duty to do so for over 25 years, taught in law school, teach a class called Professional Responsibility, which is the. Which is the legal ethics class that law students have to take. So it's kind of an area you know a lot about here. And attorneys in general, but especially prosecutors, are under really tight rules regarding not abusing the legal system, not bringing about malicious prosecution. They're not supposed to do anything that they believe would be a violation of the law. Now, again, we don't know what all was going on here, but. But if, for example, they were being told, go out there, do this investigation, charge your. Again, whatever like that, they may have reached a conclusion and said, we can't do this. It's a violation of our. Of our duties as an. As an attorney, maybe they protested. The Justice Department said, still do it. And they said, we have no choice. We've got to step down. I will tell you. Okay, I will tell you a story here, is that I used to investigate, do part of the investigations for lawyers behaving badly. Okay. Every attorney I've ever talked to says they get an offer that comes a letter that comes from the Office of Professional Responsibility. The address is on there, and it's stamped in red, confidential. Every attorney I've ever talked to says, oh, my God, what's going to happen to my law license? You know, and so the threat of having somebody report you and possibly being investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the board that disciplines lawyers, and maybe losing your license is so great that for 99 out of 100 lawyers, that's enough to say, that's it, I'm done, folks. So again, we're just doing a lot of speculation here, but this is a scenario that I'm guessing that's happening.

[Jay]

But something significant, to have six of them at once. Right?

[David Schultz]

Yes.

[Jay]

And, yes. That's almost 10% of their entire staff. I'm told they've got something like 80 over there. Is that about right? 80 attorneys, so almost 80, but I mean, that's. I guess not 10%, but close. So something happened. We may. We may not know for a while for sure, but something bad happened in the US Attorney's Office here in Minnesota. Of course, that's where the whole world seems to be happening right now.

[Kenny]

Let me throw. Let me throw one at you. And this comes out of left field. Do you think Joe and his team were happy or upset when they found out that we now have nine or more federal government bodies investigating the fraud Right where they were initially the big dog. They were doing all the legwork, all the hard work. They were bringing people to court. And now we have up to nine different government bodies investigating this. Could that at all have an effect on Joe and team?

[Jay]

Possibly.

[David Schultz]

It could cut two different ways. One, it could cut in the sense of what did he feel like somebody else was cutting their grass, you know, you know, kind of like encroaching on him. That's one theory. Again, we don't know. Other theory is, is there's a lot of work we got coming down the line here, folks. Yeah. In terms of prosecution, you know, I mean. I mean, I mean, at this point, I don't know about you. It seems to be a buyer's market for fraud in Minnesota at this point.

[Jay]

Yeah, we've heard fraud, tourism, and now we got buyer's market.

[Kenny]

I gotta write that one down, David. Do I have to attribute that to you? Can I steal it?

[Jay]

We steal everything, David. Yeah, yeah.

[David Schultz]

Buyers market for fraud.

[Kenny]

There you go.

[David Schultz]

I can't imagine. I can't imagine, though, him and six other attorneys would have said, God, we don't want to work that hard. You know, I just. I just can't envision that. You know, it's something else now.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah.

[David Schultz]

Now, the other thing I was going to point out here is that, you know, there's still a lot of people in that office there, but remember, not everybody's an expert, you know, in sort of certain areas of law. And so the six that are involved here seem to be like, you know, may have a specialization in the criminal matters, they may have specialization in fraud. You know, there's probably other attorneys in the office there, but that may not be their expertise. And so you just can't sort of say, let's just move a bunch of attorneys from one part over to somewhere.

[Jay]

Else, you know, And I got to interrupt you right there because that's a very. That. That is significant, what you're saying right there is, to me, the most significant thing here. Well, it's significant that six walked out all at once. But Joe Thompson, I got to know Joe. I've known Joe for 10 years. He was a lead white collar guy. Fraud guy, right.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah.

[Jay]

And then he became the face of fraud and prosecutions here in Minnesota ever since everything blew up with the fraud. Right. So Joe is. And he served under both a Democrat and a Republican. Highly, highly respected. This is his area of expertise.

[David Schultz]

And.

[Jay]

And so my next question to you, David, is how do they continue these fraud prosecutions? Now, what happens to those that, you know, with the autism centers, possibly daycare centers. Feeding our future's not done. Tom Heffelfinger was interviewed yesterday by Channel 5. I helped get Tom lined up for Channel 5 yesterday. He said they can't, they can't continue the fraud investigations until they fill those spots, and you can't fill them overnight. What's your take on that?

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah, this is. No, this is.

[David Schultz]

Heffelfinger is absolutely correct here, is that people who, I mean, white collar crime, in terms of like prosecution, I mean, that's a specialized field. And, and not only that specialized field, but how these prosecution has been going on, what, two, three years, I think, at this point. I mean, think about the amount of expertise that knowledge these people have built up just in terms of the facts, the cases and stuff like that. I mean, this is, I don't know. I'm trying to think of an analogy here. It's like, Schultz, go out there and work on a car that you've never worked on in your life, or go. Or go out and do brains. You know, I'm, you know, I'm trying to get out something like that. Go out to brain surgery. I don't know anything about it. Well, you'll figure it out eventually. Well, yeah, maybe I will, but it's going to take me a long time to do it. And it's the same thing here. Is that the, what are you going to call it? The institutional knowledge or memory? The institutional memory, I guess we're going to call it there. Or maybe prosecutorial memory of what's going on in these cases is gone. So I don't want to quite say they're back to square one, but they're pretty close to square one at this.

[Jay]

Point, at least for the short term.

[David Schultz]

Yeah.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah.

[Jay]

You can't get six attorneys to jump in.

[David Schultz]

Yeah.

[Jay]

So, David, we have $9 billion worth of fraud out there. Quite possibly. Yeah. And no attorneys to prosecute it.

[Kenny]

Oh, he's got nine other government bodies.

[David Schultz]

Right.

[Jay]

Or nine other government bodies.

[Kenny]

Yeah.

[Jay]

Definition of a mess. This is a mess.

[David Schultz]

Yeah, it is a mess. Especially when you also throw in the fact that. I could, I can say this comfortably. The state of Minnesota can't investigate itself, period.

[Jay]

Right. No, it can't.

[David Schultz]

It's proven to the Attorney general, which should be doing this. I mean, remember, the attorney general represents the state of Minnesota. So it's, it's, it's got a conflict of interest. You know, it's huge. And so, so there is nothing out there. And even if we were to Say at this point, okay, let' contract out. Let's go get some private law firm that specializes it short term. Again, that's not easy. They're going to have to ramp up the speed, get up to speed on this stuff.

[Jay]

It's going to delay it for sure. It's going to set it back. The other questions, Kenny and I have talked about this a lot and Kenny has a lot of good questions. I have a lot of good questions. At least we think we do. If I want to shift gears just a little bit to. There's been constitutional questions, legal challenges to how ICE is operating. And I can tell you, David, Kenny and I talked about. We're watching videos where they're literally not even an exaggeration. It's on tape. KSTP ran it a couple nights ago. Knocking down the door of a guy, a Liberian immigrant somewhere in the Twin Cities. Just batter ramming the door, right? Just knocking the door down to get in to arrest the guy. People getting tackled outside target or inside target?

[Kenny]

You should make something clear, Jay. They knocked that door down without a signed search warrant.

[Jay]

They did not have a signed judicial. You're right. They gave him a piece of paper, Kenny. Thank you. You're right. And that piece of paper, David, only had the signature of an ICE agent, not a judge. I again, have been around a long time. Kenny's been around a long time. He's got that nice Santa beard. You and I have been around. I've never encountered anything like this in 30, 40 plus years, to be quite honest with you, to this level, day in and day out. And what are your thoughts? Have you ever seen anything quite like it? And how can that be allowed to continue? Where do we go from here, I guess is my next question, because it doesn't appear to be normal procedure or legal procedure. Am I right or way off on that?

[David Schultz]

I agree with you 100% on this one. And I wanna sort of back up for a second and say here for everybody, whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative or like that or wherever they stand on the political spectrum here, I mean, the whole purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to what? To keep the government out of our face? I mean, at the end of the day, you know, I don't, I don't care what the cause is. I don't want the government knocking on my door and battering it down. I mean, show me the warrant, et cetera, et cetera, like that. And so this ought to be something that unites everybody to say that. Yeah, should the feds be able to go out there and arrest people who are not legal in the United States.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah.

[David Schultz]

But guess what? Do it the right way. Was it? Someone asked me yesterday the question of what's the best way for the government to perform its duties? And I say the way to perform its duties is respect individual rights. I mean, the other way I phrase it, at some point, didn't we fight a revolutionary war 250 years ago.

[Dave Finewalks]

So.

[David Schultz]

The government couldn't stomp all over our lives or something like that? As one of my teachers would say. He would raise his hand and say, what kind of government do we live in? Or something like that.

[Jay]

Well, and then we had the Civil War, which was states rights, slavery and states rights combined. And Kenny had a great analogy yesterday. Kenny. Remember what you said to me? Kenny said he feels like he's sitting in the middle of a street.

[Kenny]

Oh, yeah. The neighbor to the right of me is at war with the neighbor to the left of me. And I'm sitting here in the middle looking, and they're telling me to pick a side, and I don't. I'm picking neither one.

[David Schultz]

Yeah, you may have the same reaction I do. Right, Because I was gonna say may have the same reaction I do. Right now. One of the things I'd like to see happen, it's not happening coming from the federal government, from the state government. Come on, folks, let's figure out how to de. Escalate this whole thing.

[Kenny]

Okay?

[David Schultz]

I mean, speaking of that, everybody. Everybody's. Everybody's getting hot and bothered or throwing language around. I mean, I mean, okay, I can understand Mayor Fry being mad, basically saying, get the F out of our city. Certainly doesn't help Trump's language. What does he tweet yesterday? Something about none of it helps. The day of what? The day of what is it the day of reckoning? This is not good for trying to figure out a peaceful way to resolve things.

[Kenny]

Or is it? The reason I say that is because we've been talking repeatedly on Garage Logic about the optics. That's one of these new buzzwords. Optics and how bad this looks for the feds and. And for ice. Okay.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[Kenny]

What if they think it looks good? What if they're achieving exactly what they want is? And I realize this is an opinion question, but what is your opinion?

[David Schultz]

Yeah, well. Well, if their goal is to try to intimidate people, scare people, et cetera, et cetera, then it may be very effective in terms of. Because people are scared. People are worried at this point. I mean, you folks are probably like me, Remember, George Floyd happened after George Floyd. I think all of us are worried that if somebody looks at somebody the wrong way, you know, we're going to have a bunch of riots in the streets again or something like that. But you're right. If so, if they're thinking that. But if they're thinking that this is going to win them favor with swing voters or independent voters come November, I doubt it. I mean, go back to the story again before here. If it's true that, you know, Thompson et al are resigning because they're being told to investigate the widow, how do you think that plays with the average suburban female voter in a dinette in Wasata?

[Kenny]

That's not gonna work.

[David Schultz]

Not gonna work.

[Jay]

Folks, this has been great. David, thanks for taking such a long time to chat with us about it.

[David Schultz]

That's a problem.

[Jay]

I don't know where it goes from here. All I know is Kenny and I'll just each day wake up and talk to each other and go, what are we covering today? What are we going to talk about today?

[Kenny]

If we get rich off this phrase, It's a buyer's market for state.

[Jay]

Buyer's market for fraud.

[Kenny]

For fraud. We'll thank you. But you're not getting a cut of it.

[Jay]

Yeah. You're not getting any of our money, David.

[David Schultz]

All right, so I'll deal. I'll get a cut of that. You get a cut of how much I get when I talk to kstp.

[Kenny]

Oh, the same amount. Half of nothing is nothing.

[Jay]

Discount nothing. Okay, we got it.

[Kenny]

Thanks, David.

[David Schultz]

Thanks.

[Jay]

Really appreciate it.

[Kenny]

All right, we're gonna take a quick break. Yeah. Yep. We'll. We'll be right back.

[Jay]

Yep.

[Kenny]

Jay, David Fine walks. Let me do the introductions because you are running full throttle right now. I mean, you are full throttle down a hill with the wind at your back. So let me just calm the room and give the listeners some background on our next guest. Dave Fine walks. The lead attorney for the Minnesota hospital association for 30 years. David, you know Medicaid rules and laws inside and out. The Fed's threatening to cut 2 billion off Medicaid funds to Minnesota. Could affect more than a million Minnesotans who rely on Medicaid services. Jay, go.

[Jay]

You know what I love about Kenny? He knows me really, really well. I didn't think I was that hyp.

[Kenny]

Oh, my God.

[Jay]

But he's the lost buffer. I'm trying to stay calm. Well, there's a lot of big news happening, and it's really important and.

[Dave Finewalks]

Crap.

[Jay]

We have two.

[Kenny]

We have two Lawsuits now against the feds.

[Jay]

Two lawsuits against the. Well, now that's the feds suing Minnesota. So we. In the one, we have the feds. Now we got the Fed suing Minnesota. Yeah, it's. It's crazy. Well, so joining. We're lucky to have David join us today. Just, David, explain the significance again. This just appeared in the federal registry today, correct? Correct. So essentially, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, which is run by Dr. Oz, said, hey, we don't think you're running Medicaid very well. And since there's so much fraud, we're gonna withhold $2 billion. I mean, does that sum it up? It's pretty significant, is it not?

[Dave Finewalks]

It's very significant because, A, it hasn't happened before, and B, the Medicaid program is funded by the feds and the state of Minnesota. So what we got here is the feds saying, we think there's something seriously wrong in Minnesota and we're gonna withhold our half because it looks to us like you're not even trying to prevent fraud.

[Jay]

And can they? Can they. So there's gotta be some kind of a process. They just can't come in. And so now what happens next?

[Dave Finewalks]

Well, now what happens next is. And Walsh already today took the steps. They publish this notice in the Federal Register that says, we're gonna start withholding money. You got 10 days to ask for a hearing.

[Jay]

Okay.

[Dave Finewalks]

Walz has already asked for the hearing immediately. I mean, he's got to.

[Jay]

I was gonna say there's no other option.

[Dave Finewalks]

There's no other option. There will be a hearing held in Chicago in a reasonably short amount of time. And the federal government has said, we've looked at this and you're deficient in every way you can be deficient. It's not a close question.

[Jay]

So it's tied to the fraud that we've been.

[Dave Finewalks]

It's tied to the fact our legislative auditor has wrote a letter to the Star Tribune newspaper and he said, I've known this all along. I warned him. I told him that I saw this. And, you know, of course, he didn't tell anybody else, but, you know, he's writing letters now.

[Kenny]

That was the singer.

[Dave Finewalks]

The reason that I mention it is one of those famous reports where he said, I've known this all along is a footnote in this filing in the Federal Register. You can see in the thing that was published, there's a footnote that says, according to the Legislative Auditor, state of Minnesota, this stuff is really messed up. And he said, he knew about it, so you must have known about it. So why didn't anybody do anything about it?

[Jay]

And so this is clearly connected to all of the fraud that we've been reporting on in recent months and years. You and I have reported on Medicaid problems going back over 13 years. But this is more of the recent stuff that's exploded. Correct. It's all tied together.

[Dave Finewalks]

This is more of the recent stuff because what's happening and what happened with the U.S. attorney is these fraud numbers are increasing exponentially.

[David Schultz]

Yeah.

[Dave Finewalks]

You wake up one day and somebody goes, holy smokes, they stole some money. It could be as much as a billion dollars. Three weeks later, a billion dollars looks like the bargain room. You know, now we're up to multi billion dollars. And most people glaze over because these are boxcar numbers. When you get that many zeros in front of the first number, you have hard time wrapping your head around what's going on.

[Jay]

It's huge.

[Dave Finewalks]

It's beyond huge. It's unbelievable.

[Jay]

And Kenny and I were talking about if they cut off 2 billion to Minnesota, there's more than a million people. That's elderly people, disabled people. What happens to the million people?

[Kenny]

I would call them innocent bystanders.

[Jay]

100%, Ken. Right. So what happens to them, Dave? What happens?

[Dave Finewalks]

Well, let's dissect it a little bit, because first of all, they're not cutting off all the money, believe it or not. But in terms of how much federal money Minnesota gets, this $2 billion is basically a cup of water out of the ocean. Okay.

[Jay]

But if it's 2 billion for us, wouldn't that be like the end? How would we be able to administer any services?

[Kenny]

Yeah, it seems significant.

[Dave Finewalks]

Well, no, the number seems significant when taken in a vacuum. But you have to look at the services that they're cutting. These run across 14, what they call 1115 waivered programs. Now, anytime you see an 1115 waiver and everything the state does, these are programs that were set up as an experiment. So I want you to think about that. Like the housing stabilization services. You know, what if we paid people to go out and ask homeless people if they wouldn't rather be living indoors? You know, okay, well, let's do that. Suddenly everybody's doing it and everybody's submitting bills and, you know, what's the point? It looks like the program was set up just to bleed federal money.

[Jay]

Well, Joe Thompson, in an interview that I did with him, said he believed 90% or greater of housing stabilization was fraud.

[Dave Finewalks]

Absolutely. And I agree with him completely. You know, I've talked to Mr. Thompson in the past. He's a wonderful public servant, a great lawyer. He absolutely looked at those things and he said, it looks like many of these programs were designed to be defrauded.

[David Schultz]

Wow.

[Dave Finewalks]

And in fact, they were.

[Jay]

Think about that for a minute now.

[Dave Finewalks]

But. And let's go back to where we came in a few minutes ago. If you set one of these things up and for the money, you put in some money and the federal government at the very minimum matches it dollar for dollar, or in some cases pays for the whole thing, you could set up programs that were designed to be defrauded because what do you care? It's free money. Now, are there some people who are in need of stuff?

[Jay]

By free money you mean free to the state.

[Dave Finewalks]

Free to the state.

[Jay]

To the state.

[Dave Finewalks]

Okay. It's an open checkbook. We don't have the most basic of financial safeguards. These programs are operated in a Wild west manner.

[David Schultz]

And.

[Dave Finewalks]

And the amount of money that's being lost is insane.

[David Schultz]

Wow.

[Dave Finewalks]

Now, keep in mind that every dollar of money lost is a dollar that could be used to help somebody in need. So when the state agencies or the governor goes, your actions are hurting poor people. Nah. The federal government actions are designed to make sure poor people actually get the benefit of the money that the taxpayers are paying. Because otherwise it's going into Lamborghinis and, you know, ranches in Kenya and who knows where else. But it's sure not going to help the people who need help.

[Jay]

So if they take the 2 billion, how do the million people that rely on it get it here, David, how are they going to get it? They just lose the services?

[Dave Finewalks]

No, no, but keep in mind the state. The state puts in 2 billion too, in theory.

[Jay]

Right.

[Dave Finewalks]

So the state would have to do this. But. But the notice in today's Federal Register requires that the Walsh administration show up at this hearing and go, look, here's what we've done to stop this fraud. Now. And they sent this to cms, and it's important to take notice of the fact that CMS says, yeah, we looked at that, and with your permission, that's some babbling bullshit. Here's what the Walsh administration says they're going to do. The first thing they said is, oh, we're going to hire an outside company who's a data analytics company to audit. Data companies don't audit. You have to hire auditors to audit. So that one's a little wacky from the start.

[Jay]

Okay.

[Dave Finewalks]

Number two, I know a guy you know, everybody's favorite line, I know a guy, this guy's a good guy. I'm going to put him in charge of this stuff. There's no real plan, but you know, everybody likes this guy. It's all gonna work out fine. Okay, that's number two. And my favorite is that the appointment of o'.

[Jay]

Malley.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah. Okay. And I'm. And I think he's a fine gentleman.

[Jay]

That's nothing against him.

[Dave Finewalks]

But the announcement that this guy is gonna fix it all without a detailed plan is a little light on detail. And the third thing, which is my personal favorite, Waltz issued an executive order decreeing that fraud would stop. Okay. You can find it if you just Google Waltz. You know, executive order fraud, it comes right up. So I looked at this and I kind of chuckled to myself and I thought, well, this is interesting. All fraud will cease. You know, Signed the Great and Powerful Walz. All right, well, today the Federal Register published a thing that was signed the Great and powerful laws.

[David Schultz]

Okay.

[Dave Finewalks]

And so now the question is, it.

[Jay]

Is Dr. Oz who's running CMS?

[Dave Finewalks]

Yeah. Who are you gonna bet on?

[Jay]

Kenny?

[Kenny]

This is, this is, this is the best interview I've ever been a part of. This is top. Number one.

[Jay]

The guy in charge of cutting off 2 billion is Dr. Oz.

[Dave Finewalks]

You know, and, and, and, and Dr. Oz. Yeah.

[Jay]

You know, I hate to interrupt you. You know Renee Cooper, my colleague downstairs, you know Kenny. She interviewed. She got a one on one with Oz this morning. Great. I should text her and tell her to get up here. I'd like to know what Oz told her today, you know what I'm saying? What did Oz. Did anybody. Did you see any news this afternoon?

[Dave Finewalks]

I did not see any.

[Jay]

What did he say today? Do you have any idea?

[Dave Finewalks]

I don't know what he said today, but I can tell you what this says. It says there's going to be a hearing.

[Jay]

Do they have a date on the hearing yet or.

[Dave Finewalks]

No, he has to ask. Then they'll schedule it, but it'll be scheduled within X number of days, like in 30 days. They've appointed a hearing examiner, so does.

[Jay]

Walls have to go to that? Well, would it be dhs?

[Dave Finewalks]

Somebody has to go to it. Yeah, you know, somebody has to go to it and come up with a plan. And again, I'm gonna refer back to you guys because while we're sitting here making jokes about this, you know, you're sort of my favorite station. I'll admit it. A little over a week ago you guys had a thing on the news where Somebody from the Legislative auditor was sitting in front of a legislative committee saying, I've never seen anything like this in my 27 years. We were trying to do an audit at DHS, and they made up a bunch of documents and backdated them.

[Jay]

Backdated them.

[Dave Finewalks]

And here's the key. And we've always suspected for years this has been going on, but now we caught them at it.

[Jay]

Okay, that was an extraordinary hearing.

[Dave Finewalks]

That was beyond extraordinary. What was off the page was the temporary commissioner of DHS is sitting there and somebody asked her, what are you gonna do? And she said, we're referring it to hr. Really? You know, a bunch of your people just created fraudulent documents and backdated them to give to our auditor. And you're referring it to hr, why? To calculate their bonus for the year.

[Jay]

We actually asked a reporter at Channel 5 downstairs. Asked her, Gandhi, is she interim now still, or is she the director of dhs?

[Dave Finewalks]

Well, I don't. Last time I looked, her title was temporary tempor. You know, but I.

[Jay]

She's still a commissioner. Either way, she's the commissioner. So they point blank asked her if anybody's being fired, and she said that she couldn't really comment because it's a personnel matter now.

[Dave Finewalks]

Right. So, okay, so. But, you know, when you look at this, you see this stuff on TV and you have to ask yourself, where's the outrage? And this filing in the Federal Register is demonstrative of the outrage at the federal level.

[Jay]

I mean, essentially, it's the federal government saying to the state of Minnesota, your Medicaid program is so fraught with fraud that we're shutting you down. At least with the federal money, we're shutting you down.

[David Schultz]

Right.

[Jay]

I mean, is that just in a nutshell, that's.

[Dave Finewalks]

Your Medicaid program is so fraught with fraud that we're withholding our half, $2 billion of some of this money in 14 programs. But the big program, the prepaid medical assistance program, you know, Medicaid, Medicaid, the mother of all programs, they haven't even got to that one yet. And that's where the huge fraud is.

[Jay]

So this could even get bigger.

[Dave Finewalks]

This could get bigger. This thing could snowball out of control, you know, in an unbelievably short period of time. And many of us are, you know, optimistically hopeful that that, in fact will happen, because you've got to stop this nonsense in order to stop the bleeding of the money. And what we've got now, the new ingredient, the new wrinkle or twist on this Thing that suddenly catches everybody's attention is some of this stolen money going to fund terrorism. Right, okay. Because we.

[Jay]

It's been the question. Nobody's been able to answer it other.

[Dave Finewalks]

Than nobody's been able to answer. But the existence of that question alone has finally got everybody seriously looking at this. Because before it's just, what's a few billion stolen dollars among friends? You know, what does anybody care? You know, it's government, it's complicated. Who cares now? Suddenly people care. It's an important question. It's an important issue. And certainly, you know, the feds aren't gonna let it rest until they find out. So, you know, that's what we're in the middle of.

[Kenny]

So, speaking of the Feds, do you suppose that the. The reason the money was made available from the federal government by Congress, U.S. congress, was the end goal, just simply fraud? Or was the end goal pure and it could good with good intentions?

[Dave Finewalks]

The intention of the federal government is always good intentions, the best of intentions. This whole notion of 1115 waivers was an idea that says, you know what the old fashioned way was? We'll give you half the cost of a program. You go ahead and run a program, you show us the receipts, we'll reimburse you for half the program. That's the old fashioned way. Many, many years ago, somebody said, you know, that's cumbersome. Let's do it a new way. Let's experiment. Let's just have the government give the state money and trust them because it's the state. I mean, how could they mess it up? You know, it's like the state government. Who would ever think that the state government could or would mess something up? Well, they have messed it up beyond human recognition.

[Kenny]

With hindsight. Yeah, that was. That was bad.

[David Schultz]

That was really bad.

[Dave Finewalks]

But more importantly, there are many people who are suggesting that they messed it up on purpose.

[Kenny]

Correct.

[Dave Finewalks]

And that's the real issue that needs to be. Basically the argument is you couldn't mess this thing up this bad by accident. You know, this required planning and consultants.

[Jay]

Hey, David Schultz was on. You know, David, he was on just before you, and he gave us a great line. Kenny wrote it down. This is what David Schultz had to tell us.

[David Schultz]

What was it?

[Kenny]

It's a buyer's market for fraud.

[Jay]

In Minnesota, it's a buyer's market for fraud.

[Kenny]

Don't worry, David. I wrote down something you said that I love. Babbling bullshit.

[Jay]

We've had a stellar day at the Crabby Coffee.

[Kenny]

Seldom do we write down quotes.

[Jay]

Stellar day yeah. So what is the. What do you think? They have the hearings. Do you think the feds will stick to their guns? I'm asking you to speculate, obviously. I mean, do you think this is actually gonna happen where they cut the 2 billion? Or is it more political theater? Have you ever seen anything quite like this before?

[Dave Finewalks]

No. No, I have never seen anything quite like this before. I have never seen. You know, people write letters all the time. You know, I collect letters written by legislators to the federal government going, you know, we, the undersigned, demand that you come in here and arrest the following people and hang them next Wednesday. You know, those things never produce a result. Here's a letter that ended up being published as a notice in the Federal Register going, we're doing this now. The other thing that's different is normally when the state of Minnesota says, we got a plan. Here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna hire some consultants. I know a guy, and by the way, I've signed an executive order decreeing that all this stuff would stop.

[Jay]

And you think that'll be enough for the federal government?

[Dave Finewalks]

No, no, no. It isn't enough, because A, we've already done this.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[Dave Finewalks]

And B, in the past, when we did this kind of stuff, it was enough. Okay? It was enough. We've done it. This thing published today specifically says, we saw that stuff. You did, and it ain't good enough. In fact, it ain't even a reasonable start.

[Jay]

So you're saying this is actually a response to what? When Minnesota said, we're working to fix this.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yes.

[Jay]

And get a handle on it. And this is a response saying, yeah, you haven't done enough, so we're cutting it off. So you don't see this thing getting reversed anytime soon?

[Dave Finewalks]

No, there's gonna be a hearing. Walsh has asked for a hearing.

[Jay]

Right. But do you think it'll get reversed at a hearing or an appeal or.

[Dave Finewalks]

If he provides a different plan? They've already rejected this one. Got it. If he comes up with some new plan that might make some amount of sense, assuming it isn't just all fluff and empty promises, they might say, okay, we'll give you a chance. But what I would do if I was in their position is I would look at receivership. I would say, you know what? We're gonna reverse roles. The state of Minnesota keeps talking. In fact, they're just quoted in a newspaper this morning, this is a partnership between the state and the feds. And the cruel, uncaring feds have decided to Victimize the poor people who depend on these programs. That's their approach. Okay. I mean, I'm not Dr. Oz. Dr. Oz is a lot smarter than I am. If it was me, I would go. I'll tell you what, I'm going to call that bluff. You're right. This is a partnership. But I'm reversing the order. I, the federal government, am now the new managing partner of. We're going to run this program. Not you got it? Half. You put up half the money. We'll put up half the money. We're gonna run it.

[Jay]

Interesting. I wish I, you know, I should have thought to get Renee Cooper up here. She interviewed him at 7:30 this morning. I'd be curious to know what Dr. Oz had to say.

[Dave Finewalks]

And you know, the other thing is with the Medicaid program itself, just, you know, many of us believe the fraud numbers are much larger. We're talking greater than $20 billion.

[Jay]

I interviewed Joe Thompson when he did the famous $1 billion quote. Yep. And how many months? Just a few months later it was nine.

[Dave Finewalks]

Yes.

[Jay]

So I, you know, okay, these, the numbers are staggering.

[Dave Finewalks]

But the reason I bring this up is for Medicaid.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[Dave Finewalks]

The solution for Medicaid is even simpler. You don't need to do this. All you need to do is pull the waiver. If you pull the waiver, the program goes back to running the way it was designed. The state puts up money to. If feds reimburse money, the feds get to see receipts. It's impossible to steal. That model is called a fee for service model. We still have that model in Minnesota. Minnesota is running a Medicaid fee for service program. It's still up and running. Why do we have it? Because about 20% of the Medicaid population are disabled people. High acuity people, high needs people. And HMOs that we contract with used to be four, now three. Maybe still four. Nobody knows. Those companies don't want these people. So we have to run a fee for service program. Cause they don't want the expensive people. They just want the good risk. So we got a fee for service program. We got a supercomputer, it's up and running. If the federal government wanted to pull out 11, 15 waivers, somebody pulls a switch and bingo, we're in business. No enrollees have disrupted. Everybody gets healthcare, in fact, better than they've ever gotten before because there's no limited networks. They can go wherever they want. You know, fee for service is a much better deal than the managed care system. We Got now and all fraud across the board ceases instantly. All of this stuff on the part of the state is designed to distract attention from the Medicaid program, which is the big ticket item.

[Jay]

Good stuff as always. Thanks for coming in.

[Dave Finewalks]

My pleasure. Thank you for asking.

[Kenny]

Yeah, thank you very much. Jay, let's take a really quick break and come back. I've got something secret to tell you.

[Jay]

Okay.

[Kenny]

All right, we'll be right back.

[Jay]

Look forward to it.

[Kenny]

Jay, if you would go back 35 years, until the 25 year old Kenny, that he would care about this sort of babbling at the age of 60, I think that 25 year old Kenny would have punched you right in the nose and ordered another shot of tequila.

[Jay]

Yeah, you would have thrown it. You would have throated me.

[Dave Finewalks]

Wow.

[Kenny]

Can you believe where we are in this state?

[Jay]

No, it's been extraordinary.

[Kenny]

It's really been fascinating.

[Jay]

I can't think of any other word. Other fascinating. Extraordinary. And like I said earlier at the top of the show and we said to David as we was leaving, it literally is changing every day. There's something else. Like you said, fed suing the state. State suing the feds. Now we're pulling Medicaid money to $2 billion on top of. It's just been insane.

[Kenny]

Kenny, meanwhile, there's a wonderful lady in your part of the world in Wisconsin who still holds the world record for shooting the largest black bear in Wisconsin. And we've wanted to interview her for.

[Jay]

The last two weeks and they haven't had a chance.

[Kenny]

Eventually she's going to get sick of us and say, no, she's not going.

[Jay]

To cut my hair anymore. Yeah, well, tell me to get the hell out. She understands and she will join us someday.

[Kenny]

Yeah, but let's special thanks for David for being available to us when. And we're worried about Tom Heffelfinger. He still hasn't called back.

[Jay]

I'm gonna keep trying to get a hold of him. That's just unusual.

[Kenny]

And David Fine walks was wonderful. I had no idea the conversation was gonna go where it went.

[Jay]

Yeah, he's.

[Kenny]

He doesn't hold back. He's like you. He's full throttle.

[Jay]

He's full throttle. Well, imagine he and I teaming up on stories.

[Kenny]

Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. I would get out of the car and walk. I'm not riding with you two.

[Jay]

And I don't blame you. I don't blame you.

[Kenny]

All right, thank you everybody for listening to news from the Krabby Coffee Shop. We'll be back next week.

[Jay]

See you.