Will Cain Country - Congressman Chip Roy: Journalist In The Group Chat? Breaking Down The Cabinet's 'Signal' Leak

Episode Date: March 25, 2025

Story #1: Did Trump administration officials leak secret war plans on an unsecured Signal group chat that accidentally included a reporter from 'The Atlantic?' What really happened? Why does it matter? What does it mean going forward? Story #2: Will sits down with Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) to continue the discussion on the leaked group chat, plus Roy's new bill that makes sure everyone voting is a U.S. citizen and if Federal District judges should be limited to only covering issues that affect their geographic region. Story #3: The Crew tries to convince Will to give a damn about Snow White. It goes super well.  Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, did Trump administration officials within the cabinet of President Donald Trump, including the Secretary of Defense, the head of D.N.A. I, the National Security Agency, the CIA, leak secret war plans on an unsecured channel signal that included a reporter from the Atlantic. Two, should federal district judges be limited legally or through the Supreme Court to decisions

that only cover their district, their geographic jurisdiction, with Congressman Chip Roy. three the guys try to convince me to give a damn about snow white it is the will cane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the fox news youtube channel on the fox news facebook page terrestrial radio three dozen stations across this great united states of america but always on demand to fit your schedule at your leisure by subscribing at apple or on spotify make sure you set a reminder on facebook and youtube so that you can always join us here at 12 o'clock eastern time live on the will can show where today i promise you the most fulsome fair accurate conversation

over the scandal dominating the last 12 hours and promising to dominate the next 40 hours of news let's get to it now with story number one yesterday the atlantics geoffrey goldberg reports that over the weekend a few weeks ago he was included in a signal group chat that included the highest levels of the american government planning debating deliberating attacks on houthi rebels in yemen the headline read the trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans The story has screen grabs from a text chain that included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegeseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, head of D&I, Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratliff, Chief White House advisor Stephen Miller, and head of the NSA, Michael Waltz, all talking about

what to do with the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and whether or not a strike was greenlit from the president's of the United States. Goldberg reports that at some point in the chat, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared, quote-unquote, war plans over what would take place within hours. He claims he knew over two hours before the rest of the world what would happen with military strikes in Yemen. The headlines scream today, incompetent administration, using unsecured apps and platforms, talking about classified information. Yesterday, I went on to the the Fox News Channel within an hour of this story breaking and told you and told the public that I think the biggest takeaway is the thoughtful exercise, debate, deliberation, and exchange between people

who present themselves a certain way publicly and conduct themselves entirely consistently, privately, and serving the interests of America first. I sit here today after less than 24 hours of reflection and much, much more information. And I doubled down that that is my takeaway. of further belief in the people making decisions for America. I want to bring in the crew of the Will Kane show here, tinfoil Pat, two at A's, Dan, and Young Establishment James. I have tried to synthesize this story. I have honestly, and not to overwhelm the audience,

synthesized it into 20 bullet points, 20 takeaways. I won't belay breach in every one of them, but what I can promise you is that I've thoughtfully ingested this story, and I have talked to individuals about what went down. And I want to share those with you and the audience. I think that if you turn on any number of channels and any other media enterprises, you will see confirmation bias, pre-written agendas.

And as I'm described yesterday as a bootlicker for, yes, my friend who is Secretary of Defense and many other people that I highly respect running this administration, I will tell you that I have what I believe to be the fairest, most accurate take. on this entire story, leaving nothing out. But in the interest of integrity, I want to open it up to the three of you to ask questions, push back, and in cases where you disagree, inject. I do that out of my own sense of self-awareness. So, for example, two a days, if you happen to have something

that you disagree with, or you think that I'm being partisan, or if the shoe were on the other foot, I welcome that pushback. Okay? Here we go. Number one. A mistake was made. An embarrassing mistake was made. Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, was clearly and inadvertently included in a chat with the highest levels

of the American government. That seems true. It's been authenticated by the NSA. They have confirmed that to be the case. No one has described exactly how that happened. Okay? I use Signal. I don't know if any of you guys used Signal,

but like any other messaging app outside of texting, it can um it you put in your own handle you know what i mean not only do you put in your name but you put in your own sort of abbreviation right so i could put in will cane but it'll quickly like i think it might even default to wc um so if i appear in a thing with a bunch of people talking my thing will read wc not will cane okay and i don't know if you've ever used like what's app it's very similar to what's app but it is encrypted signal is encrypted And by the way, for what it's worth, as of this morning, John Ratlift testifying before the House Intel Committee, had this to say about approved use of signal.

So that we're clear. One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers. One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of, signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration. So signal, according to CIA director John Ratliff was an approved encrypted communication device. A lot of people use signal because it is encrypted. It's not texting. It's not WhatsApp. Now, that doesn't mean that Signal is the highest level of approval for communication streams. There are other things the government has, by the way. I don't know how good they are. There's things like Nipper and Sipper, and I'm not even that familiar. I just know they

exist. I don't know how convenient they are in putting together groups. I really don't. Like, there's a reason people use Signal. Um, I wouldn't surprise me to all the private app development far exceeds, you know, governmental app development. So I don't know why one would go to Signal. Others would argue, by the way, because you can make it disappear. Uh, and maybe you can't on some of those government, um, things. But in order to get into that, we'll talk in a minute about what was actually in this communication, the contents of the communication, which nobody is aware of. Nobody has read this. All they have read is the headline.

And I feel very confident in that. Very few people have actually read the story. I have several times and done some of my own digging as well. Okay. So an embarrassing mistake was made. The suspicion is, because this also included Treasury Secretary Scott Besson and others, that there was an attempt to probably, this is speculation, include James. Mr. Greer, the U.S. trade representative, J.G. And instead, somebody with Waltz or Waltz,

that's the story. NSA had Mike Waltz added this, or somebody working for Waltz, added instead Jeffrey Goldberg, J.G. There are people going, why would Waltz have his contact? Why would Walsh? I don't know, but I can tell you this. I mean, people in government have the contacts of people in the media. It's just the way it is. Okay? I don't know what that means about how much they're communicating. I don't mean about what they communicate, but they do have contacts. That doesn't shock me in any way. So probably an attempt to add J.G. Jameson Greer, they added J.G. Jonah Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic. So it's embarrassing. It's a mistake. Period. end of sentence, embarrassing mistake. Number one. Number two, spare me your hand ringing about

mistakes. Spare me. Spare me. Spare me. Mistakes are made. And number three, I want an administration that's change agents. I talked to yesterday, I believe we're in a revolutionary time. I want action. When you are a man of action, mistakes are made. That's simply a fact. I'm tired of hearing from people who are in the intellectual commentariat writing for National Review some other national security apparatus publication talking to me about perfection. I know it's national security, and I know you want to do your best. But you people, and then those of you who have served in government, are practiced in the art of managerial decline.

You're bureaucrats and the cheerleaders of bureaucrats and what you have accomplished over the last half centuries ensuring nothing ever gets effing done. Okay, so spare me your hand-wringing about mistakes, all right? You want to go to Apple and see if they made any mistakes when they were first getting started? you're going to find them you want to go to any musk enterprise space x do they make mistakes you damn right because when you do things you make mistakes and mistakes happen okay so i don't need the feedback of thinkers you know about how this is deplorable and this was terrible good okay keep sitting on your thumb on your ass doing nothing for the rest of the history of this country

while we slide into oblivion because you've done a bang up job for 80 years and I have no doubt were you to be in charge you would continue to help us on that managerial decline so I'll roll with change agents who make some mistakes here and there even if they are admittedly very embarrassing mistakes this is the process of creative destruction some stuff is destroyed some stuff is created mistakes are made it is not a perfect enterprise I'm going to lose track of my 20 points I'm just going to keep going next it's insincere. All the criticism is insincere. The hand-wringing is insincere. On one hand, it's coming from a wide swath of camps who said nothing or cheerleading on administration that resulted in the

deaths of 13 Marines in Afghanistan. You want to talk about a mistake? Let's talk about a mistake. Okay? In this case, 13 Marines are killed. Oh, Will, you're not, you know, you're doing both sides or is them. You're doing, you know, but they made mistakes too. Yeah, I am. Because what went wrong here? Okay? 13 Marines were not killed. The Secretary of State did not acid bleach her server to get rid of communications, or he did not, as a previous one, aka Hillary Clinton. The Secretary of Defense did not go missing without telling the entire administration completely AWOL because he had to go to the hospital. All right? The chairman of the joint chief didn't directly communicate with the seat. PCP contingency plans to combat the president of the United States.

That happened. That happened, folks, with General Mark Millie against in the first administration of President Donald Trump. A sitting congressman in this text chain or administration leader did not sleep with a Chinese spot. So I don't want to hear today from Eric Swalwell. And if I dare, if I dare hear from Jeffrey Tubin on CNN, God help. If I hear from Jeffrey Toobin on CNN about protected communications,

everybody knows what I'm talking about, right? Surely. He who jerks off on a Zoom call at work. If he has anything to say about protected communications today, I'm done. I'm done. All right. So let's just contextualize, therefore, the mistake that was made. The response is, Will, will, you're both sides. I mean, you're hiding the ball.

This isn't necessarily about if it went, bad but it could have gone bad this was a potential high security breach classified information on an insecure server okay let's talk about that what war plans first of all what was revealed in the content here's what i see in the content and i encourage you i'm going to debate when i'm going to put this stuff up on screen today it's already been reported but man you see a conversation including Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, NSA, all behaving exactly as they would in public about whether or not and when, perhaps, to conduct this strike. None of it is classified, by the way.

It's a deliberation. You know, it's not, there's no sensitive information. There's no, there's nothing taking place. Now, again, mistake, embarrassing mistake to include Jeffrey Goldberg. but what exactly in this is classified okay then there's the quote unquote war plans the geoffrey goldberg says the secretary of defense uploaded at 1144 a m of that saturday let's talk about that for a minute okay first of all that's not reported we have screen grabs of everything else but that's not in the article because he says he's being a patriotic american and not revealing that that information well okay

well first i always consider the source geoffrey goldberg is the man behind the sucker and losers thing in the Atlantic. Remember that? The Donald Trump called guys that died at Normandy suckers and losers. Okay. Jeffrey Goldberg has perpetrated hoaxes. He is not a credible source. And in order to believe this part, the war plan stuff, right now, I don't have evidence. I have to trust Jeffrey Goldberg. And everybody's running with that. Everyone is running with it. Okay. Every headline is screaming it. Every reporting is saying, war plans, classified, unsecured device. All we have to back that up is the word of Jeffrey Goldberg. Well, that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. All right. Well, Will,

is he just making it up out a whole cloth? Okay, the Secretary of Defense came out yesterday off of a plane in Hawaii, and he said no war plans were communicated. Goldberg says on MSNBC that precise targets, location, and weapons devices were communicated. So I just was asking this information. When? Goldberg reports at 1144 a.m. Goldberg says two hours less. the world knew about strikes in Yemen. So I don't know when the attacks took place, right? But I know that it's somewhere inside of a two-hour window, right? That's what I do know. I don't know if it happened to 1145, 1144, I don't know if it happened at 1230. I don't know when it happened. But by two hours later, Rubio gives a high-five on the strikes in the group chat, and the world

knows. So the attacks took place in that to our window. Is that a revelation of war plans? or is that an update? Is that an update to the top administration cabinet members who communicate with the president of the United States? By the way, who is not on signal or any other really, he doesn't even text, isn't on any device. So that seems kind of important because the implication is unsecured device, war plans, what if the Houthi's got it? What if the Russians got it? Well, if it's real time, that's not a breach of classified war plans. That is an update to the president of the United States of America.

So I either have to trust Jeffrey Goldberg or I dig in to what exactly takes place here. In the end, finally, and I'll get you guys as a pushback, my takeaway is this. It is nevertheless an embarrassing mistake. It is an embarrassing mistake. Is it a massive breach of national security? I do not think it is a national breach of national security for a multitude of reasons of which I've just laid out. I think that that mistake will be rectified and things will not be done in the past, in the future, in the same way they were done in the past, which will be

an admission of a mistake. But I think the hyperbolic response to this is that they are using it as confirmation bias to go after it, by the way, both the left and the right, going after change ages, they did not like going in and they do not like on the back end. And they want to project their previous

narratives onto this incident. Incompetent, he's a drunk. It's all about Pete for some reason and not Waltz, who added Goldberg. And this administration is completely, before, phoenish, clownish. That is where they went in. That is where they come out. And they have very little interest in actually the questions that I've just presented to you or the details that I

presented to you. That, I think, is the fullest picture of what actually went down with this story. Time for some quick pushback. Go ahead, two days. No, I mean, just from things I've heard, you know, the brunch crew and all that, they're just wondering why at all are people communicating on an app like this about anything related to government, you know, issues and things like that. Why is it? My response to that is get real. Yeah.

Get real. I mean, how do you think they communicate? Do you think they're always in a skiff? You think they're always on Nipper? Do you think, I mean, do you think the Biden administration was always in a skiff? I mean, be real. Be real. Signal was loaded on, says Rattling, when they came in.

Now, I'm not telling you signal is proper for every piece of communication. but I'm telling you get real like you I would love to see somebody from the Biden administration under oath that they never used signal for any form of government communication by the way there's something else in this I can't remember if it was Heggseth or somebody else in the group chain said on these details will go high side high side means moving it to a more classified environment again maybe I don't know whatever these these other apps or devices are So it's an acknowledgement that some limitations of the conversation they're having in signal before classified information receives before going to the high side.

Go ahead, tinfoil. I'm sorry? I didn't really have any pushback. I agree with you. Sometimes your face suggests you have something to say. I was looking at something else. And I can't believe after all that. The big question was, is this a fireable offense?

Is this, you know, if it was a private sector, is this fireable fence for anybody? Does it lead to that? No. Okay. No. I don't think it should because I think you have to have, I think you have to contextualize, yes, the embarrassing mistake against the moment in history we arrive that requires and celebrates in my mind change agents at a really impactful moment in American history, finally, young establishment. What do we think about Goldberg's motives and just general thought process of actually putting it out? putting it out there.

My take on it is harsh, but. Yeah, I know. You said that in our group chat. I'm, look, I think Goldberg is untrustworthy. I do not believe that you should listen to what he says and go, that's a credible source. I don't know that he, if he did redact on his own account, certain information, I don't know that he compromised national security with what he did report. If I thought he did, I would come down on him hard. but I don't think he has anything but ill intentions for this administration.

And I don't think he's driven out any motive for transparency because the whole thing is transparent. And it makes the administration look pretty good in my mind when it's all exposed in their light. All right. Let's talk about this and much more in just one moment with Congressman Chip Roy. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, with all your Brett Baer favorites like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world.

Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Should federal district judges be limited to jurisdiction within their geographic limitations? Or can they and should they be able to put nationwide injunctions on the executive? Let's talk about that and much more with Congressman Chip Roy here on the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify. Hang out with us on YouTube or Facebook. Congressman Chip Roy joins us now. What's up, Congressman? Will, how are you doing, brother?

I'm good. I'm good. Before we get to any of the things that are more directly related to what you do for a living, this doesn't fall completely outside your purview. I'm just curious your thoughts today on the story and the quote unquote and the scandal that is rocking DC as we speak. There are meetings going on right now at the House Intelligence Committee, I believe. It's the Senate Intelligence Committee. And Ratliff and Gabbard and Patel are sitting there taking questions from many on this signal story. and the Atlantic. I'm curious, your reaction, Congressman. Well, I was hoping you were going to start all with some red dirt country music conversation, but we'll jump right in. And look, this is classic D.C. Swamp, right? Wanting to try to make a key issue out of this. Look, the administration will figure this out.

The president will figure this out. He is the commander-in-chief and the chief executive of the executive branch. You know, if something was done in a channel, they shouldn't have used, they'll figure that out. But to make this into something that's, like turning over, quote, war plans, I think is absurd. And if you look at the hypocrisy, and like, I get it, you know, as I say, you know, do the, well, they did it, but the extent to which the Biden regime was blatantly disregarding our national security interests, endangering our men and women in uniform, endangering the American people on a constant daily basis.

Let's look at what they did with special forces in Israel in terms of doxing them directly, or what they did with leaving behind all of the equipment in Afghanistan and 13. of our brave men and women in uniform who lost their lives because of the botched departure from Afghanistan. Let's go down the laundry list of ways they've been dangerous in terms of their policies with Ukraine, their energy policies. They and themselves empowering Putin, empowering Iran, empowering China, giving more money to China with their ridiculous inflation reduction act policies. And I can go on and on. My point is this is all a ruse to try to make the administration looking confident when this administration is actually

representing us on the foreign stage quite well. And I, you know, look, look, committees will look at and find out what they use, what they didn't use. They'll fix it. I'm not worried about it. Well, you know, I find myself in a somewhat similar position, Congressman. Like, I'm naturally, because I think of integrity, if I do say so myself, you know, how about this? I don't find both sides or is them persuasive.

That's the best way I can put it. So if somebody does something wrong, it's not persuasive to go, but you did something wrong. But there is a point to the context. Like you bring up those things. And I would add to that, by the way, Chairman General Millie intentionally sharing stuff with the CCP and the implication today is the Secretary of Defense accidentally sharing something with a journalist.

The point is context, okay? I don't think anyone's going to much deny a mistake was made here. This is a mistake. The question is, how big is the mistake? Before we all blow our heads off and fire people and go, oh my God, let's contextualize the mistake. excuse it, not say it didn't happen, contextualize it, and that's why these things that you bring up

are valuable, because we get to contextualize what is an admitted embarrassing mistake. Importantly, well, importantly, does not what aboutism. What it does, as you're saying, put it in context, what it does is point out, we had an administration, and we have current Democrats in Congress and current Democrat leaders around the country who specifically and intentionally and purposefully acted to endanger the American people. right, and incompetence, Afghanistan. And so now you've got this, a mistake. We'll figure out how big of a mistake.

I don't personally think it was that big of a mistake based on the quick readout today. I think it's one of those things you're like, oh crap, that was not good and fix it. And they'll deal with that internally. But this is one of those things where they're trying to turn this into something big because they have to cover up

for the fact they want America to be weakened the national stage. They want to empower the United Nations and international organizations. They want to have our enemies be stronger. It's actually true. You look at what they've done and you look at what they've done with China and the cartels and what they've done with those who are trying to do as harm. People who are against Israel, right? They are for Hamas, like outwardly, publicly. So they have to try to cover this up and try to make it look at, cover up their own nonsense and try to make this into something it's not. All right. What are you listening? too. What's your newest red dirt? So my son who's 14, 15, sorry, my daughter's turned 14. My son

who's 15 is really big into Briscoe right now. I don't know if you know Briscoe. William Beckman, these are some of the kind of more up and coming a little off, yeah, some of the off the radar guys than Texas country music. And so we've been listening to them a lot lately. I saw Briscoe out at the Devil's Backbone Tavern, which is in my district, just a little south of Austin, a little north of Nebraska down that way in the beautiful hill country. So we're doing it. lot of that kind of stuff. Isn't it interesting? I have a 17-year-old, and I have a 13-year-old, but the 17-year-old is driving a lot of my new discoveries of country. By the way, have you ever heard the song Arkansas Diamond? Like, it's not that new now, but it's,

who's that? It's Whalen Wyatt, right? Yes. And I'm a big fan. I love that song, Arkansas Diamond. There's a lot of great, I mean, I will say this about technology. I think it's the devil in many respects, social media stuff. But, man, the ability to go find some real good talent and not have to go through the filter of the record labels is really quite nice. You know what? Besides red dirt, you and I share a love of red dirt country music. I also, in mainstream country music, I love the rise of Zach Top. Do you like Zach Top? I'm a big fan. Yeah. No, there's, it's, you know, and it's actually Nashville country is kind of a little different than it used to be because of what we're seeing now. You get guys, you get guys like Stapleton

who are able to crack through and like, you know, that's not polished, produced. Nashville stuff, right, because of some of the ability to see this stuff online. So it's good. All right, let me ask you about this. So Congressman Darrell Issa has a bill out or a bill he's putting forward. And Speaker, Mike Johnson said yesterday he's going to be, he's in on it, which would legislatively clarify and limit federal district judge's jurisdiction and expansion only to their geographic distribution.

You're a law school guy. We both went to UT law. Okay, so a federal district judge as it stands right now, issues an insurance. injunction, a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and it expands nationwide. He can inhibit the executive. And I just want to say a few things to contextualize this. What are we looking at? It's like 600, 600 federal district judges. Is it congressmen? Something like that? Six 700. Yeah. Yeah. And roughly half of those are appointed by a Democrat, half of them appointed by Republicans. And look, not just because you're appointed by a Democrat doesn't make you a certain

type of judge, but among those, there are definitely judicial activists and far left judges in this type of thing. And what that allows for is activist plaintiffs like the ACLU to forum shop a judge that you know will be sympathetic to your suit and get an injunction against a sitting president and his agenda. And then the response from many and some on the rise, like, but you have the appellate process. True, you do. Ultimately to the Supreme Court. But that can take months. And so what you're looking at is the ability to bog down an administration based upon the decision of one far-left judge who's been forum-shopped on a given issue. And I've looked into it.

I'm curious what you have to say, like, what did Hamilton mean in Federalist 81? What powers did he mean for inferior courts to have in inhibiting the executive or expansive decisions? And I'm curious what you think about that as a legal thinker and about this bill. Well, so there's a number of things here that we can take an entire segment on this, but in short, by the way, did you have Charles Allen Wright for procedure or no? I didn't. And I wanted to be on legal eagles, you know, you're younger than me.

Do you know what legal eagles are? Do you remember them? I was 03, UT law, and you were right there ahead of me, but Charles Allen and right left there in 2000. Look, the reason I ask is you and I, you know, were schooled in the same place. And here's, here's my take on this. What Darrell Issa's bill does, I think, is a step in the right direction. Now, we amended it in the Judiciary Committee, okay? So the original bill would have said, look, you can only have a ruling that impact.

the parties before you, basically. And there was a couple guys on committee that I think rightly were kind of recognizing. Now, wait a second. There are times when there are issues that rise up that you need to be able to deal with. So they created a mechanism if two attorneys general from two different districts want to go file and say that there should be a nationwide injunction for some reason. There's some reason they need to do it. Then they can do that, but they've got to go to a three-judge panel,

and then three-judge panel can fast track that to the Supreme Court. Now, why might we want some mechanism like that? Now, by the way, I think there might be a better mechanism, and I can get in that if you want. But the point is, you should limit the nationwide injunctions. And by the way, TROs, this bill, the Issa Bill, does not touch TROs, so you've got to deal with that separately. Okay. But it would deal with the injunctions. The reason that that is a problem is what we already see, the abuse, right?

One judge comes in and boom, stop something nationwide. But now let's also remember that the bureaucratic state, the administrative state, which is run by radical leftists, they can go do a whole bunch of stuff and let's take for example the um you know education and you know dealing with trans issues and and boys being in girls bathrooms maybe it was the student loan nonsense you've got an executive that's out of control stepping over federalism stepping over states preventing the governors and ages or being able to do what they want to do going directly to schools now that is also violent against the constitution and separation of powers so we wanted to preserve a mechanism for a, say, Fifth Circuit, you know, we've got a good judge in Texas

to be able to go and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, well, this is bad. You are violating all sorts of laws. You're violating the Administrative Procedures Act. We need to stop you from implementing this because 90% of the jurisdictions across the country won't have the spine to do that. They'll implement the policies, and then you can't reverse them. That's how you get this acquiescence. So what I'm saying is we need to do our job as smart lawyers, judicial chair committee in the house, let's limit the abuses of the TROs, let's end the injunctions, and then let's provide a mechanism where we can take that and do it the right way and go up to a panel. Now, I would take it up to a circuit panel. If I were writing the bill myself, a judge would do it. They would

issue their ruling to the parties. They would then be able to say, look, I'm recommending to the Fifth Circuit that, hey, we need to do an injunction or a TRO, whatever it is. And then a three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit would look at that. And if they believe it should be done, boom, they can do it, and it goes straight to the court. But in any event, we need to come up for the way to make it work. That's how I would do it. That's how you would do it. How that, but what's the mechanism that they're proposing?

The mechanism in the bill that we passed out of committee, but we still might tweak it, would be that, again, if you believe there should be an injunction, two AGs from two different districts could go make the motion for that to a three-judge panel. That three-judge panel would then be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. The reason I like my approach is I don't want Texas to be bound by some of the other. real quick, who would that three-judge panel be? Would that three-judge panel be a collection of district judges? It'd be a random selection panel of district judges, which that gives me pause as well,

because that could be gamed to be filled with some of the leftists, you know. What's wrong with yours? Why don't they just take, why don't they just take the fast track to the three-judge panel at the circuit level? What's wrong with that? Well, we didn't have that idea before us when we were in committee because I didn't, I didn't think of it to last week. Oh, you came up with it late, Congressman. I did, but we still have time to work on it.

Look, this is all a process, what the bottom line is, right? For your listeners out there who are not nerd lawyers like you and me, what we don't need is a random judge deciding policy for the entire country. We need judges deciding, you know, the debate between parties and make a ruling on the parties. If there's an issue that needs to be addressed, that's a nationwide impact, then that ought to go to a channel where there's multiple judges and fast track to the court. We all generally agree on that.

It's about how to do it, and I think that's the important part here. I love the thing. I love the admission. Well, it didn't occur to me until after the meeting. So it didn't occur to me. And now I didn't come up the idea until last week. Because you're a real person being really honest right now. And that's the, I think there's something thematic to that on the whole signal story as well. More of the Will Kane show right after this. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $6.5 million.

visit go dot fox forward slash tx flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts Hey I'm trade gouty host of the trade gattie podcast I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com Who is your favorite Nashville If you're being honest and you play Nashville country and I'll be honest, I'm going to give you, and I'm going to give you two, and you can't say Zach Top.

So you've got to give me your most mainstream pop country guy that you will go to. And by the way, Stapleton doesn't count either. I was going to cheat and go to sibling. All right. So who else? Is that the question? I'll say, I like Luke Combs. I do.

And I actually like Morgan Wallen. So I like them both, and I'm unapologetic. Man, let me think about that. If I go old school, and unfortunately he's no longer with us, Toby Keith, man, I was a fan and I know that's old school and I'll tell you a quick story on that I'm an unapologetic bias towards Texas country

red dirt, et cetera, Robert O'Kee and everybody, right? And so 2005 or six, I'm in D.C. as a staffer and a buddy of mine said, hey, I got tickets to go out to Toby Keith and I was like, I don't know, man, that's just going to be a bunch of that, you know, Nashville types of stuff. I went to that show and it was during the war at the time and the military was out there And Toby, I mean, it was one of the best shows I've ever been to.

It was extraordinary. Military's going nuts. There's, you know, people in uniform, everybody's going crazy. You know, I think, I mean, of the current guys, I'm trying to think, I don't know. Who is, I mean, listen, I listen to all Texas music right now. So I got to think about it. I mean, you know, the guys you imagine are pretty good. My daughter went to go see Morgan last fall in Texas.

And, you know, he's got some good songs. When he comes on the radio. Texas country. When he comes on the radio, you don't change the channel. I mean, he's got to admit, it's pretty catchy, Morgan Wall. That's right. Okay, last thing, Congressman, I want you to tell me, and I don't know a lot about it. But this is something you're pushing, the Safe Act.

Tell me about the Safe Act. So, look, we've had serious problems and concerns in voting, right? We all know that. There's multiple pieces to voting integrity we've got to deal with, same-day voting, limiting mail-in ballots so that you can actually know that they're legitimate and shorter time on early voting. all of that kind of stuff, maybe paper ballots, all the debate we're having, we need to address that, maybe a holiday for voting. So you have same-day voting. But to the extent that we want to make sure

that only citizens vote, I introduced the Save Act last spring. We passed it out of the House. We had five Democrats who voted with us. We sent it to the Senate. Chuck Schumer killed it. The bill is pretty simple. It just simply says you've got to demonstrate with documentary proof of citizenship that you're a citizen the next time you're going through the cycle of your registration process. Or if a state decides to clean out their roles. But you know, if you go vote this election, you just go with your name, your same ID. But real ID would work, passports would work.

And if you don't have a real ID, all 50 states require it, by the way now, that has already determined citizenship. But real ID or passport, if you don't have those things, then you can go forward with other documentary-proof citizenship. People in the radical left are trying to say, oh, this is going to prevent like married women from voting, because if they get married, their name changes,

they're not going to be, it's all bogus. It's all a lie, made up by the radical left. All this will do is prevent illegals from voting. We believe that only American citizens should vote in American elections. So that's what we're doing. We passed it last year. I hope it'll be on the floor of the House sometime in the next couple of weeks. And before you go, my guy, two a day, who works on the show, he's the most in touch with the left side of our show because he's part of the Brooklyn brunch crew.

He's recently married. In fact, he said that my wife is worried, we get married. Why is that not a threat to a woman changing her name after she gets married? Well, because first of all, when you get married, you have to go change that documentation anyway. You've got to go get a new ID, right? She's going to go get a new driver's license and new documents. And regardless, we've got mechanisms in the bill that allow states to be able to create processes for anyone who comes forward and says, like, I need to vote, right? Well, okay, or are you registered?

Great, you're good to go. If you're going through a new registration process and you're married, well, just present your new information. And now you're re-registering and it's fine. If you've got any issue, then we allow the states to come. up with a mechanism for doing that and demonstrating, oh, hey, look, I've got my documentation here is my real ID before I got married and here's my marriage license. I'm good. But what you can't do is just come in with a made-up name and just say, I'm a Chad Ocho Sinko, trust me, right? Right. So it's pretty simple.

I love the Chad Ocho Sico reference. All right, Congressmanship, Roy fits in perfectly here at the Will Cain Show. Always great to see. I'll let you get back to your day job. Thanks so much for spending so much time with us. All right. Take care. all right there he goes let's take a quick break and when we come back um the guys have tried to convince me that i should give a hot damn about snow white and i'm going to explain to them and you why there's very little chance i will ever care about snow white next on the wheel can show this is jason chaffetz from the jason and the house podcast join me every monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests listen and follow now at fox newspodcast dot or wherever you download podcasts it is time to take the quiz it's five questions in less than five minutes we ask people on the streets of new york city to play along let's see how you do take the quiz every day at the quiz dot fox then come back here to see how you did thank you for taking the quiz

we care about snow white big story in the culture we care about snow white it is the will cane show streaming live at fox news dot com on the fox news youtube channel and the fox news facebook page hit subscribe at apple spotify or um set a reminder at youtube or facebook to it as you said adam kinsinger's tweeting about me yeah i was thrown in the uh the brooklyn brunch group chat um he quote tweeted you saying you know this is basically state tv from a clip from you on the TV show yesterday. He turns off his replies. So you can't reply to it. Yeah. Can't chirp. I'm just debating my response.

Think it out. Well, it's also worth noting that he has like Slava Ukraine as part of his username with the Ukrainian flag. So that's questionable. But the broken brunch crew was like, sorry, we've got to give it a like. On one hand, like I want to give Adam Kinsinger respect for having served in our military on the other he along with probably david packman are some of the most let's watch it go i want to be go i know i just want to be the devil one one go go go go go on the other side did you know that adam kinsinger was one time boys with a lot of people

that i'm boys with really like he was in yeah he was in sort of this like dudes crew i'll just say this when i see adam kinsinger i do not see a dude that's okay that's the best way i can put this in a safe environment um you know who adam kinsinger is you know who is by the way if i say you're not a dude fill in the blanks wherever you want to go with that okay go as far as you want will has said something profound um he is pc bro from south park or principal pc you know what i'm talking about Yep. P.C. Principal.

Whatever that was. Yeah. That is, that is, Kinsinger, right? Yeah. That's who he is. That's good. I also think there's a class of these men who are doing this all for women. I totally get what you're saying. Yes.

Whatever he's doing. Harry Sisson. You know, yesterday, you know, the whole world's saying I was state TV or boot liquor or whatever. I started thinking like I feel like and some of it somehow like this always happens like whenever I have something to say

there will be commentaries like how did you ever legitimize this guy lebatard or how dare Rusillo ever have this guy on again right because there because here we get the implication is here we are in your mainstream sandbox and how dare you invite these radicals in

I mean my response to that is twofold it's like wake up and look around okay we are the mainstream stream like you think you are you're not you're the sneering blue-haired goth kid in the corner of the cafeteria who used to be cool it's not anymore and my second point is you're all beta's doing this for some chick i'm convinced of it okay you are doing this in some way or some form or fashion for

some chick and what i mean by that is your wife runs you you're trying to impress some girl that you haven't got yet and you're posturing all of this is a posture and to me you're transparent I'm trying to think if I know any these dudes in real life I might know one or two definitely not let's go to the comments I know a couple Taylor can't read says if it's if it's not classified they should read it out loud and say nothing's wrong. You know, that is the trap that Senator Mark Warner keeps springing on to Tulsa Gabbard in this Senate Intel Committee meeting.

I don't know. I mean, I think it's a pretty good response. I'm going to be honest with you. I think it's a pretty good response, but I think there's something between openly publicizing something and it being classified. Remember, this was a mistake. No one is saying it's nothing wrong. but the question is is it legally classified was what they did in an unsecure environment legally classified

not not was it kosher elshani one says so if it's not classified then goldberg can publish the whole of it okay yes same comment babe happy tanker says just ban the use of any commercial app for government period all communications between government officials should only be proved performed under government apps period problem solved my suspicion is that's on but my suspicion is that's unrealistic and always has been it's not the way it's done or it would be done that way we have to go back and forth a lot i mean it is just not doable and a government app probably sucks yeah i probably michelle says i can only imagine the mistakes that were made by the previous administration yeah that's the other thing are we

acting like we're starting from a premise of perfect yes there are the adults CMD night says oh it's a mistake yet we hear on and on about Hillary's email server give me a break the issue with Hillary I know that's that is the what about is what about is what I really want to get into all the right and Hillary and Hillary and now you this Hillary bleached her emails and hid them from the public why is that the same it's not just that she was using an unclassified server it's why she was using an unclassified server in part and what she did when discovered like come on think deeper like the whole world operates as though all this is is you know what the patriots uniforms are

red and blue and why and you know what so are the texans same z's it's like think deeper Hillary's emails this okay yeah both the problem now get into the why and the what not that they're both the same color uniform. Tommy Twista. It's a fireball offense in the private sector. No. No. Tommy. I mean, no. Tony Branum, come on, man, they should own instead of defending it. Say it's a mistake. I don't know what they're going to do. I'm telling you. It's a mistake. How big a mistake, Tommy? What are you going to do with it? because my suspicion is the same thing you wanted to do before this story broke the same exact thing did you ever tweet that they hired a fox news weekend host who's a drunk did you

ever tweet that tommy just be honest let's go through did you ever tweet that before i don't know tommy but let's see if we can get into his ex and finally ronnie demo says if someone dropped the ball and sent out a text with war plans then hold them accountable i'm here for accountability on both sides. We the people deserve the truth. This whole thing, though, has to be put into how big an effing deal is it? What does it actually reveal? Go ahead, James. I was going to say to that private sector comment, I think that's worth exploring. Let's, let's do it. Let's say your Fox and Friends boss made a group chat with you, Pete Hegg-Seth, and Rachel Campos-Duffy, and instead of adding Ph. Pete Hegg-Seth, she accidentally adds,

Patrick Hatton. What happens? Does she get fired or does she say, whoops, wrong pH, and move on like nothing happened? In the private sector, it's nothing. In order to be fair, but to be fair in your analogy, you have to up, you have to up the stakes. How sensitive is the information and how big are the jobs? I agree with your mistake analogy, but you have to up the stakes, obviously much lower stakes, my EP adding Patrick and it is move on if Coca-Cola did that with its secret sauce you know I don't I actually don't know probably they would fire that guy that's a bigger state secret than anything else in the world probably a finance analogy yeah yeah hmm I truly think the fair take is this was a mistake and you have to put this mistake into context I really believe that is the fair take. Go ahead. Last thing to it. No, I mean, just in talking to the guys,

I mean, it was like you said, they jumped on it so fast and they were waiting for the first thing to jump on. No matter what it was. No matter what it was. And it's the first thing in two months that has allowed anyone on the left or a Democrat to be on offense in any way. It's the first thing they've ever had where they could be on their front foot. No mistake. They go all in on it. and blow it out of proportion. All right, snow white tanks at the box office. A lot of people are saying because it's woke, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie. A lot of people saying it's because of the actress, the lead actress,

who has been outspoken, what, anti-Trump and a lot of that stuff. So, for whatever reason, it has tanked. The quick discussion on this is, I don't care. I don't care. And these guys tried to sell it to me. and I don't care and I think this is why I only have sons

I don't think about movies like this I don't have daughters I don't see the world or think about the world at all through a female lens and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong I just don't I wish I'd had a daughter I wish I thought about this

not instead of either of my sons in addition to I guess I could encourage the 13 year old to transition yeah so but I do think it's interesting how different the world is through a male and female lens

and I was just saying to this, Patrick has four daughters having a conversation with a buddy how hard it would be to raise a daughter. It would be so hard. And, you know, with a son, I know exactly the kind of person that I want him to be. It's obviously based on what I honor and value and who

I want to be and how I want to teach them to be and it's all intuitive. And I think the world sends mixed messages to women. Really, really mixed messages. Girl boss, well, lessons are the same you want your son to be strong and independent and a leader you want your daughter to be strong and independent leader but there was a time when we taught men and women how to be different people when they robbed that adulthood based upon different roles they would inhabit

in society it's just true we did and i think the whole Cheryl sandberg you can have it all has been a big mistake a big mistake i don't think you can have it all not as a man not as a woman and so i just the snow white thing doesn't touch into my world and i wonder if it did Not just how I'd think about this show, this movie, but how I'd think about everything. You know, I'm going to give you a quick example of my buddy brought up to me. And Patrick, you're probably the only one that even has anything on this. Like, he moved from California, Texas, but it was like the swimsuits that people allow their daughters to wear. Like, the deference to daughters, like, because you want to be loving and you're softer on your daughter.

And, like, how far that difference carries and getting their way and them being bosses and this and that. And it's like, you know, I don't even know who I'd be as a dad. with that like you're not wearing that out of the house i don't even know i don't have to think about that i don't think about that at all and i don't envy you do have to do that patrick i'm not if you don't put them in certain positions um it's not really as much of a problem and so like of course you know i'm weird and friend and so my kids are homeschooled and you know they go to church consistently and they're kind of

They were bonnets Yeah they were bonnets To their ankle Yeah we're men of night They don't know who LeBron James is So I mean No no I mean they have a little bit of contact On the outside but you know

A little bit out contact A little bit You know Have they been to the movie theater? When they go to town Do you keep them on a leash? Like what do you do? No, you got the hand signals and stuff, you know, the whistles.

You got a, you know, like your Dobermans. Right. Do you allow them to go to town? How old is your oldest daughter? Tell me when this gets too personal. Yeah, 15. Is she allowed to go unaccompanied to town without a male, escort? No, no.

Oh, I was joking. Is that anybody? I mean, yeah, she has to go with somebody. Oh, yeah. we don't they don't you know um no is she curtsy hmm what does she curtsy no does you know what do you teach do you do teach them you know i mean i'm kind of joking but i'm kind of being serious like the way the one of the things like how you raise uh daughters and men in the past was like how you're teaching them to be as adults like and like who's the comedian that was i recently

saw a comedian about a comedian was talking about this oh it was Nate Burgatti it was like when he's a long time ago he's like how ill prepared for marriage men are like nothing in our life prepares us for marriage we are building forts to keep

people out we play with play weapons and dump trucks what about that teaches us how to be married to a female when a little girl is given a baby doll at like age two you know like she's preparing for that role in life from a very

young age and we do we encourage we encourage that but we also encourage you know being artistic and and um you know finding different outlets and so it's you know they're definitely not girl bosses but they're not completely cut off from from building themselves up as people all right so are you going to see snow white no i have you know i'm not going to do that the original the original why I've seen that because I don't like I don't like a life action animated or live action

Oh so it's about the movie Cop out It's about the movie Pop out What about the new Lion King Cop out That was a controversial Yeah

I like Lion King You can see Moana What about the Rocks Moana? They did see that one That was Oh I was trash too

Well this Hypocrisy This comes down Don't she dare slander the rock Yeah I know Well that's why I did it Only because of the rock but this comes down to separating the you know what your views are to entertainment that you

want to watch like we've had this conversation before with musicians you know movies and things like that would you let your kids watch this because of those reasons or not i mean specifically can you separate those things here's the way it would work with me okay if snow white we're on my radar um this is what i do dan you know this i watch a lot you do too right? I know it's because you and I share some TV back and forth stuff like you, I think you're the guy that got me watching White Lotus right now. So I go into White Lotus and one of the reasons I didn't want to do it is like I feel like it's going to be very reminiscent of the kind of entertainment I got 20 years ago, which was overly agenda driven. I always felt like

everything we were getting was like, here's your lefty message on this or that, right, buried in. And sometimes it was getting pretty overt. And the quality of the entertainment went down. So I did make choices. Like, um, there's a couple of political movies out there. there with, I think probably with George Clooney that, like, I thought, those are probably pretty good pieces of entertainment done well. George Clooney's a great actor, but I don't want to watch it because I'm not that interested in being preached to on his political message. There are some of those that did come through to me where I will cut it off, like, I'm not up for your message movie, right? So I will do that. So I'm not saying I would do that with Snow White

because I don't even know what they've done. But from a distance, Snow White, white doesn't look good like it just doesn't look good and entertaining so that would be my main thing it's just like not worth the time but like i just watched that movie in nora that won best picture i think you know that won all the awards and the Oscars and stuff like that and i was curious if you guys would like it because it's about you know a sex worker in new york city and it's through the lens of that i would be curious if you'd be interested in anything like that because you would think it would be a little agenda driven towards you know i don't know whatever Well, I'll give you, I'll give you an example.

I don't know anything about that movie. But people have talked about the movie Conclave, right? Oh, yeah, I wasn't. I told you, yeah. A new pope, right? They elect a new pope, and it turns out the Pope is trans. Is that what it is? Well, that's enough right there.

Yeah. Well, that's it for me. Like, I'm not interested in that. Because I feel like you're doing a thing, like you're trying to make a big, like, societal point. I could be wrong, and you could tell me I'm wrong, and maybe I'll go back and watch it. But to me, it's like I'm signing up for, oh, gosh, another movie about your, your, your current political civil rights, you know, movement agenda, I don't, I'm not interested in you taking this story and making it that. And that could be wrong. But there's a level at

which it becomes, for me, obviously a thing that's like I'm signing up for the message. And I don't want to. I'm not going to be entertained by that. I'm trying to think there's a couple of, there's another example or two out there right now. Oh, you told me, how about this one? The one with the Nero. Zero. Zero, what is it? Zero day, yeah, yeah. I liked it. I bet it's good, like, as a piece of production. But the way somebody described it to me, it's like,

it's going to be this whole, like, proxy indictment of Trump or something like that, right? Is that what it is? No, I don't know. I didn't feel that. I didn't feel that there was, like, too many overt Trump messages. Not Trump, but there was no character that, like, was obviously, like, a negative portrayal of Trump. There was one where there was, like, they portray this guy who has a digital show. and it was actually funny

Dan and I thought they were referring to somebody else Dan thought it was our old colleague I thought it was like somebody like a one off shoot because I thought they portrayed him so unsuriously that we took different messages from that one character

Yeah that's true But I thought it was more just I thought it was I thought they really toned down the political messaging to make it palatable to I was fine watching it The the other

The last component here is the quantity of alternatives is so great that you don't have to like it's you know like oh it's good great well there's also five other things that are good that don't have this whole thing I have to sign up for

along the ride and by the way White Lotus is good Dan not great you're right a little slow but good did you watch the last week's you hit the scene fascinating I love Sam Rockwell

he's the best the thing about the scene is twofold. Do you guys know what we're talking about with the scene, James and Patrick? Popper, no. I don't know. No. I'm not, I can tell you what happened, but it's not spoiling anything. And surely it's hit your social media. It's, is his name Walt Goggins? What's his first name? Because is it not Walter? Is it Walton? Walton Gaggaganz. Walton. Walton? Yeah, I knew it was something different. Not Walter. Oh, yeah. I've seen this.

which by the way i find him incredibly watchable i i watch the righteous gemstones which is is really fall out talk about a message i mean um i didn't see that but i find that dude really watchable like there's something about him that makes you i look forward to his scenes and he and sam rockwell are old buddies patrick and james and they meet up and he's like what happened to you why are you on the wagon and then sam rockwell goes into a long story about how he moved to Thailand to start being with Asian girls and he did that for a thousand nights and he said he ran basically to the bottom of that well and then he decided that he what he was really all about was that he wanted to be an Asian girl and so he started hiring people to treat

him like an Asian girl and he's like and I did that for a long time and it got pretty uh pretty yeah graphic and descriptive and and then he's like at the end of all this i that's why i'm a buddhist because i realized i wanted to separate self from form and quit drinking and all this but it's fascinating for two reasons it's amazing acting and guggins who says like five words in the whole thing does amazing acting just isn't her reactions to to hearing this story and and the second is people are pointing out it actually is a scene that probably would never have been made five years ago because what Rockwell is laying out is um is kink is fetishism and instead of trans being identity based he's painting a picture of behavior

base you see what I'm saying and like that would have been killed before like you can't refer to it in this way you can't you can't frame it in this way with a character right because you know we're only taught now to talk about it as though it's an identity that is immutable Go ahead. It's essentially that we're all searching for something, and we don't know what that is. And so you keep chasing the next thing and the next thing. So it is kind of like an indictment of like maybe if you feel these certain ways, it will change. And it's not exactly you feel that way because you are that way.

It's because you're chasing something that you don't know what it is. And you'll come to that conclusion eventually. Addictions as a low level replacement. Exactly. Like an addiction almost type thing. It's a really awesome scene. I mean, it's graphic and, you know, it is not PG in any way, but it is a fascinating scene. All right, so go see Snow White.

You'll meet Patrick at the theater. That's going to do it for us today. Thanks for hanging out with the Will Kane Show. We'll see you same time, same place, same channels again tomorrow. I'll see you next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon Music app. From the Fox News Podcasts Network.

Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.