Will Cain Country - Dr. Gad Saad & Julian Epstein: Were Actual "War Plans" Leaked In Cabinet Signal Group Chat?

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

Story #1: The Attorney General of Texas investigates an Islamic "Mega City" and why have women gone 'Woke?': A conversation on the psychology of our politics with Visiting Professor and Global Ambassador, Northwood University & Author of ‘The Parasitic Mind’ and the upcoming ‘Suicidal Empathy,’ Dr. Gad Saad. Story #2: The full texts have been released! But what can we actually make of the whole leaked Signal National Security Group Chat? A conversation with Former Chief Counsel For The House Judiciary Committee (D), Julian Epstein. Story #3: Where would you sit? The crew breaks down a hypothetical seating chart with historical figures and current politicians and breaks down where they would sit on a 10-hour flight.  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

one why are women so woke if i told you there were a thousand acre development going up centered around a mosque geared towards marketed towards and built around a Muslim community would that remind you of developments in paris or london no-go zones or would it be implicit of the freedom of the united States America to self-organize, regardless what brings you together. We break that all down with Professor Gadsad. Two, the details of the quote-unquote war plan are out. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg shares, for example, the message from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegset, oversold, or a threat to our national security. And three, if you're sitting on an airplane and you have 10 options, and I give you the middle seat between, say, Ronald Reagan and General George Custer, or Tulsi Gabbard and Teddy Roosevelt, plus say to others, which seat do you choose?

It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News News. YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Terrestrial radio, three dozen markets across the United States of America, but always available by subscribing at Apple or on Spotify. Set a reminder and join us at noon Eastern time Monday through Thursday at Fox News Facebook or Fox News YouTube. What's up, fellas? Good morning and welcome to the Will Kane Show, where today the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has published as of this morning the secret details. he promised to originally hold back calling the bluff of the administration goldberg says well here then here are the quote unquote war plans what we saw this morning from secretary of defense speed

heggseth was a minute to minute update of strikes would occur that notorious now saturday but do they amount to war plans what did we see did we see a threat to our national security or did we see an overhyped, oversold story by the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg? Let's break that down today with a Democrat, Julian Epstein, and as well, we'll be talking about that with Professor Gad Sad in just moments. Well, what's up? Good morning, fellas. How are we doing today? Doing good. It's been a whirlwind of a couple days for you, especially. We had an explosive debate yesterday with Congressman Jim Himes, Democrat, on the House Intel Committee,

who today is pounding the table saying that. that therefore, but the grace of God, did we not lose an American fighter pilot over Yemen? I actually think that's a great frame. When we go into this conversation today, is that partisan overhype? Or is that exactly what happened on this signal chat? We'll be breaking that down in our various conversations. I think that's the right way to do this. I was happy with our conversation yesterday.

I think it was, as promised, the most fulsome, honest, and fair recount of this story. So what we'll do today is share with you those minute by minutes. we'll share with you exactly what it is, but most importantly, let's get to the real debate. Was it 100% kosher? Or was it a mistake? And if it is a mistake, what's the mistake? Is it using signal? Is it including the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg?

And if it is a mistake, how big of the mistake are we actually talking about? This is, I think, the conversations you're only going to get on the Will Kane show. Let's start now, though, with story number one. Professor Gad Sad is a visiting professor and global ambassador at Northwood University. He's also the author of both the parasitic mind and the upcoming book Suicidal Empathy. And he's the host of The Sad Truth with Dr. Sad. What's up, Gad, if I may be so familiar. Please.

I'm doing great. Congratulations on your continued success. I am very happy to see your voice growing. and I look forward to our chat. We had a great chat just a few days ago on the Will Cain Show, and I intend to continue to be a place where we have not only debates with people who disagree, but deeper dives and fascinating conversations with people that help us with greater understandings on things we might already agree.

Like you, Dr. said. I don't normally look to turn to you on a story like the one that is dominating the news over the last 48 hours, only because it is both hyper-partisan, very political, and in the minutia in the details of operations within Washington, D.C. But if you've been keeping up, I am curious your reaction to the Atlantic's release today of the quote-unquote war plans. Yeah, thanks for your question. Look, the best way I can describe it is to refer to a wonderful book.

And it seems as though recently I've been referencing this book often. I'm not their publicist. I'm not getting royalties on their book. There is a book called The Enigma of Reason by two French psychologists, whereby they argue that our ability to reason did not evolve to seek truth, but rather to win arguments. In other words, truth doesn't matter if I can win an argument against Will Kane. And so regrettably, what you're seeing with this Atlantic editor is that he's not beholden to some deontological principle of journalistic. integrity. He goes to at the truth, whether it is the left side or the right side that engages in a behavior. Clearly what he cares about is to make the Republicans look bad. And in that sense,

your earlier point about hyper-partisanship is exactly that, right? He's not a true journalist. He's not pursuing objective truth. He simply wants that his team wins an argument by making the other team look bad. That's not what journalistic integrity is. You know, and it's an instinct that all of us have to fight, including myself. I think the first step is being honest about the nature of the human mind. And I try to be self-aware. I'm sure you're aware, Dr. said, of the Hegelian dialect. And I was practiced, almost trained in the Hegelian dialect, in a way, by spending, you know, five years on ESPN's first take, where you're presented with a debate, two sides take the debate, and it's winner take all. And in a lot of ways, I respect the format, because it's like a challenge of

ideas but i've come to understand also the false frame of a haggelian dialect that is that there are two opposite sides of an opinion and those two sides need to be pitted against one another what i've kind of evolved to try to help myself understand is that doesn't necessarily help you arrive at the truth you need to have a a forward advancing conversation that yes doesn't have to win every point um and doesn't even have to come out with a championship belt at the end of the match. And some will be right at times and some will be wrong. But you got to start thinking beyond this sort of framework if you really want to arrive at the truth. Indeed. And so in chapter seven of the parasitic mind, I actually have a whole chapter titled How to Seek Truth. And I argue

that one very powerful epistemological tool that we can use in seeking truth is to build what I call nomological networks of cumulative evidence. Now, that's a mouthful. So let me break it down. for you. So let's suppose I wanted to demonstrate to you that toy preferences are not socially constructed, as most social scientists argue, but rather that there is a universal evolutionary and biological reason why boys prefer certain toys and girls prefer other toys. How would I go about doing that well? Well, I can get you data from other species showing you that vervet monkeys, recess monkeys, and chimpanzees exhibit the same sex-specific toy preferences. I can get you data from cultures that are very different from the West, say sub-Saharan Africa, where they exhibit the

same-sex specific toy preferences. I can get you data from 2,500 years ago where young children are shown on funerary monuments playing with the exact same toys that your children and my play with today. So what I'm doing here is I offer you distinct lines of evidence, all of which triangulate to making my position apparently a vertical one. And so I don't need to engage in emotional incontinence. I don't need to call you names. I simply show you the data, and hopefully I win the argument that way. All right, just to deliver for the audience as well,

and you and I will move on to what I think are some interesting conversations off of what you just shared. What we learned this morning is that in the Signal Group chat, as released this morning by Jeffrey Goldberg, is a minute-to-minute sort of gameplay of what would happen in Yemen strikes on Houthis as shared by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to basically all top cabinet members. And then presumably inadvertently as well, Jeffrey Goldberg. It does say which planes will be used and it does say what time this will happen. It doesn't say who will be struck and it doesn't say where.

there will be a strike. I think there's two questions. Should this have been used on Signal? And I'm in the process of researching this and understanding this, but the bottom line appears to be this. Signal is not officially a government-sanctioned channel for highly classified information. And then you say, what was this highly classified information? But Signal is also used by everyone in government.

And that's the reality of the truth because it's a better technology, more portable. All the things they have, which we've talked about, like there's one called Sipper. These are not on phones. They're not portable, and the ones that are portable are no more encrypted than Signal. And Signal, even according to Jeffrey Goldberg, and you can put this up two a days, is considered the gold standard. This is what Goldberg wrote sometime past. He said, Signal the gold standard of encrypted messaging. So what we're talking about is reality. This is how it's treated. And whether or not it's officially the place where, you know, it should be used. The question is like, could the Russians or Houthis hack it? And I see no evidence yet that

that's the truth that they could. And then there's the perishable nature of the information. I don't know that anything there is actionable. If the Russians got it, could they understand what was about to happen? Share it with the relevant parties. And somehow, as Congressman Jim Himes, who I got in this debate with, said, we could lose an American fighter, I think that strains the imagination. It's not realistic.

So it's not this, I don't, I think when you come away with it, there's at least one big mistake, that's including Goldberg. Is it a mistake to use signal? I think that's more of a gray area. And then finally, is it a mistake that amounts to the type of thing we're seeing today from Capitol Hill and splashed across CNN in the New York Times? I think the answer is no. And I think we know why.

It's the first time in two months Democrats have been on the front foot and had an issue where they could play offense and they're taking their opportunity to do so. I'll give you a response and we'll move on, Dr. Sude. Well, but I mean, your last statement exactly speaks to what I mentioned earlier about the enigma of reason, right? What was the purpose of this editor in sharing this information? If it was because there is some deontological pursuit of truth, then more power to him. But we know that that's not true, because if he was so concerned about the safety of Americans, then he would have been the first one writing editorial pieces when you had a corpse who was

president of the United States for four years, right? But that's not what he's concerned about. So you know for a fact that the reason why he shared this story is because he knew that it would make his political enemies look bad. That's not how a journalist should behave, and that's about it. Or not just the incapacity of Joe Biden, if he had shown the same level of outrage over the 13 Marines killed over a mistake in Afghanistan. Or if he showed the same level of outrage over General Mark Millie intentionally sharing information with the CCP. Or if he showed the same level of outrage over a member of Afghanistan. Open borders. Excuse me for interrupting you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to speak over you. Or having open borders where 15, 20 million people have come into the country, right?

So if your concern is a objective pursuit of safety, then all of those stories should have been covered by him. But if you're selected and you're outraged, then we know that you are a charlatan. Right. And as I said yesterday, I don't want to hear from Jeffrey Tubin, who has well known to abuse Internet. communication channels and abuse himself or i don't want to hear from eric swallwell who slept with a chinese spy so spare me your selective and overhyped outrage um okay let's go back to that thing you were you were just using as an example a men's and women's toys so um i find there's there's increasing evidence coming out about this that i think is fascinating first of all about a week ago there was polling that showed where we stand as a society in in support of donald trump versus

Democrats and there's one demographic group that stands out and stands alone and that is educated white women educated white women are over index hugely to anti-Trump pro-democrat and now what we're seeing as well is very um accepting or endorsement of of wokeism and i think it's fascinating dr sad like what is this say i mean i want to i want to talk about it through the lens of gender, but, and I think it primarily is gender, but there is the education factor and also the marital status factor and the race factor. Like, it is single educated white women that index the most apart from the rest of society. Yes, and I mentioned this to your producer prior to coming on the show when he shared with me what we were likely to talk about. I said, well,

But coincidentally, the story that you're just raising now, sex differences in, you know, woke susceptibility is something that I was exactly writing about yesterday in my forthcoming book on suicidal empathy, because I'm trying to explain what is it that drives, for example, women in Europe to stand as, you know, invaders come in from foreign cultures with a placard that says refugees welcome. You never see guys that look like Pete Hegzeth or that look like Will Kane holding those placard. You usually see completely clueless, lobotomized, ultra-liberal, white women saying refugees welcome. Now, there are several reasons for that sex difference and from an evolutionary perspective since I'm an evolutionary behavioral scientist. Look, the research is unequivocal that women score higher on empathy throughout the life cycle trajectory. of a human being. So from a very young age, you see little girls exhibiting, and there are various forms of empathy. There's cognitive empathy. There's affective empathy. And women do show greater empathy, and we could talk about the evolutionary reason for that. But that makes them more prone to

then be parasitized by the misfiring of the empathy module, hence suicidal empathy, right? And so it makes perfect sense that not only would women be more likely to succumb to parasitic, ideas, hence wokeism, but then to succumb to an orgiastic, you know, miscalibrated form of empathy, which I call suicidal empathy. It all makes perfect sense. You know, this ties into something I've been thinking about since over the weekend. Actually, it's been going on in my mind for more than a weekend, but I spent a lot of time this weekend reading. And I want the audience and you to understand that when I describe what I'm about to describe, I'm actually not passing judgment. I'm not giving moral endorsement nor moral condemnation. I'm simply noticing. And noticing is nothing more than

having eyes, ears, and a critical mind. What has happened in modern society, and you're the perfect guy to talk about this with, because you think of through evolutionary psychology in broad terms, what's happened over the last, let's call it 200 years. It's a little more. It's probably 250 years in civilizational evolution is nothing short of revolutionary and it requires us to understand that there's a long history of humanity thousands and thousands of years of organizing societies right and of course i think we are at the apex so there is no doubt we have progressed in a positive manner but it is still no less revolutionary and i'm i could put that dr sadd on a number of levels the creation of the nation state the revolutionary era of the late 1700s into the early 1800s all the way through the beginning of the 1900s actually

where you had the move towards ideology we created nations now not under kings but under ideologies of people believing we should organize it in certain ways and there was different experiments in that french revolution soviet revolution american revolution even like women voting which is now a little over a hundred years old is a revolutionary concept in the scope of humanity, meaning we've been doing it for a hundred years, but we've been on this planet for thousands and thousands of years. And there are outliers, there have been matriarchal societies, but the vast majority were paternalistic societies. And again, I'm not morally condemning, nor I'm morally endorsing. All I'm doing is noticing. And it just makes me think, like, we are babes. We're like in the startup phase. This is an innovation period. And where this all goes, I mean, we're kind of like in the, it's balls in the air moment, you know, like, if you and I were alive in 1650, we would have a reasonable expectation that society was going to look relatively

similar to the way it looked in, you know, 1050. There were more similarities between that 500 year span than in the 100 year span that we have just been experiencing. And it's just revolutionary. That's my, that's what I'm noticing. It's just, and I have friends would be like, well, who cares? right who cares and what's the point well the point is i don't know it's like it's this is the nature of progressivism versus conservatism in a way it's like i don't know it's just i just know that

we are in a moment of rapid experimentation and change yeah uh well to your point uh i often argue and remind people that some of the stanchest defenders of the western tradition turn out to be immigrants who don't come from the western tradition Because to your point, we've sampled from the full buffet of possible societies. And the society that the United States has built is exactly, as you said, an anomalous one. It's a little bleep within the greater context of human history. And so most Westerners, most Americans, come to the world thinking that this is the default value. This is how it is everywhere.

But then it takes people like me. It takes people like Ian Hersey Alley to say, hey, guys, don't think that this is the default value. As a matter of fact, it takes very little for the human reflex to erase what you have in the West. And this is exactly why, you know, I don't have the exact quote in front of me when Ronald Reagan said, you know, every generation, you know, there are new enemies of freedom that are coming to take your freedoms away and you have to be vigilant. That exactly speaks to that reflex, which is the default value. value of the organization of human societies is for someone telling the rest of us what to do and feel. This is why it was so easy for everybody to become sheep during COVID because we were returning to the literal state of things. And so beware, be careful. The enemies of liberties are

coming for you. Don't take it for granted. So I got into this debate. It's, you know, I am fascinated also those well right now with the concept of frame, which I think this whole, this whole signal story is about as well, how it was framed. It was framed for us originally as war plans were leaked to me two hours ahead of time. And you dig into the details, you're like, and so we're all having a debate, like, based upon that frame. Erase that frame. Goldberg established that frame. Now get into the details and ask yourself really what happened. The frame on this debate I got into is Beaumonti Jones whips Will Kane's ass, and I don't even know how that frame got created. but we had this debate on ESPN about slavery

and he's like what do you think caused slavery and I was like well I think basically what I argued was what you just said it's the human reflex like it's it's a constant throughout humanity slavery has been present always right and and we have to fight against that reflex that tribalistic nature that conquest nature um to receive to land at a more enlightened place in society

but that's why it happened and you know his argument back to me was no white people did slavery It was something about just, it was really simplistic about, like, the element of race involved. But slavery is the constant, regardless of races, regardless of races. And so, yeah, the civilization in of itself, now there's a moral judgment. I am going to say where we are today is better than we were in 1650. But it's fragile because the reflex is easy to snap back toward. Exactly.

And by the way, the fact that, you. you said the existing society that's been built in the United States is inherently superior to other societies is a terrible no-no in the context of academia, right? Cultural relativism, which is one of the dreadful parasitic ideas that I discuss in the parasitic mind, says that, no, Wilcane, who are you to judge other societies using your standards? You're engaging in cultural imperialism. If other societies wish to organize themselves, sorry? Of course I am.

Yes. Exactly. And so what that does is it causes you to become impotent to actual barbaric practices of, say, immigrants coming in. So let me tell you a quick story. Thank God he's no longer prime minister, although the new prime minister is maybe not much better. But when Justin Trudeau was a member of parliament, so he hadn't yet become prime minister. The former conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, had put out a statement saying that in Canada, we will not tolerate barbaric practices such as honor killings, child brides, and female genital mutilation.

And then Justin Trudeau, in his substitute drama teacher absurd way, got on television. He wasn't angry by the barbaric practices. he was angry that Stephen Harper referred to them as barbaric practices, right? So what he was doing there is he was intimating the reflex of cultural relativism. Who are you to judge the practices of noble Muslims if they decide that they want to cut off the clitoris of five-year-old girls? Well, guess what? There are deontological moral absolutes, and I will judge those who violate them, and I'm not going to apologize for that. What I also like about the example is, like, I keep doing this historical thing.

I keep going back in time. The civilizational outlier is also in the present tense. Like, right now, slavery is going on in other parts of the world. Right now you have societies organized in these manners that we're talking about that are consistent with the long arc of history. Those are consistent. We are the outlier. This is a perfect segue. I find this a little difficult.

So here's the story, Dr. Sab, here in Texas, not 20 miles from where I am sitting today, um in a suburb of dallas north of dallas there's a proposal for a muslim community development um i think it's like i don't know if it's a thousand acres or a thousand homes but it's a development like any other you know i mean like how you a plan development but the plan development will be centered around a mosque and it will be marketed towards and catered towards in their community development uh muslims now the the governor of texas the attorney general of texas are highly concerned that this is going to be a circumvent, or run around, you know, civil law that they will within their community be using Sharia law, which is not cool, not good, and so forth. And they're looking

into this. This, though, runs, and by the way, I think you and I should talk about the fact that we've seen these experiments play out to some extent in places like outside of London and outside of Paris. And the really negative consequences for Western civilization in those places. But on the other hand, I do feel like in America, we endorse the idea of, what is it, self, you know, self-determination, picking your community, organizing around. Like, if Mennonites want to create a community in Pennsylvania, okay, create a community of Mennonites, you know. Same thing of any other minority group. So why should this one, even if we know the practical real world outcomes of it, be treated differently, than any other self-selecting group.

Right. So let me give a few analogies. Badminton is a sport. M.MA fighting is a sport. They're both called sports, but they're very different from each other in their capacity to cause brain damage. The fact that they are both called sports

doesn't negate that reality. Here's another one. Fidel, your domestic cat is a feline. the wild lion in this African savanna is a feline, but I will lay down and cuddle with Fido the cat, but I won't lay down and cuddle with the wild lion, even though they're both called felines. So the Mennonites are a religion, the Amish are a religion, Orthodox Jews are a religion, Jains are a religion, and Islam is a religion.

They are not equal in their capacity to, assimilate in a host society, right? The fact that they are all called religions doesn't mean that they have equal likelihood of, say, committing terror acts. The Jains are such pacifists that when they walk on the street, they actually walk with a broom and they sweep the floor lest they might inadvertently, you know, squash an ant. Therefore, an extremist Jane is an extremist in his pacifism. That's not quite the same thing for Islam.

Islam has certain edicts that are perfectly antithetical to Western principles. Now, that doesn't mean that every Muslim is a mean person. They are nice Muslims and mean Muslims, just like they are nice Jews and mean Jews. But does Islam contain tenets that are perfectly seditious to the founding principles of the United States? Yes. And so to your point, we've seen what happened. happens when you build slowly Sharia no-go zones in Sweden, in Italy, in France, in Britain, right? But you have to do it slowly, you know, so that the greater society doesn't go up in arms, right?

So let me give you an example from marketing. There is something in marketing called the just noticeable difference. So let's say you are a chocolate-making company and you want to increase the price of your candy bar. Well, you can't increase the price because people are attuned to the price. So what you will do is you'll reduce the weight of the candy bar. And you'll reduce it such that it falls below the just noticeable difference, right? So most people can't tell the difference between a 100 gram candy bar and a 95 gram candy bar. So I can slip the fact that I've reduced it from 100 to 95 grams without most consumers noticing.

That's how Islam operates when it is in the minority. It's a just noticeable difference. What's the big deal if we set up a community where we peacefully get together? It's just like the Mennonites. Well, it isn't because once we become the majority, you better wear really good running shoes will and run fast as I did in Lebanon. So no, they're not the same thing. Okay, I get all that.

And even if we submit that the tenets of Islam separated from other religions, if we submit that, okay? What does that, but still in America, what does that, look, I know you're Canadian. We, we, but you're familiar. I mean, we have a constitution that protects freedom of religion, freedom of association. I mean, I don't know what that does for us. I mean, what that does at the front end is I think it opens up a really real conversation about migration and immigration and who you open your country to.

We've always had quotas and we've always been careful about, assimilation that's that's that should be non-controversial but once we have uh someone who's an american citizen i don't know what we can do to say well you can't self-associate well you're you're you're ready you want me to be diplomatic or you want me to be frontal and direct which one which which which which god version do you want you want the frontal direct yes okay uh you have to lose that reflex. All religions are not equal. But it's constitutional, Dr. Satt. It's literally constitutional the United States. So you're the lawyer, and I'm not, so I'll leave it to you to do whatever, you know, legal gymnastics that need to happen in order for this to happen. But let's suppose

that tomorrow there was a new religion that came to be. Now you can't argue, oh, but it's a new religion. That's not like an old religion that is a true one, right? Tomorrow there's a new that comes along that says, hear ye, hear ye, all people with green eyes must be exterminated because my God has said so. Could I then set up an organized society around the tenant that we should get rid of green-eyed people? By the way, I would be in trouble because I have beautiful green eyes. Would you then say in the United States, we just can't, we're impotent to fight against this religion against green people because we have this constitutional protection for all religions. Or would you say to me, are you insane that you have in your religion an edict that says

get rid of green-eyed people? No, we will not talk. How about if we have a religion that says, as of the age of five-year-old, we can have sex with any person who's five-year-old. Would you say that's okay? Well, by the way, there are some religions that are not too non-open to that possibility. So the idea, I mean, we do have amendments to the Constitution. And again, forgive me, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I know enough about it, that we understand that the Constitution is not a divine thing that can't evolve with the times. That's why we have amendments. So add an amendment that says that, yes, religions are allowed to exist freely in the United States as long as they're not seditious to the foundational principles of the United States. once I demonstrate that they are, sorry, but you're not welcome here.

Yeah, I think you're very persuasive in many ways. I still am not all the way there on, you know, when you lose yourself. So what I mean is like what you described, should a religion hold some of those tenants, the actual application of those amendments would be precluded by law. You know what I mean? Those tenants would be precluded law, but you're not having sex with five-year-olds. I don't care if you believe it. That's a law of the United States.

But can you organize a community together where you all live together centered around a mosque? I don't know where a law precludes that, nor, in fact, I think the Constitution precludes you from stopping it. Now, if you're implementing Sharia law above domestic law, that's different. Can I ask you something? If at the mosque that you're saying they're allowed to congregate, a lot of the prayers are in an extraordinarily direct manner inciting violence against the kufar, which is a derogatory term for the non-Muslim. Is that protected because it's happening in a mosque and it's the free expression of my religion? Or it is not permitted because it is a direct incitement against those dirty Jews.

Which one is it? I think that would not be protected. I don't think religion would preclude you from a direct incitement of violence. I will send you clips of what is what is being prayed at at a whole. whole bunch of mosques, including some that are not too far from where I'm speaking to you right now in Montreal. And the reflex is precisely to your point, Will, that we can't really do anything because that's happening in a mosque. That's just their religion. Well, it's the same thing as the green-eyed thing. You cannot be preaching this stuff. Find the way to remove that content from your

religion. Otherwise, maybe your religion shouldn't find such a hospitable place in the West. fascinating conversation still a lot for me to think about there a lot more for me to think about um i understand the practicalities too by the way i really do um we've seen it play out in europe fascinating conversation dr gadzad always love having you on i know you got to run you probably have a class to teach at northwood university where you're visiting professor and global ambassador check out his books parasitic mind and suicidal empathy thanks for your time dr sad thank you sir Cheers. Take care. All right, take care. Let's take a quick break. I want to get more into this signal story and also want to update you on Jasmine Crockett, the congresswoman from Texas, who is called the governor of Texas, who is in a wheelchair, Governor Hot Wheels. We're going to break all that down with a Democrat. Julian Epstein coming up on the Wilcane show. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left.

Unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox Truecrime.com. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast, featuring Common Ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his All-Star panel and much more.

Available now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Jasmine Crockett calls the governor of Texas, Governor Hot Wheels. She's also, by the way, one of the leading voices for Democrats. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. Hang out with us every day, if you would, at YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, or Apple.

Over on YouTube, one Gordon on B says, Dr. Sad is the best. Jepi Anderson says, Gad is a beast. He makes complex stuff simple. They enjoy that conversation with Dr. Gad sad. John Kearney says regarding the scandal on signal, this isn't the gotcha that Dems think it is. Alyssa Spanish Fork says, imagine if this had happened under Kamala Harris,

keep that same energy will, asking whether or not I would feel the same way. By the way, my wife has asked me that if this happened under a Democrat. And John Kearney jumps in again. He says, platform with end-to-end encryption. These guys weren't sending messages to each other on clear text. The real problem was inviting that treacherous journalist into the chat. Now, let's bring in

Julian Epstein. He is a former chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. He's an attorney, and he joins us now on the Will Kane show. What's up, Julian? Well, hey, good to be with you again. And congratulations on your 4 o'clock show. I watch it all the time and I really like it. Oh, I appreciate you doing that. Thank you. Yeah, we had an explosive little debate yesterday with the Democratic Congressman on this whole signal thing. I think for the audience in our conversation with Dr. Sadd that I have recapped the latest as of this morning, which is that Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has released what he said were the classified materials, which was minutes,

strike packages in Yemen, although location who wear targets that was not. included. There is a semantic game being played, Julian, about, you know, and I will say it is semantic, but I think Jeffrey Goldberg set up the semantic debate on war plans. I think his frame is huge on this. I got war plans two hours before they happened. To me, it's been overhyped, it's been oversold. It comes down to two questions. Is signal completely inappropriate for what we saw? And secondarily, how was Jeffrey Goldstein? Jeffrey Goldberg included in this chat. Two separate conversations that establish for us the level of mistake. No doubt there was a mistake made. I think that should be submitted. It's embarrassing.

Submit and then move on to contextualizing this mistake. That's my thoughts on it. And I do think, Julian, it's overhyped. I don't think it's the end of the world. I agree with that. And I think, you know, we'll step back for a second. Thank God we have an administration. I say this is a Democrat that's finally taking on the Houthis. I mean, Biden sat by. for four years and basically did nothing, told the Saudis to lay down, removed all kinds of sanctions from Iran who was funding the Houthis. And finally, we have an administration that is breaking away from the Obama doctrine of appeasement. He's the one who said, Iran, with Iran,

all we have to do is share the neighborhood, which was a ridiculous idea and a failed paradigm. And finally, we have Trump who is taking on the Houthis. So I think that's the most important thing. Secondly, I think this was a mistake and I think this semantic game that you're seeing right now is, you know, Goldberg is saying this is classified. You have Tulsi and the administration saying this was not classified. You didn't have the actual war plans. And I think it's a semantic game that sort of gets both sides nowhere. If I were advising Trump and the Trump administration, I would not get into any of this stuff.

you know, it's true the timing of the attacks were posted, the weapons system, the cruise missiles, the F-18s, the drones, the damage assessments, all of those kinds of things are normally the kinds of things that might be classified, certainly not the kinds of things you'd want to put on Signal, which is a commercial app that can be hacked, particularly with somebody like Steve Whitkoff, who's in Moscow, who was on the thread. But there's a better way to handle this. And if I were advising Trump, I would just say, hey, we screwed up. We admit it. This will not happen again and not get into a conversation about whether it was classified or not.

And I think that's the way you move on. You just sort of own it. There's two things. And one of which you alluded to. And I don't know what you said is true or not. I'm not saying what you said is false. I literally want more research on my own on the secure nature of signal. I know it's not sort of a green lit, use this.

for most secure communications, but I also know in practical application, a lot of high-level government officials do. They simply do. And I think that's because of its ease and accessibility. From what I've been led to understand, like the ones that are the most highest, like I think SIPPER is a great example. People talk about SIPR, which is used, I think, by DOD. They're not on your phone. Like you've got to be, it's like its own machine. So if you've got eight people and you're communicating and coordinating, you can't use that. So that doesn't, that doesn't, doesn't make signal appropriate, but it doesn't make it dangerous either. So what I don't know if what you said is true is it easily hackable, for example, by the Russians. I've heard no evidence

of that it is or that it ever has been. Well, look, I'm not a cyber expert, but my understanding of it will is that the app itself is not hackable, but the phone is. And that's where the problem is. And, you know, look, Biden, the Biden administration had rules that said you could use signal for certain types of cats. Right. For the record, it was approved by SISA, right? There's a SISA document out there. Cyber security agency said green light. That doesn't mean that everybody can use it, but yeah, they essentially greenlit signal to some extent. Look, I, yes. And again, I think, but this just sort of begs the question, the point that I'm making, which is that when you're talking about a military strike and you're getting into enough details,

you're talking about the timing and the weapon systems and sort of then the damage assessments, that's the type of thing you want to keep off a commercial app and off of, you know, certainly private cell phones. I don't know whether they were private or government-issued phones and the security attached to each of the phones. But I just think it's sort of easier if the Trump administration were to take the L on this thing say hey this was a mistake it won't happen again we've got protocols to make sure it won't happen again but yeah i think they are but i think they're also arguing this wasn't really classified

and it really wasn't you know uh and they're getting into it back and forth on that which i wouldn't get into i had that conversation over breakfast with a friend who's on the left and i think information and you watch my show which i appreciate you doing so but i think information bubbles are fascinating my friend was like just own it say it was a mistake i'm like they literally did on tv yesterday like trump and waltz admitted to a mistake later that night on Ingram, Walt says, and uses the same word I used, embarrassing mistake. So there has been ownership. But I think the pushback and what I'm doing is on the hyperventilation over it.

So, like, to turn this into like Congressman Himes did, which is there before the great, you know, it's the grace of God that an American pilot wasn't killed. Well, now we're back into the details of that type of hyperbole because what Hague said put up that day, we're talking about highly perishable information that expired within a matter of minutes, right? and, meaning he's put it up at 1144, the strikes began, I believe, within, I think it was a half hour. And then on top of that, there's no target identified and there's no location. So just by theory, if it was hacked, if it was hacked by the Russians, okay? Let's say Whitkoff in Moscow's phone was compromised.

The Russians would have to get that within a half hour, understand it, and tell the Houthis in Yemen, something's going down. but they wouldn't be able to say where or when or they could say when they couldn't say where or who now i want to say something julian i'm not the conclusion at the end of me doing this is not go man this was all perfect i don't think it was all perfect i don't but i think i'm trying to say okay jim hym's it's not by the grace of god that an american pilot escaped death right so let's separate these things out i i don't i have a slightly different view but i don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying so the critical information that was not in the in the signal chat was the location and the target and so you're correct it would have been very difficult for the

enemy to to then reverse engineer and and and do something that could put our men and women in that were carrying out the strike into danger so i think that's correct um and i think so that's that's point one point two i think democrats are overplaying their hand on this um by as you just said uh the sort of the hinds response and and some of the other things i've heard so i think the democrats are overplaying their hand three the point that i'm making about the ownership is yes the trump administration is owning it will but they're also saying you know geoffrey goldberg is an awful person and there was no classified information and they're trying to sort of still argue you the point that there was no real breach here. And that's the kind of thing that I would not

be doing. I would just simply be saying, look, this was a mistake. There was no critical operational details that were divulged. We will take extra precautions in future. And I think the story's dead at that point. And so I think what they're doing... By the way, how much longer? I think it is dead. I think it's got about, I'm going to guess, 24 to 36 hours left on this story. And appropriately so. Yeah. And I think the more important point is that, you know, that if I were advising Trump and the Trump administration, I would say lesson learned. But let's get on to whether this strike was successful. The strike was successful. And thank God we're doing something that was left unattended to for the last four years, why we had this appeasement strategy. And I wouldn't be moving the conversation on that way. I would not be arguing the point about whether this information was classified and how bad a person Jeffrey Goldberg is. I mean, if he's such a bad person, you know, why is he, you know, why the sort of the conversation going back and forth between Waltz and Goldberg in the first place? I just think those kinds of things don't help. I think they're amateurish. I think they don't help. I would move away from that. I would say this was a mistake, but we did the strike. It was successful. I thank God somebody showing some leadership and taken on these, you know, Nazi terrorists in the Mideast. one last point on this story and I want to move on as well with you is what was actually in them and I don't know where you on this I actually loved the exchange I mean I don't think we should have

had the transparency but we did and to see J.D. Vance you know push back on where Trump might be you know they wrote Doris Kearns Godwin wrote a book called team of rivals celebrating divergent opinions on the Obama administration and based it on Lincoln doing the same thing right I don't know, I just like the idea that J.D. Vance has a different POV than Trump, and that they're open to, like, kind of having that back and forth. And I also like at the end, how Stephen Miller jumps in and is like, look, I think this is greenlit from the president, but we need to have a real conversation about how the Europeans pay us back for this, because we're doing this essentially for Europeans.

He pointed out 3% of U.S. trade goes to Suez, 40% of Europeans trade goes to the Suez, and we're acting as the police against the Houthis. so let's extract real American benefit out of this. I just thought the actual dialogue that was revealed was kind of like, whoa, these dudes are the same people privately, they are publicly. I had the same reaction. I like the team of rivals' conversation.

I like the fact that they are not just automatons who are engaged in this sort of group thing, which I think you saw a lot of in the Biden administration. I like the idea that you've got, you know, intelligent people sort of debating and making sure and stress testing things before you actually do the strike. I think that's a very healthy sign. And I think that's a good sign for the Trump administration that you really have a more thorough vetting process. I disagree slightly with J.D. Vance on this question. I think our interests with Europe in terms of keeping the ship lanes open,

they're sort of interlocking. And I think the U.S. economy, even though 3% of our trade, I still think the impact of global disruption on our economy is more than 3%. But I do think it's appropriate to be saying, look, again, here we are bailing the Europeans out. What's their role? Why, you know, why this is not a protection racket that we're running? Why is it that they don't step up? You know, the Wall Street Journal, it makes the same point today and one of their editorials. So look, I, there's plenty here in terms of the healthy,

intra-Trump team debate, the fact that they are finally taking on the Houthis, the fact that the strike was successful, the fact that, you know, we haven't talked about this will, but we may be on the verge of a massive realignment in the Mideast. If Iran can be separated from Russia, which I think Trump is trying to do, and you can bring the Saudis in on a deal that expands the Abraham Accords, Abraham 2.0, a pipeline through Israel, a close alliance with Israel, you could see a massive realignment right now of a pro-Western Middle East involving the secular Arab states that, in my opinion, if Trump actually pulls this off, isolates Iran, brings Saudi into our orbit on a deal with Israel and a security

deal for Saudi, this could be a realignment in the Middle East that is the most significant thing we've seen since 1948 and if it happens i will be the first person to say that i think trump is worthy of receiving a Nobel prize for um so there are much bigger things i think i think they should own the signal mistake and just say it was mistaken stop arguing about this stuff or whether it's classified or not the strike was successful and our policy in the mid-east is on the verge of doing something big and meaningful and then they and then the signal story really becomes a footnote But I, so I would be playing this differently from them, and I would be talking about all the exciting things that might be on the horizon in the Mideast right now. I think that's a smarter way to play this.

I'm sorry that I'm not going to elevate the conversation into a higher place here, but I do find this somewhat fascinating. We've got to talk about Jasmine Crockett for a minute. So, you know, you were a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and lawyer for them. And this is just the fact, okay? I saw this poll out. Well, first of all. Okay, I don't expect that everyone knows who Jasmine Crockett is, but you're probably becoming aware of her.

She's just a congresswoman from Dallas. But she has Julian become, I guess the word I'm going to choose to use is prominent. One of the most prominent voices on the left right now. And here's a little bit of her greatest hits. This is her talking about the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. We in these hot-ass Texas streets, honey. Y'all know we got government.

of hot wheels down there. Come on now. And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot ass mess, honey. So, so yes. Yes, yes, yes. So Governor Abbott's in a wheelchair. The story on Governor Abbott,

by the way, is he was jogging in Houston. I can't remember if it was in the 1980s. It's funny. You always hear about these stories in New York. I remember when I lived in New York, this was a story that you had to remember, but places like Houston as well. after a storm or something like that. A big limb falls off of a tree, lands on Governor Abbott. He's paralyzed from the waist down. He's in a wheelchair. She put this out on X, denying that she was talking about his wheelchair. I wasn't thinking about the governor's condition. I was thinking about planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable. I literally said he was a hot mess. And she goes on to deny she was talking about his wheelchair. However, However, Julian, there's a screenshot back from 2021 where she likes someone else calling him hot wheels well before the immigration crisis, well before the planes and the trains up north for the immigration.

She was liking comments of people calling him hot wheels back then. So that's no surprise. We all know that's actually what she was doing was insulting him and his handicap. Here's the thing, Julian. We could blow her off. We go, okay. and it's like low-hanging fruits, a punching bag. But I saw a thing, I don't think we have this screen grab,

but it's polling, and I can't remember who it's by. And who is the primary leading voice of Democrats? AOC, by the way, was far and away the leader. I think she polled at something like, I'm going to go 10 to 12 percent. But interestingly enough, Jasmine Crockett came in at 4%. You can say to me, 4%.

Come on, Will. You know who else I got 4% on who is the leading voice of Democrats moving forward? Barack Obama. So you're telling me, this lady is as much of a guiding light for the future of Democrats as the man who was president as a Democrat 10 years.

Well, Julian. Yes, yeah. I mean, so amongst the other clips you didn't show her and her greatest hits is, you know, while Tesla stores are being terrorized all over the country, she's asking for her birthday

present to be a tape. of Elon Musk. And I think it may have been you, I've been someone else on your show yesterday that would say, well, these are just euphemisms, people use them all the time. Well, when you're in the middle of, you know, political violence, which is occurring from the left, not just on Tesla stores, but on college campuses, you don't use things, you don't say words like, you know, take them down or punch harder. I mean, look, I don't, I think the problem with, I think she's, I think she's, you know,

typifies the problem with the Democratic Party, which is that it is all vitriol, it's all ad hominem, it's all epithets, it's all pugnacious, pugnacious language that doesn't have any content behind it. It's just, it's sort of like that friend that you have that always complains, but never has anything constructive to offer. You know, this is, this is the political, equivalent of only fans. All of this is being done to raise money and increase followers on social media and increase hype on social media. It's rage bait. It's catnip for the congregation. And the fact that sort of democratic leaders don't stand up and say this kind of vitriol, this kind of, you know, empty content language that is just sort of, you know,

these ad hominem attacks is doing nothing for our party. In fact, in fact, wouldn't you say it's a negative? It's a big negative. It's a turnoff. That friend you talk about that always complains, people that are negative and people that launch exclusively ad hominem attacks, it's just, I'm just talking about practicality here. It's a turnoff to anybody to ever vote for you,

except for the congregation inside the only flans subscriber base. Right. Well, that's right. It's like that friend that you have that's always complaining and never offering anything positive. I mean, that's what the Democratic Party is. They're like an unemployed, they're like an unemployed friend that just complains about other people all the time, but doesn't have anything positive to offer. And that's the problem with the party. It's playing to a very narrow group of voters, maybe 6%, maybe 7%, many of them heavily engaged online. And this is very good for building up the profiles. the fundraising basis, but it does nothing for the fact, you know, the Democratic Party is the lowest approval rating it's been in half a century. It's got no good prospects for 26 in the Senate and increasingly dim prospects in the House. You know, all of the data that came out from David Shores analysis last week, you know, the next generation, 18-year-old, particularly 18-year-old men and up are increasingly conservative.

I mean, there's nothing, the flight of voters from blue states to red states, there's nothing here positive about the Democratic Party. And this is the kind of thing that is driving people like myself away from the party. You keep hearing Democrats say, well, we need more message. We need more message. Now, what the Democrats have to do is stop adopting policies that turn off voters. Um, you know, all of this stuff about climate extremism and boys, biological men and women sports and lower standards for blacks and browns through DEI in order to achieve equity quotas. All of these things are a big turnoff, not just to white voters, but to black and brown voters as well. And the party is again playing to a very, very narrow group of video logs on the left that is hurting it that every conceiving. That every conceiving. measure that you can identify in terms of demographics moving away from the party, people

moving out of blue states, the approval rate, you know, you talk about Trump's approval rate. Trump's approval rating is about 50% right now. But if you look at his policies on borders, on crime, on gender, on getting rid of DEI, on taking a stronger role globally that Biden did, he's in 70 and 80% on many of them. And the Democrats' positions are, you know, are in the 20s and 30s. And the problem will is, here's the problem. The same dynamic where Democrats would not stand up and say Biden should not be running for re-election is the same dynamic where people say they're not going to stand up to people like Jasmine Crockett, who is just, you know, sending out nothing but negative rage base. that is completely contentless.

I still haven't heard what I would consider anything intelligent in terms of how the party sort of recasts itself. The fact that they won't stand up to folks like Jasmine Crockett, the fact that the party leadership will not stand up and say these policy areas where we are adopting, we're on the wrong side of these 80, 20, 70, 30 issues, we've got to change is the nature of the problem. There's no courage.

There's no courage to do the sister-soldier moment that Bill Clinton did in 1992. And that's why the party's going from bad to worse. More of the Will Cain Show, right after this. Book Club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday.

Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at SpecSate, You'll know just how healthy they are. Visit specksavers.cavers.ca to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. 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. Okay, but it takes a charismatic figure. I totally agree with you on the actual substance. Yeah. But it also takes a figure. You can't ever, ever, ever, over underestimate the power of a charismatic figure.

Let's look what just happened with Donald Trump. He totally transformed. I don't even know what we'd put the number at, but it's probably fair to say 50% of the Republican platform. It's different than before Donald Trump. So here's the real question. And I'm curious about your response on two levels. The timing. You don't actually have that much time if you're Democrats.

You've got, I think the clock might be on. for you got about another year to define a message and find the charismatic leader for a presidential election forget the midterms for four years because once we get into 2020 let's see once we get into 2026 I guess we'll be full on into talking about who the democratic candidates are and vetting them and they're debating and that kind of thing and headed towards a primary schedule right so at some point the ball has to get moving and that point I think is pretty quickly here and then you go okay who well there's gavin newsome and we look he's a talented politician there's no doubt about it in my book he's a talented liar um but he's from a failed state i don't know

how ever come over overcome a failed state um so but outside of him fetterman's the most interesting dude but come on he's a he's a he's a lump he wears the hoodies and he's i'm sorry what what's his physical presentation is never it's not going to work on a general election stage And by the way, I'm not sure he could win the primary anyway. So you've got to find this figure. And I don't know if it's AOC. Like, that doesn't really compute for me. But if you're a normal Democrat, if you're normal, you're smart, your cares not you're normal, get going.

Because your name ID is nothing right now. If you're normal, you might be able to give me a name in a second, Julian. But what you'll have to admit to me is his or her name ID is low. That means he needs to spend the next year getting it high so that we have at least. heard of who this normal Democrat is? So there's two things. There's two things on that, Will. One is there is no candidate out there.

There is no charismatic candidate that can take the party back to the center. There's no sign of that. I think Newsom is not my cup of tea. I think he's inauthentic. I think he shifts with the wins. And I think, as you say, he has had a massively, massively failed state in California. Look at all the people leaving. But there's, in addition to their not being a candidate,

there's a structural problem within the Democratic Party that is not going to let them shift back to the center. And that is that there's a shadow government. And this shadow government is made up of NGOs. It's made up of consultants at the federal and most particularly at the state level. It's made up of the activist organizations. You're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. If you just look at the consultant class that most of the state, most of the growth in take a place like California. Most of the job growth in California has been in government or government-adjacent jobs. And when I say government-adjacent, I'm talking about the consultant class that state governments

increasingly higher in order to provide some of their health care and other services and who are all deeply, deeply left. There is this massive infrastructure right now on the Democratic and on the left that is made up of all these different classes that is deeply committed to things like gender extremism, DEI quotas, climate extremism, and it's going to be almost impossible for any candidate that wants to win a primary to sister soldier, this shadow government. They are just too scared of the flying monkeys on social media that are going to attack them. So I don't, I don't, I'm not optimistic.

I don't see the party breaking away from the ideology of, uh, the far left. I've, you know, I've been saying this since 2021. We saw the canary in the coal mine was the Virginia gubernatorial election in 2021. When Terry McCullough said parents shouldn't be deciding what's in the classrooms, don't have any say about what we teach in the classrooms. And you could see all of that. When I, you know, I'm in Florida a lot and I'm at a building in Miami. I live there part-time. And there are lots of CEOs who have always from New York, California, who've always voted Democrat all their lives. And in 2022, all of them were saying to me that they were going to vote for DeSantis

in Florida because they were tired of the gender ideology that their kids were being fed in schools. I mean, I don't think. And COVID. Democrats. I heard guys on the left go to DeSantis because of COVID. Yeah. They don't, Pete, the insular bubble of the Democrats, particularly in the Beltway do not realize how alienated that many of their traditional full voters feel because of these extreme positions. And I think, you know, people, you know, you hear this book from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson last week on their book tour about Democrats need to rebuild. Yeah, that's true. That's maybe a 10 to 15 year project. It's not going to help the Democrats in 2026 and probably not in 2028. What the party has got to do is figure out how they get back

into a place where voters can say, hey, this party relates to me. They understand me. They understand my values. I identify with them. And right now with a Democratic approval rate at 27%, they're going exactly in the opposite direction. And because of this structural problem, that I'm talking about, this shadow government that has grown to several million people, you know michael lind of tablet magazine has done some really good work on this um i think it's going to be next to impossible for the democrats to divorce themselves from from from nuttiness and so i don't i don't think it's going to change i don't think the democrats will take the senate back in 2026 i'm almost sure they won't and i'm increasingly skeptical that they'll

take the house back in 2026 um and trump right now is running circles around them really really good conversation julian you're welcome back anytime here both here as not the four o'clock show yeah i appreciate that well i love i love the four o'clock show i watch it all the time all right well we'll see you there soon thank you julian okay okay see all right there he goes julian nebstein uh lawyer for former lawyer as a democrat for the house judiciary uh committee okay so the boys and i were talking yesterday and there was this interesting meme that went around with a plane right and it had 10 choices for you to choose a middle seat between for example, Tulsi Gabbard and Teddy Roosevelt. Or you could choose to sit between Ronald Reagan

and General George Custer. Or you could sit between Pete Hggseth and Jocko Willink. So we're going to lay them out for you and ask you, where would you sit on the plane next on the Will Cain show? 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 foxnewspodcast.com. 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 thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. it's will cane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the fox news youtube channel the fox news facebook page hey leave us a review leave a comment five star hopefully if you think it's so deserved

and subscribe on apple or spotify um same thing there's a will can't show page on youtube find that hit subscribe you can get full episodes past episodes and even as two of days tells me a lot of people in the comments section i don't know which platform you're talking about right now two days but A lot of hatred. A lot of hatred on YouTube. Just push back. Of what? You know, just not fans of that would normally watch the show that are coming to.

Well, I want you to be, yeah. Well, hold on. I want you to be a normal viewer. I don't care if you hate me. I don't. I don't care if you disagree with me. Yeah. You know?

And I'm not just talking about because I want the numbers. I want the, somebody yesterday, so I had that, speaking of that, I had that big debate. with Congressman Jim Himes, right? Somebody said to me, a lot of people said to me, were you mad? How did you feel? I'm like, well, first of all, I mean, welcome to ESPN's first take rule. Like, Congressman, be careful.

I've been here before. Yeah, you know, so. I'm my first rodeo. But I don't get mad. I mean, I might get heated, but I don't get mad. I'm not personally angry, and I appreciate the interaction. And then one of my producers asked the words,

like, how do you feel? And I said, I feel alive. I want to feel alive. I believe in vitality, you know? I'm Nietzsche in this respect. Action, baby. Vitality. Give me something to thrive on. I like debate, but I also like having fun and making fun of me. I like laughing. I like having light segments like we're about to do right now. I also like deep thinking segments like Dr. Gad's sad where my brain is engaged. I like what Julian Epstein just laid out. And I like people that tell me I'm completely wrong and here's why. And I'm going to tell you you're full of S. Because I'm alive. And I just want to

like everyone. I just want us all to be effing alive. Okay? Not reading a script, not on prompter, not doing talking points, not freaking just going through the motions of life. Yeah. Being alive. So that's what I want. So you're welcome into those

YouTube comments. Yeah. live, subscribe, join every day. Here's the Will Cain Show. All right. Tinfo, I think this is going to fail. I think you're going to fall on your face. And I think this is going to be a huge miss of a segment. But because I'm a magnanimous leader,

I'm going to give the floor to you once again. And I'll leave it up two days whether or not you need music to give you a little pep. I'm not giving a music. But this game you want to play about March Madness and can we guess the roster? I got it here on my phone in front of me. it's my head swims looking at all these logos i know we're supposed to do we're supposed to do what here give us the game give us the quiz first of all are you still on zen or some equivalent i've got a lucy in as we speak okay good okay no i'll try to i'll try to go forward then so why you

why because if i'm on nicotine withdrawals you're afraid of my mood yeah yeah a little bit i'll just start playing the music out for the show real real slowly. We're going to end the show now. So each row, there are two, there are going to, this is a sweet 16.

These are the final 16 teams in March Madness. And I don't know. Let's just go to the next one. I don't know. No, no. No. No. You do not. Son, you got on a horse. And that horse just bucked a little.

that horse didn't it snorted it snorted as you approach to the saddle and you go I'm not doing it I'm not going to ride and I don't deal with that this is like my sons you're going to cry if you have to cry on top of that horse you're going to cry but at this point put your foot in the stir up and get

on top Patrick you are riding go ahead we'll see if you can stay on so each row each column so it's it represents a team in the suite 16 of March Madness and this is each logo represents one of the starting five of those teams within those teams

and the first college they went to and so what it's laying out is you know which teams are keeping their players and which teams are building through the portal and so I'm curious can you explain can you figure out which teams are which based on the portal okay all right All right. This is, you're leaning back in the saddle. You've got a hold of the horn. You're not even holding the reins anymore, and you're just trying to stay on for dear life.

But I'll give it to you. You're still atop the horse. The point is the impact of the transfer portal. This is the big takeaway. Which, by the way, before this failed experiment moves into its quiz phase. What did I see in the first day yesterday of the transfer portal, five to 700 names? And that's an explosion.

I think it was 200 last year. So we already have in the first 24 to 36 hours five to 700 names in the NCAA transfer portal. Like basketball's insane. You recruit, I saw that UCLA, who did not make the Sweet 16, I think all five were not at UCLA last year. They were somewhere else, and I don't think they're a freshman. So, and by the way, I'm about to watch this at Texas, I think,

with new head coach Sean Miller coming over from Xavier. I would not be surprised if you have an almost entirely new roster within a year's time frame. So put it back up two days. Go ahead. John Fanta was saying that people are asking for $2 to $3 million each transfer. So the big market within the transfer portal.

Okay. I'm going to guess that the one that is all peas is in fact still Purdue. That's correct. Got that one. And the one that is four out of five Duke is Duke. And the one that is four out of five Michigan State is Michigan State.

Correct. Nailed it. Correct. Nice. All right. Is the one that is three out of five, BYU, actually BYU? It is. Wow.

Nice. I'm killing it. I'm killing it. Okay. You're pretty good. Now it gets hard. Two, Tennessee. All right.

This just take one, for example. All right. So I don't even know what some of these logos are. So the second row I can do, meaning I can at least guess what the logos are. The starting five comes from Auburn, Texas Tech, North Texas. I believe that would be Yale and Texas Tech. So two out of five are Texas Tech, and one's from North Texas. So is that second row, Texas Tech?

Second row is not Texas Tech. You mean the second column in the first row? Yes. With two Texas Tech? No, that is not Texas Tech. Really? Who is it? That is Michigan. Fascinating.

They have more Texas Tech kids than Texas Tech does. really yes so is that Auburn huh that's Auburn who no he's just said it's Michigan he just said it's Michigan yeah pay attention James we're doing a show here all right the the last time I'm going to try this one more time put it back up bottom right the final one over it's two Tennessee's that I don't know what that bird is what school is that no one knows a bird

no one knows to this day no one knows Virginia and Ohio State so is that Tennessee with two out of five being from Tennessee correct okay but your point is well taken

your point is well taken they're coming from everywhere on an annual basis all right let's hope that this next thing works better because it is visual for those watching as well okay so we saw this meme

yesterday Okay. And it had 10 options for you if you were on a plane. Okay? And I'll explain the options for those listening on Spotify, Apple, or on radio. If you're watching on YouTube or Facebook, you can see this. You board a 10-hour flight. I didn't even notice they're not all middle seats. So that's kind of key. So if it's a middle seat, you've got to really like them, right? But here are your options. You can sit on the window with Ronald Reagan in the middle and George Custer on the aisle. That's one. Two, you can sit in the middle between Pete Heg-Seth and Jocko Willing. Navy SEAL, stream ownership. Three, you can sit at the window with Ulysses S. Grant in the middle and Sean Ryan, podcaster, former Navy SEAL, on the aisle. Four, I don't know who all these guys are, by the way. Four is Marcus LaTrell, General Petraeus, and then you.

I don't know who five is. It's two modern military figures. I don't know who they are. Six, by the way, is underrated. J.D. Vance, George Washington. Yeah. Number one in 48. Seven is Teddy Roosevelt and Tulsi Gabbard.

Number eight is JFK and David Goggins, Navy SEAL. And then I believe the only other one I can truly recognize, because I can't tell who that is in nine. It's, again, two modern military figures. Bo Bergdahl? I mean, I don't know what Boe Bergdahl. I don't know his face. number 10 is Robert E. Lee

and General Mark Millie. By the way, your flight attendant, your flight attendant is Hillary. Hillary. So here we go. For the four of us, I put in the text chain, I would choose

General Custer and Ronald Reagan. That's a conversation I want to have those two guys for the 10-hour flight. I would be fascinated. If I was doing second place, it would be J.D. Vance and George Washington. Yep, that's definitely my top two. All right, Tinfoil, where are you sitting?

I'm sitting at number six. Yeah, George and J.D. are probably the best ones. Don't you think J.D. would take over the conversation with George Washington over you, so you wouldn't get much to say? Not at all. He would be deferential. He would be completely deferential to George Fing Washington. Okay. Imagine the brass balls of dominating a conversation that included George Washington.

Imagine. Okay. I don't know. Who do you have to be? Trump. Okay, let's just do this really quickly. Here's my top candidates to dominate a conversation over George Washington. Stephen A. Smith, maybe, but maybe Stephen A would be deferential.

Elliot Spitzer would definitely dominate. Former governor of New York, I tell you, with a certain level of confidence. Pierce Morgan would dominate that conversation Well I don't I don't know who else You think James would

To a day You think James would dominate over George Washington It would be a good back and forth No Because I would be sitting there and be like Less James There'd be no delay Cut in half then cut it in half again

Mr. President Mr. President Trump might get some words in there you know that's an easy answer i don't either i think he continues to defy you know i'm big on this frame thing because this signal debate has said it has really illustrated for me frames like how a subject is framed in your mind is really hard to escape once it's there and the frame on donald trump and who he is as a person is so solidified and baked in but he continues to defy it the way he shares the stage with elon and even j d when zolensky is sitting there right it

One of the takeaways, and there's many, is Trump, like, I think almost any other president would be like, pipe down VP. And no, no, that is not what you heard from Donald Trump. Or to sit at the resolute disc and turn the floor over to Elon Musk. There is another side to this guy that I don't think you can assume he would sit there and overtalk George Washington. Be like, some say you were the best president, but I would say I might be. Some say me. Some say me, some say you. It's close.

It depends if it's on TV or not. Like if there's a fight, if it's just him hanging out, he's going to listen. I don't know. I don't know. Big guy. I will say an underrated spot is 10. Mark Millie seems like a pretty good party guy. His different color of hair.

Yeah. That's a wild choice. I don't mind. Not for the other? Is Mark Millie going to explain white rage to Robert Lee? like robbery lee's gonna robbery lee's gonna be like my biggest concern was you know

my biggest concern was you know whether or not you know the union army you know could beat us back into into the Carolinas and the military strategies involved they're in which by the way if you guys ever seen any of the rankings of military generals and their tactical genius

and did they win battles they shouldn't win yeah Lee is really high on that he's not number one number one I believe is Napoleon Napoleon's battle genius comes in top but Lee's really high but and Millie's going to say to him well my my biggest

concern with the military was white rage and Lee's going to be like excuse me that was the top concern of the military in 2021 all right two days where are you where you sitting I'm curious what you think I would pick right now if you had to guess

let me think about this Where would you sit? Two or seven? There's a definitive answer. There's a definitive answer. Yeah, I mean, I'll give you a hint. We talked about him recently. Two?

Well, I think you'd pick eight. JFK and Goggins. That's it. Oh, yeah. JFK and Goggins. That'd be fascinating conversation. Get a lot of fitness tips. Gagins might.

Gagins might overtalk JFC. He might. Gagins would probably tell JFK to stop complaining about his back pain. Yeah, I think he would push through it. I think Gagins would gaslight JFK into workout routines. Yeah. You know, JFK had lobster bisque for lunch every day. Every day he had lobster bisk.

That's not going to fly with Gagons. Goggins is not going to be pleased. Mr. President, you're going to have to change up that routine. Well, I believe the, that's not how he talks. He's doing Coggins. Don't. Oh. I don't even, I can't use the language that he would use because he would be cursing.

Don't be a... Who's going to carry the boats in the logs? All right, James, where you sitting? Take your time. Don't worry about it. We're not doing a show or anything. Who are you going to just absolutely whip in this conversation, James? Who are you going to overtalk and...

I mean, he would be going row to row the entire time anyways. So basically, it would be a fight between... That's what you would do. It'd be a fight between me and Hillary for her to get me to get me to sit down and me just defying all of her orders. Let's be honest. You'd be tied down by the federal marshal at the end of this flight. Heck, you would be strapped into a chair. I would do one, but I would be like poking my head over to talk to Pete and Jock the whole time.

I think he would. I actually think you might check. There's a part of me the things you'd pick too. I like to Jocko. That's one I would actually pipe down for. Number 10. Because you'd be scared. You'd be scared of them.

No, I mean, it's military. You defer to them. If it were 10, I would probably overtalk Millie, but listen to Lee. So I just want to get something straight. You would defer to Pete and Jocko because you have some sense of humility on the military. But if it came down to politics with George Washington and JD, you would feel on an equal playing field. So there, you'd be much more confident to inject yourself because you see your political mind on that level. of saying you can keep up with George Washington.

That is, you are putting words in the mouth, sir. But, uh, no, I listen. This is what I do. So I heard what you baked into that statement. I mean, by saying you would defer to Pete and Jocko on military matters implies there are other people on that plane you would not defer to you because you would consider yourself a subject matter expert. I think I could ask better questions to other individuals on that plane than I could to Pete or Jocko. There you just let him go. who is Sean Ryan sitting with again real quick because I don't know how that's going to go

he's going to ask questions Grant yes you list his ass that'd be interesting but Sean's super slow in his pacing so you could probably get in a few questions for Grant you know depends on if he's been just by the pace who Grant yeah because Ryan doesn't drink I've been around Sean Ryan he doesn't drink I've been around Sean Ryan he doesn't drink. Well, Grant wasn't a drunk. Grant was a consistent buzz-type drinker. Or no, actually, it was the other way around. That's an alcoholic. That might be fun just to hear Grant give Sean Ryan hell about not drinking. It'd be like that Walter Goggins, Walton Goggins, Sam Rockwell seen from White Lotus. Grant going, why don't you drink? You know, like,

all right, that was actually pretty fun. That was pretty fun. Okay, good stuff. Thanks for joining us today. I hope you'll see us at 4 o'clock this afternoon on the Fox News channel, but be right back here again tomorrow. Same time, same place for the Will Kane Show. See you next time. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to Ad Free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad free on the Amazon music app. 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 thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.