Will Cain Country - Inside Will's JD Vance Interview — What You Didn’t See (ft. Jonathan Turley)

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has enabled racial gerrymandering and secured a sizable slice of congress for the Democratic Party. This week, it was just ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. FOX News Contributor and Constitutional Law Expert Jonathan Turley joins Will to cut through the legal jargon and explain how Justice Samuel Alito’s ruling on Louisiana’s district map could potentially pave the way for Republicans to take control of the government for an unprecedented stretch of time. Plus, Will and The Crew give a behind-the-scenes look into Will’s interview with Vice President J.D. Vance on Wednesday's 'The Will Cain Show,' and react to some of the funniest headlines of the week. Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠ Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@silicanes⁠⁠⁠) Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome aboard via rail. Please sit and enjoy. Please sit and stretch. Steep. Flip. Or that. And enjoy. Via Rail, love the way.

This episode is brought to you by Defender. With a towing capacity of 3,500 kilograms and a waiting depth of 900 millimeters, the Defender 110 pushes what's possible. Learn more at Land Rover.com. Five years. Five years, and you could see the balance of power in Washington, D.C. shift significantly and perhaps even permanently. You could see a long-lasting majority for Republicans. I'll explain alongside legal professor, Jonathan Turley.

And I sat down with the vice president, J.D. Vance. It is Will Cain Country. Streaming live at the Will Cain Country YouTube channel, the Will Cain Facebook. Page, we're here at your leisure on demand. Hit follow at Spotify or on Apple. Vice President J.D. Vance gave me 20 minutes yesterday. We talked for a while, on air and off air. We talked about the fraud task force that he is heading up.

And he told me that this whole investigation into Somalis and Minnesota, which produced a raid of 20-some-odd locations outside and inside of Minneapolis earlier this week. It's unfortunately going to come with a bit of good news and a bit of bad news. Watch. I think Minneapolis is the tip of the iceberg. I think there's sort of a good news, bad news situation in that, Will, which, you know, the good news is that we're stopping the fraud that's happening against the American taxpayer. air. The bad news is that my own children will never be able to attend school at the quality

leering center. So you know, you've got to take the balance, the good with the bad. One educational opportunity lost for the vances. He's funny. You know, I got to talk a little bit with the vice president off air. And he said to me something that was a compliment that somehow hurt a little bit. The vice president said to me before we went on air, there he is. Will Kane, the youngest looking 55-year-old on television. Oh, no.

Oh, no. How do you take that? That's tough. Do you take that to the bank and feel good about yourself, or do you feel worse because he prematurely aged you four years? But you still look good for that age, that you're not. Sure. I said, Mr. Vice President, I'm not 55. I'm 51.

He goes, oh, well, well, you look 35. Which I took as a compliment and appreciated that. But I also thought, you know, if he had said the youngest-looking 75-year-old in television, somehow that would hurt, right? Just take it to its logical extreme. It would hurt, right? Somebody said, you look great, Dan. You're the youngest-looking 75-year-old I've ever seen. You'd be like, I'm not even close to 75.

It's worse that he's younger, too. Oh, great. He's four years. Four years. Yeah, he's younger than me. He meant it as a compliment, but yet it was a compliment that stung. I told him that my youthful, appearance is the result of many a nights dancing around a bonfire naked at the Bohemian Grove in

California that I've been a part of these elite circles that he's just not gaining access to for quite some time. Adrenachrome. Fountain of Youth. Adrenachron. I'll tell you a few more stories from Vice President J.D. Vance. and what he had to say, honestly, about the White House Correspondence dinner on Saturday. I do think we need to do something.

I do think we need to dork out. And I hope the audience can indulge me on something that I know tends to lose attention. and tends to lose viewers tends to lose ratings. And that is the concept of, for a moment, don't let this word turn into white noise. I know what happens inside one's brain. When I say the word, redistricting. You see, the Supreme Court of the United States just earlier this week came out with a six-three decision that said that states cannot unconstitutionally, racially gerrymandered districts

to create majority-minority districts. what that means is you can't draw lines on a map to ensure that some people elected to Congress will be black or will be Latino. You cannot use reverse racism to cure racism. So you cannot use race when drawing congressional boundaries. Now, people think, oh, that might, in fact, change the balance of power in Washington. First of all, Texas's redistricting efforts are now a full go. We saw just a few weeks ago Virginia redistrict 10 to 1 in favor of Democrats. Florida already has redistrict to the advantage of Republicans.

And this is going to take place most notably across the South, where racial gerrymandering has been really a product of the Voting Rights Act for several decades. But that's not the only thing on the horizon that could perhaps permanently change the balance of power in Washington. We are a few short four years away from the 2030 census. Two things are going on. People are moving from blue states to red states. People are moving from New York to Florida. People are moving from California to Texas.

What does that mean? That means fewer electoral college and congressional power seats in places like New York or California. more representatives for Texas, fewer for California, more electoral college points for Florida, fewer for New York, changing not just how many members of the elected Congress might be Republican, but changing the map when it comes to a president. And then add in one more element. There is a consideration right now that the United States Census, again, scheduled to take place in 2030, will, for the first state, time not include illegal immigrants in the United States as it's currently conducted. It's all persons.

It counts all persons in the United States. And those number of people count towards your population, your congressional seats, ultimately also your electoral college apportionment. But if you stop including illegal immigrants, you once again have another factor that could shift significant power in the direction of Republicans. So I want to break this down because I do think while this is a bit nerded out and I understand that these words sometimes can lose viewers' attention, what you're talking about is within four years and perhaps shorter. Real shifts.

Not just in Congress, but possibly in the presidency. Real shifts in the power between the two parties. joining me now to have this discussion is Fox News contributor, constitutional law expert, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Professor, good to see you. The ultimate nerd over the age of 55. Thank you for having me. That is that me or you?

Which one of us is the ultimate nerd over the age of 55? No, I wouldn't even have guessed 50s or even possibly 40s. So it's a reference to me. I'm proudly. aging nerd. Well, thank you. You might not have even guessed 40s. I wish I could say that it was something I was doing right that I can continue,

but I don't think I'm doing anything right. Moisturizer? I'm not sure. I should take in sugar and alcohol, so I haven't cut those out. It must just be the moisturizer. Professor, let's talk about the Supreme Court's decision this week to end racial gerrymandering. This has been with us for quite some time.

This has been with this, I believe, since the 1960s. that it was considered that under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, you could take race into consideration when drawing congressional boundaries, but no more, no longer. And that has real impact on power. It is real impact politically. It also has real impact legally. You know, in some ways, even though Justice Alito wrote this opinion, it really does fall as part of the legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has long ago said that the way to be rid of racial discrimination is to stop discrimination. on the basis of race. And this is part of a series of cases where the court majority is saying,

we don't want race criteria is the basis for everything from affirmative action to redistricting. Now, politically, it's going to have a real impact here. But I want to emphasize one thing, because there's people going into vapors, including the dissent by Justice Kagan, that the world will now end. And we're going to be, we're going to go back to the Confederacy. They did not declare Section 2 on constitutional. What they said, and I think most Americans would agree, is that the law here is about preventing intentional discrimination. If a state comes in and says, look, we're going to dilute minority voters.

We're going to gerrymander so that their votes have no impact in our state. Those types of intentional racial discriminatory efforts are still unlawful. You just have to show that there was an intentional purpose behind this district to do that. That's different from what we've been doing for years. And as you know, Will, this litigation, each of these districts often results in years of litigation, including the one in Louisiana. And what's happening here is that courts would step in and say, well, you know what? You're going to have too few African American or black legislators. So create a district to guarantee you're going to add one.

And what the court is saying is that where did you get that authority and how does that sit with a constitution that bans racial discrimination? So let's help the audience understand exactly what's been happening over the last several decades. The impact of the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was that essentially many states were employing reverse discrimination, reverse racism. They were taking race into account in order to draw districts that would ensure that or make it very likely that the elected representative from that district would be of a certain race. And they were doing so under the guise that it was still remediary, it was still needed in order to correct the ills of segregation. And to your point on John Roberts, he's been pushing back on this for quite some time. As you pointed out, he's done that with affirmative action. And he's done it with voting rights as well in that he has said what you just described,

that you can't cure racism by employing racism, that you can't cure racial discrimination by employing racial discrimination. And so what you're hearing, as you described as the vapors, is people really, really lamenting the end of race as a consideration. No, I think that's right. I mean, and we have, particularly one party, is often engaged in identity politics, particularly racial politics. And this is a real blow because Section 2 in the past has been the lever used for this type of identity politics.

And it has been the legal basis by which you could enforce it. And the resulting litigation was maddening. You had a virtual cottage industry of experts. It would do nothing but go from state to state, it seemed, and say, well, no, we'll configure this. and this will produce one more black representative. And a lot of people were raising questions as to how that fence with a country that rejects racial discrimination. And what you're seeing now is, in my view, that the court is restoring a consistent and coherent approach to race criteria. They are saying that you cannot discriminate against people for race.

If you do, there's a host of laws, including this one, that we, will enforce. But by the same measure, you cannot use race to gerrymander or give people preferences based on their race. And I think that at the end of this process, you're going to have a more coherent body of law. Now, you wouldn't get that from Kagan's descent. Now, what was fascinating about the dissent, by the way, and I don't know whether these rumors are true, but there's been a lot of complaints about how long Calais, this case that just came down, has been pending. There's a recent book that suggested that Gagan recounted a story that Kagan had a screaming match with a liberal justice because he had decided that they would need to get those dissents

in the Dobbs case out because conservative justices were getting threats. And Justice Breyer agreed with Chief Justice Roberts that were waiting. too long and our conservative colleagues are getting death threats. And according to the book, Kagan had quite a bout with Breyer over this, about, you know, releasing the dissent. There was a concern with this case that the liberals were slow walking the dissent to give states a very little time to make this adjustment. Now, it's hard to say, obviously, we don't know. But I was surprised when Kelly came out, that it wasn't more fractured. Usually this delay is because you've got fractured decisions.

There were six solid votes that you cannot use race in this way. Kagan wrote the dissent. The majority really didn't talk much about the dissent. So the question is, why did this take so long? Because now states are in a tough position of can they redistrict in time for the midterms. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with Fox News contributor and constitutional law expert, Jonathan Turley on Wilcane Country. It's never too early to plan your summer story in Europe with WestJet, from rolling countryside to cobblestone streets. Begin your next chapter.

Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off. Welcome back to Wilcane Country. We're still hanging out with George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley. So you're bringing up Molly Hemingway's book entitled Alito. We spoke to Molly a week ago, and she told us that story about Kagan berating Breyer. She wanted Breyer to delay the writing of his dissent, the writing and or release of his dissent, so that the Dobbs decision would be pushed off.

The conservative justices were like, can we get this done and get this out? Because our lives are being threatened with the already leaked opinion that we are going to strike down Dobbs. In this case, what you're suggesting is that there might have been a same tactic employed by the liberal justices in order to delay the potential for states to respond to the decision in time for the midterms. Let's talk about the politics of that. Setting aside the midterms for a moment, what will be the impact? We're going to see fewer Jasmine Crockett's, fewer Maxine Waters. We're going to have fewer districts that are sort of gerrymandered into this. So what does this racial representation? So what do you think that means in terms of the balance of power?

I believe that Texas now has the license to move forward, which I think resulted in a plus four for Republicans. And I've seen reports that Florida has moved forward very quickly already to redistrict. Have you had a chance to look at this professor and see what the political implications would be of this decision? Yeah, there's going to be a couple of impacts. One is going to be this logistically. You know, I've covered elections for networks for almost 30 years. And through that whole process, the most maddening aspect has been these Section 2 challenges that go right up to elections and they go on for years.

And I've never really gotten the logic of half of these decisions when they come out just to sort of engineer another position for a minority representative. that's going to largely be reduced. So it's going to streamline this a bit more, which I think is good for citizens. But politically, we're talking about a significant number of potential districts. People talk about a dozen or so that might be directly impacted. It's hard to sort of judge how that will fall out. So you have districts that are sort of in two different buckets, will.

One is Section 2 districts, those districts that were designed to produce. some minority representatives. Those districts are now presumptively unlawful the way that they were designed. So they're going to have to be redesigned. People have been talking about, well, you know, it's up to the states. I don't think so. I mean, if you've got one of those districts that was designed according to the old interpretation of Section 2, that district strikes me as being manifestly unlawful at

this point. So it's going to have to be changed. Now, you also then have the political gerrymandered districts that you, you were referring to, coming out of Virginia, California, Texas. The court has always said partisan gerrymandering is something that few people like, but it's been part of the system, that it is constitutional. You can do it. So you're going to have a shift of those districts.

Now, the irony here is that when this war started over gerrymandering, some of us wrote column saying the Democrat should be a little bit leery of this because the Democratic states were already gerrymandered. So you really can't gerrymander many of these states anymore than they have been. The Republican states, there was gerrymandering in Republican states, but there was a lot more capacity for gerrymandering in the Republican states. So if all of these states joined this fight, the Republicans could come out with more seats out of political gerrymandering, or they could break even. Like you suggested, there are some estimates that it could come back plus 12 for Republicans at the end of this story. Let's also talk about what could happen come 2030. It's not a matter of

the law that the 2030 census is likely to produce additional gains for Republicans just because people have voted with their feet. People have moved to Texas and Florida and they've moved away from California and New York, moving congressional seats and electoral college apportionment away from those blue states into red states. That's not a matter of the law. That's a matter of politics. The other thing that I do believe is scheduled to be before the Supreme Court is whether or not illegal immigrants should be, should continue to be counted in the 2030 census. The Trump administration is pushing the idea that they should not. There has been a general interpretation of the Constitution up to this point that all people

means and includes illegal immigrants. Do you think there's a chance Supreme Court says, no, this should only account American citizens, meaning another potential victory and wave headed towards Republicans? I think there is a chance. As you know, in the past, persons under the Constitution include people who are here in the United States for whatever reason. They are entitled to many of the same constitutional rights as citizens. So there is precedent there supporting the Democrats on that point, but it's not really etched in stone. I mean, the question is specifically with regard to representation in Congress,

how should that be interpreted? And a lot of people object to say, look, if you're here legally, we're in the process of getting you out. You're not. being truly represented by someone in Congress, like someone who's here lawfully, either as a citizen or a lawful resident. So it is possible that the Supreme Court could weigh in here in the favor of the administration. Professor, it would seem to me that the fault line in that debate would be, while the Constitution might afford you certain rights by virtue of your presence in this country, for example, a right to a speedy trial, a right to presumption of innocence, various other rights that we afford somebody in this country. It does not afford you the

right to representation. That seems like the fault line. That's right. And it gives this rather perverse incentive because it means that the more undocumented people you have in a district in Chicago or districts, the more representation you're likely to get, the more actual number of districts you're likely to be able to count. So it's good. It would have a huge, impact. That would have its biggest impact. But you also sort of see there's a sort of a clock ticking here. And you can almost hear the desperation among some people as they talk about these coming years. And you will put the frame, the time frame here correctly. In my recent book, Raging in the Republic, I talk about this effort to change the Constitution, including getting

rid of the electoral college, trying to change without an amendment, things like the U.S. Senate. This is coming from law professors and law dean. Some saying we should trash the Constitution on the 250th anniversary. But all of these efforts, there's an urgency to them, including packing the Supreme Court. And you can understand why precisely because of how you described it will. That in the next few years, we could have a massive shift that goes against the left in this country. The way to blunt that is to pack the Supreme Court. get rid of the electoral college, add Puerto Rico and D.C. estates.

All of those things have been mentioned by political figures as their priorities if they are able to regain power. In the next five years, putting a lot of weight, not just on the midterms, which are really just slow what Donald Trump's administration chooses to do, but that 2028 presidential election, like, if that that has the power, it's, I always, I think we always overstate the impact of the next election. But recognizing what's right around the corner in 2030, Democrats are going to be incredibly passionate about that 2028 election. Yes. And look, we're looking at a divided country. It's why I call this an age of rage.

It's not our first. Eventually the rage will burn off. It has in the past. But it won't before 2008. We are going to remain a deeply divided country. What worries me, and this is what I talk about in the book, is that there are people, their voices, that are trying to change the system itself,

to change our Constitution, even trash our Constitution. That's the only thing that threatens our republic. We have a Constitution designed for bad times, not good times. It's designed for times like these. It was written in a time like this. So that Constitution got us here, and it can get us out. out of here unless you change the rules. And that's what some of these political figures are

talking about. Incredible. It's incredible. It feels, I feel, the urgency of this moment of these next four years, like the existence of the Republic kind of hinges on these next four years because of what Democrats will try to do in order to keep themselves from losing so much power come 2030. I do want to talk to you about something, Professor, that I think you and I have some disagreement on. And I say that with some humility just because you went to law school doesn't put you on the same level as a law professor. But I think I saw you say the other day when it came to James Comey's 8647 post in the DOJ's grand jury driven indictment of James Comey that you thought this was a First Amendment issue. If I've mischaracterized how you've said that,

then you should jump in and stop me immediately. But I don't see this as a First Amendment issue. I don't think this is a matter of free speech. I do not think that means that James Comey is likely to be held guilty of the statute he's accused of breaking because I think that it might fail on the facts and the application to the law. But I don't, I think the law itself is constitutional. It sets the limits on free speech.

It's supported by Supreme Court precedent on the limits of free speech, Brandon Byrd, incitements to violence, imminent threats. And the only real question to me will be, does a reasonable person believe that 86 means kill, therefore an imminent threat to the life of the president? No, Will, you characterize my position correctly. And I also think that your position has stated very well, and I agree with much of it. There is no question that the Supreme Court has upheld the statute on presidential threats as constitutional. So you're right there.

It's also true, by the way. I was just speaking to the Ohio Supreme Court's conference yesterday, and that this came up in the conference. And I said that, you know, I actually think, even though I believe that this is unconstitutional, I think it is a violation free speech. As a district court judge, I might be hard pressed to dismiss this before trial because of the reason that you identified. That is, I wouldn't be able to say that there are no facts upon which 8647 couldn't be shown to be a threat because we don't know all of the facts that they're going to allege. But what I did say in that column was on the, I'm not seeing any evidence being put forward by the Department of Justice so far beyond the actual message itself. And it can't,

these things tend to then sort of converge. So you're absolutely right, Will, that that, that, the statute says that a threat to the president can be a criminal act. But you also cannot criminalize political speech. And the court has said in repeated cases that certain speech cannot be the basis of any criminal charge under any statute if it is a political expression, hyperbole, and things of that sort. We have a number of cases where the language is far more direct than 86-47, where the court has said the First Amendment will not allow you to prosecute that language. So even though I think that this could end up getting through a threshold motion pre-trial, I have to tell you, I'm pretty confident that it will be struck down.

If there was a conviction in the case, it might be struck down before then. I also have my doubts as to whether they could thread this needle in front of a jury. I don't think they could get a unanimous jury on 86-47 unless they have something new. some smoking shell evidence in the case. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with Fox News contributor and constitutional law expert. Jonathan Turley on Will Cain Country. This episode is brought to you by Tell us Online Security.

Oh, tax season is the worst. You mean hack season? Sorry, what? Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms. But I've got Tellus Online Security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season. Plan started just $12 a month.

Learn more at tellus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley. So I think the source of our disagreement would be that I would challenge any district court judge that struck down this before it got to as a matter of fact before the jury. a discussion of fact for the jury. And I would also question any appellate court judge that struck down the findings of a jury based upon the application of the First Amendment. That doesn't give me

faith, like you, that a jury would find James Comey guilty. It really is a question of fact to me. And the question is, what did he mean by 8647? And you said there are other examples that you feel like are more blatant as to as to the interpretation could be a threat on the life of the president. I'd love to hear those examples. I would just say, Professor, like, I know that 86 has multiple definitions, multiple applications. There are people that have used that phrase to mean fire, resign, impeach, kick out of a bar. I also recognize that it has the application in common usage of meaning murder as well. It has been used to mean any of those potential. implications. So how do you prove which one James Comey was using or thinking when he did that?

That's difficult. That's very difficult. I put that to a jury, you know, and perhaps, as you point out, more evidence coming from the DOJ. But I will say 86 was sort of being used at the time and in the context in that way. And when you combine it with the fact, then I don't know if this is admissible evidence or not, but the president's had three attempts on his life. When you start using loose language like that, you are inciting violence against the president. Well, you know, when you look at past cases, for example, there's one case in which a 18-year-old said, if I'm drafted, the first person I shoot will be the president. The court said, look, the presidential threat statute is constitutional, but this can't be the type of statement that is criminalized. Now, they were

saying that is more of a threshold issue because they said this is the type of hyperbole, the type of political expressions that are used historically. And so the court has always been a bit leery about the extent of the statute. So even though the statute is constitutional, most of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have been quite narrow. They've been careful because if you took, if you take 8647, if that can be a threat, a wide, swath of political language could be potentially criminalized. And the court doesn't want that. It doesn't want the chilling effect of that. So that's why in that case, it said, yeah, your statutes here is constitutional, but saying that the first person I'm going to shoot the president,

we're not going to allow that to be prosecutable under the statute. Yeah, that's interesting had that person said, I mean, the if I'm drafted carries all the weight in making that a political statement. If I'm drafted, the first person I shoot will be the president. I would, that, that is an interesting debate that the courts find themselves in and parsing what is political speech versus what is. By the way, Professor, I don't like the word threat. That's a threat. That's a direct one. It doesn't have to be threat.

Like, I believe if I remember the language of the statute and the Supreme Court's application of the statute correctly, incitement works. It's not that James Comey was threatening to do the act himself, but that he was encouraging or inciting others to do the act. So, I don't know, it's kind of a weird place to say judges are the ones set to parse political speech from actual threats, as opposed to a jury. Yeah, but the thing is, you know, the Constitution is really designed to be sort of countermajoritarian. It's designed to protect unpopular speech. We really don't need the Constitution to protect popular speech. That protects itself. And the courts have been very protective here because they're worried about the slippery slope.

A statute like this could swallow up a lot of political speech. So, you know, I've often been described as a free speech absolutist. I'm really not. But I admit that my default is often almost always with free speech. I believe the solution of bad speech is good speech. I got to tell you, I don't even think this would be close in front of the Supreme Court. I think that if there was a conviction in this case, based entirely on 8647, nothing else. It would be reversed.

I'd like to think I'd describe myself very similar to you, Professor. I really do. I don't know about a free speech absolutist, but my default is definitely on the side of free speech. I guess this isn't a legal question. Maybe it is. I do appreciate that you put things into the age of rage is not unique to us. We've experienced it through various times in our history. I don't think you would disagree that the current age of rage rhetoric has gotten really far.

And mostly, and mostly, but not exclusively, mostly coming from the left towards President Trump. And it's obviously resulted, it's produced at least, at least three assassination attempts on the president. they cannot all be dismissed as the, as the deranged actions of an insane person, especially the latest one. I do think they are people who have consumed what has become mainstream rhetoric. I guess what I would ask you is, and I've asked this in the last couple of days, I do feel like we are headed towards a Brandenburg test. I do believe there will be people on the left who get right up and perhaps cross that line. I think we're already getting pretty close to the line. I think when I see the types of things being said by Hassan Piker or various figures on the left,

we're getting closer and closer to that direct incitement to violence. And maybe they know very well the line and they're capable of towing it. But I just feel like at some point here, there is going to be a case that makes the Supreme Court revisit this. They're getting very, very close. And maybe as a lawyer told me the other day, this is a brushback pitch. Simply indicting Comey is a bit of a brushback pitch to send a warning out there. Hey, guys, you know, you keep creeping. You're going to be facing the law.

You know, it's sort of funny, Will, because I think I've been one of the most vocal and certainly one of the longest critics of James Comey. I have dozens of columns criticizing him over the harm that I believe he did, the FBI, and the country. So I have to tell you, I did not relish the idea of writing that column. It is literally the first favorable thing he could find in any of my writings. But it's the Constitution not Comey that has to drive this analysis. He is, perhaps, the price of free speech.

My concern is that if this were to be upheld just on the photo, as far as we've seen so far, that is the primary basis of the prosecution, it would sweep pretty broadly. It would blow a whole. But do you disagree with me? Do we're headed there? We're headed to this. We're headed there.

But this may be the bad. example. This may be the bad example, but there is an example coming. But I have to tell you, I am leery of it because, you know, the greatest harm that we've seen in our country's history is not from rage rhetoric. It's the response to it. Free speech is often the first thing that is the casualty in an age of rage. And every age of rage, we've seen this pushback. And I hope that's not the case. You know, Brandenburg replaced the shank standard where that uniquely dumb line came from

of shouting fire in a crowded theater. And they moved away from that for good reason because it was too fluid. I hope that the court will hold the line. What will end the age of rage is not more prosecutions of speech. What will end it is for the rage to burn off. And for people to recognize

that they've become grotesque. that they like rage. That's what they won't admit. Because it allows them to hate completely. It allows you to deny the humanity of people you disagree with. Even kill them and feel righteous about it. That's what this Cole Allen guy really represents. He believes that he had a license to kill.

And that is obviously, in your right will, not coming from him. In fact, if you look at his manifesto, some of what he said in the manifesto is almost identical to what I quote, and rage in the republic. And those quotes are coming from Democratic leaders and coming from pundits. So this is not happening in a vacuum and you're right. But I think the solution here is a political one for the American people, as we have in the past, to wake up and say, enough. You know, we're not going to let these people traffic and rage. I hope you're right. I want you to be right. I also hope that there is not a future episode of this show where you and I are having a conversation

and you're forced to defend Hassan Pikers, obvious incitement to go kill the president. Yes. I hope we never arrive at that day, Professor. I agree. All right. Jonathan Turley, law professor, constitutional law expert, George Washington University. Thanks so much for being with us today, Professor. Thanks, Will.

Let's take quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Kane Country. RBC Training Ground has discovered potential in over 20,000 Canadian athletes and county. Your story could be next. If you've got the drive, they'll help you find your path to the Olympics. Let's see what you've got. Sign up for free at rbc training ground.ca. In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over $24.50 an hour. Employees also have the opportunity to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields, like software development and information technology. Learn more.

about amazon.ca welcome back to will cane country um me head over now really quickly uh to the willisha where you guys have begun to weigh in on the nerding out on something that i think deserves our attention it's incredibly important on both these fronts uh original name says on youtube won't not counting illegal immigrants in the census hurt red states like texas and florida after cali these two have some of the highest population of illegals it's a great point something i even considered as the words are coming out of my mouth. And that is true. Texas and California have some of the highest sheer numbers of illegal immigrants. You'll also see that same thing play out in urban districts in blue states. So Chicago, New York, places like that, where I would probably guess on a

percentage basis. So in other words, then the contribution of illegal immigrants to the greater population and then therefore the congressional representation is incredibly high, at least as high as it is in Texas or Florida. So you see what I'm saying? So I think we would need to do the math on that. I think it's a very good point made by Original Hammer on if you stop counting illegal immigrants in the census, what effect would it actually have, not just on California and New York, but what effect would it have on, say, Texas? Over on Facebook. It's original name. Original Hammer? Yeah, that's his name.

Oh, that's their original name, 9571. But that would be a badass name. It would be. I was like, where'd you get a hammer from? I don't know. Sometimes I just start talking. Things just come out of my mouth. And I think original hammer would be badass because you'd sit there and go,

but what's the unoriginal hammer? You know, what are the sequel hammers? I want to go with the original hammer. And where's the nail to go with it? over to facebook evelyn bias woodsin great news from the supreme court ralph hoffman if this changes how districts are drawn it could reshape the balance of power in congress for years and susan lamperty lamperty illegals never used to be eligible to vote until recently we're not actually talking about illegals eligibility to vote here which should be illegal we're

actually talking about whether or not their presence in the country counts towards the power of a given congressional district or electoral college. And I agree. You can't overstate this. And in talking about this with the professor, I'm telling you, this is, what a fascinating and tense four years we're headed for. And this is back to the conversation we've had this week about whether or not a lot of this rhetoric will dry up with the retirement of Donald Trump.

And the answer, when you put it in this context, you think about it this way, is it will not. It will absolutely not. And this is why J.D. Vance, for example, should it be J.D. Vance, will be vilified beyond measure. Because if we get to 2030 and the United States census through two different mechanisms, the movement of people from blue to red, and perhaps more speculatively, not counting illegal immigrants, threatens the balance of power to move away from Democrats, you are going to talk about an absolute five-alarm fire freak out for the next four years, wherein the Democrats will try to win every midterm election and every presidency in order to ensure. that this does not happen in 2030. And how will they ensure that this does not happen in 2030? Well, they've laid it out for us. They've told us. Professor Charlie just said it. James Carville has said it out loud. Various Democrat politicians have said this in various piecemeal fashions. Pack the Supreme Court. Add D.C. and Puerto Rico estates, giving two more senators to the left.

Do away with a lot of constitutional provisions de-emphasize the power of the constitutional. to limit majoritarian rule. You're going to be talking about some really systemically gigantic issues that will be front and center. I don't know, it'll be interesting, Patrick, I don't know if they'll run on these issues. I don't know if they'll say them out loud from a debate stage. I don't know if they'll sell the constituency on these ideas, but it is what they will do with the power should they gain it. Carville said it. First thing we'll do, pack the Supreme Court, add D.C. and Port.

Rico estates. They understand the existential nature of the next five years, and they are already saying what they will do. That makes this next four years the last two minutes of a football game or basketball game, like that kind of political tension. No, I completely agree. I think, I mean, AOC said it. I mean, they've said it on debate stages before. I don't think they'll say it in general debates or in general campaigns, but they're people know. They, this is the They're like a scared animal right now. They're cornered. They're about to lose a bunch of power.

They know what's coming. Yeah. Yeah. It's Hail Mary time. And they will do anything to throw that. Hail Mary. Hey, you ever notice when the rules start getting rewritten, people are told not to question it? That's why this story matters right now.

Animal Farm, George Orwell's classic is back in a bold new animated film from Angel Studios. And it brings this story to life in a way. a whole new generation needs to see. It follows a young pig named Lucky, and through his eyes, you watch hope turn into control, power turn into corruption. And yes, this is a story about the dangers of totalitarianism, about what happens when truth gets twisted and nobody pushes back. If you've got kids, especially older kids, who might be reading this in school, well, then be ready. This is the kind of movie that sparks real conversation after it's over. And here's the thing. Angel Studios took a risk

bringing this to theaters driven by people who believed this story needs to be told. Everyone's going to be talking about this one. Animal Farm in theaters May 1st and you can get your tickets now and go see it for yourself. Let's keep going. Let's rock and roll.

There's no need for a break. Two a day's Dan, ten full pat. Let's continue. Which story do you want to do now? The one you were so fired up about earlier? I forgot what it is. What is it? Well, it's happened here in New York City, you know, involves a company. Are we really doing that one?

No. No, you're talking about the JP Morgan sexual harassment case. There's too many. The details are so good. I don't even think I can read them. Like, I mean, there's certain standards even here. Very salacious. I came even read the, the, it's very salacious.

You can go to ask for the details. If anyone wants. It involves a female superior sexually harassing. and beyond, beyond sexual harassment, I believe, a male subordinate. And the types of things alleged that she said are quite unbelievable. Unbelievable. And the responses are very funny. Like, I do not believe them.

Yeah. So go look on X. Yeah. If you want a little rabbit hole to go down, go look that up an X. Um. So we don't, we don't do breaks, Will. So what do you do during TV breaks? do they just talk

Do you guys talk back and forth? Do you get a snack? Do you go to the bathroom? Yeah. You got like five minutes? No, none of None of the above. You sit there? None of the above.

You look at your ex mentions. Yeah, that's what you do. I will look at X here and there. I'll see what people are saying during the TV show. I'll talk to my staff. I will go through what's coming up on the next.

segment a little bit, you know, especially when I'm doing something very visual. I'll be less take a look at how this is going to play out, that kind of thing. Speaking of that off-air conversations and what happens when you're not actually in the moment when cameras are rolling, 20 minutes yesterday with Vice President Vance, beyond just telling me how young he thought I looked, I asked him about the White House correspondent's dinner shooting. Now, here's what the vice president told me on air about Saturday night. You know, the first thing that happened that actually freaked me out a little bit, Will, is that we heard that an agent had been shot.

And in the fog of war, I thought, you know, oh, my God, this guy's actually seriously injured or may be worse. And then we found out later, of course, that he was uninjured or not seriously injured. So as you learn this information, the thing that I really gained an appreciation for, Will, is what an amazing job the agents of the Secret Service do. You saw they went right to me. They went right to the President of the United States. They put their lives in harm's way. So what the Vice President told me off air when we were talking ahead of time,

I said, hey, is that the first time anything like that's ever happened to you? And he's like, yeah, that's the first time I've ever had to be, you know, Secret Service rushed me out of a situation. And he said, it's interesting how human memory works. He goes, I remember it was very confusing. It just sounded like plates crashing. Something happened in the background. at first like a normal sense of commotion and it kind of gathered steam. You could see people starting

to go under their tables and you realize something's happening. And at that point, it's pretty quick when the Secret Service makes their way over to me. He goes, but in your memory, I remember like getting up and then going. He goes, but when I saw the video later, he's like, I didn't remember or experience how much that Secret Service agent actually grabbed me and picked me up by the shoulders. I was surprised by that. You don't. Because it's a see. Seems a little like violent almost. It didn't, it didn't register to him. He's like, in my mind, I just sort of got up and left.

And then I saw the video and I'm like, man, I was lifted up and taken out. You know. I need to get one of those guys. I've had to go through fairly recently. Fairly recently, I had to go through active shooter training. What happens in those situations? And I'll tell you a couple of details that I found absolutely. fascinating. I think the most fascinating thing I learned in that was heart rate and what happens

to the human heart rate. And in any given moment, probably right now, we're in the 60s, 70s of the human heart rate, right? Now, you always think about that in terms of exercise. I've learned a little bit about my heart rate in terms of exercise. Like, you know, zone two workout. That's like a slow, fat-burning type of zone, which isn't very bad. Like, you go for a good walk and you'll get your heart rate up into the 120s maybe like a brisk walk and and 120 to 130s are great for me for me it's somewhat individualized Patrick's zone too is probably 75 but mine's like 120 to 130 you're in that good like fat burning zone and then like when I'm doing when I did cross fit or I did that rowing challenge when you get to those peak peak levels you're up at the 160s

maybe 170, right? That's, that's, your heart at that stage is going very fast and it cannot sustain that for a long time. Like, that's not how we're built. And there's some, there's some research out there that suggests we shouldn't even be in that zone very many times a week. Like, it's okay to push it like that every once in a while, but, you know, sort of the, the athlete exerciser and everybody's like, push it as high as you can and hold it as long as you

can so the next time it can go even higher. Well, you actually need a lot of recovery when your heart gets that high. It's better to stay in this sort of 120 to 150, 120 to 140 range over a longer period of time. That's how you build. Well, during these active shooter situations, your heart goes boom, and it goes boom fast, right? And you blow through the 120s and all that. You go, you'll get to that 160, 170 in a matter of seconds. And they said, when that happens, when that happens, your body begins to shut down.

So what happens is, like at 160, your vision narrows. It's one thing. Your body starts trying to narrow in focus. It's like, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. And so you've heard people like, they get tunnel vision, right? You get tunnel vision. All you can do is see in front of you, and you can't see peripherally. And you have a hard time hearing things now.

Your hearing sort of shuts down. You can't, it's not just, you know, cowardice or shock, a lot of things. Like, literally things in your body are happening that you can't process that you normally would be able to process. And then the guy was like, when it goes even a little higher, like 170 and that, you lose bodily functions. Like, you literally, your body shuts down, you can't control it. So that's why when you see in the movies, people like lose their bowels, right?

Or wet themselves. Your body is done. because of what has done to your heart rate. Right? So part of the challenge for anybody that's in these stressful situations is learning how to control your heart rate so that you can keep making rational decisions and keep processing information. My point in all that, and by the way, he says it's also happening to the shooter. Remember, for most of these guys, they've never been in that situation before. So their heart rate is going way up.

How do you train not to have that happen? So, like, one of the things you should do in these situations. Yeah. I don't know. Like military. exposure and bring yeah military that's what military is repetitive exposure to control your heart rate to remain down in those situations but like that's not usually who you're dealing with even the perpetrator in these situations so they were saying like they give you the things you're supposed

to do and it does include you know go after them in certain situations and they describe how but like and they said remember he has tunnel vision too his heart rate is through the roof he can't see what's happening to the side of him and that kind of thing. So the long and short of it is like in that moment, who knows where the vice president's heart rate went, what he was able to process, what he's able to see, what he's able to remember. I mean, I think everybody, the president,

the vice president, certainly Hegg Seth, Miller, they all performed admirably, very admirably, suggesting that they had the capability of, and by the way, Hegst of all those people would be the one that has the reps. Right. You know, he's actually been in war. He has the reps on that.

for controlling your heart rate and continuing to make sound decisions. He was the one who was up, you know, up more and kind of like a little more control, I think. And then except some of those journalists who were grabbing wine bottles while that was all happening. But yeah. That was fascinating video. Yeah. I don't know if that was afterwards or when that was. Sure.

What does that say about journalists? They were picking up the wine bottles on the table. Dinner was canceled. Everybody was set to leave. And they were stealing the wine. on the way out. Whole bottles of it. It is funny, considering all the things that they accuse people of.

Take what you can get, but dang, that's a savage move. I mean, I'm not going to alcohol shame anybody. If there was no active shooter, then, yeah, it's fine, but the active shooter changes a little bit. All right, one last thing I want to share with you guys today, and that is, I would say, for better or worse, and this is X. but this is receiving bipartisan plotts on X. Even the people that hate Donald Trump are begrudgingly listening to this next piece of sound and saying, God, it pains me to admit it,

but he is hilarious. I did say, grantedly on X, right? Because I do think X is one of the most coarse, sarcastic, cynical places in our public gathering. Because I do hear this. And although I think it's funny, I do feel a little bad for NASA administrator, Chair Ed Isickman. Are you considering relocating NASA's headquarters out of D.C. once the leases up states like Texas, Ohio, and Florida? Well, the best man to tell you that is a man standing right over here. You heard that question with those beautiful ears of years?

He's got great hearing, you know, super. He's got a superhero. Trick of the trade store. I got a bit. I got a minute. That's a good one. I feel bad, but it's good. I saw a lot of people that were saying, I hate Donald Trump, but damn it, I have to admit, he is hilarious. He looks over at Jared Isamette who has really big ears. Like, that's just... No getting around it.

That's just an objective observation. He has large ears, and President Trump says, that's a better question for him. did you hear that convert did you hear that question with those beautiful ears he's got he's got wonderful hearing uh isaigman is taking it in stride he even though it looked like in the moment he was dying inside a little bit as the camera zoomed in on him he is posted on x we all have our superpowers mine are just easier to spot than others that's good to lead into it you have to especially for the president The funny thing is, like, you know, if you're a guy, okay, I saw this thing one time, and I loved it, and it said, women say nice things to each other and don't mean it.

Men say mean things to each other and don't mean it. And if you've been a guy and you've ever been around guys, I do think people are commenting on this, and I think it's true. this reveals that President Trump really likes Jared Isaacman. Any guy that would do this would only do this to somebody that they actually like. You know what I mean? Like, I don't think President Trump was trying to be mean. Absolutely not. I think.

And I also, the funny thing about President Trump is I don't think it was a line that he had been sitting on. You know, he's probably thought it a lot in the past. He's thought it a lot in his various meetings with Isaacman. He's thought in those moments. Man, he has large ears. He may even said it when he left the room. Get the ears on that guy. But he wasn't sitting on a canned line.

He looked over at Isaacman and said, did you hear that question? And then he couldn't help himself with those beautiful ears. Dude, it's objectively really funny timing and a really funny line. I mean, I'm glad the guy has a good sense of humor about it, but damn. And in President Trump is not the kind of guy that says that and immediately starts to check himself where he's like, oh, should I not have said that? He didn't say, I'm just kidding. In fact, he doubled down on the joke by saying he has great hearing.

He just kept going with the joke. Is that how he is in person? He has great hearing. Like, you've been in a room with cameras off. Like, does he crack jokes like that all the time? Not like that, but in general. Yes. It's not just jokes.

He'll, he'll, he'll, he pays attention to things and he's a noticer, right? And he doesn't consider it an insult. Like, he has never done to me. Like, if he said, like, let's just, let's pick something. Will, you know, I don't know. New belt buckle. Like, Will. That's a hell of a belt buckle you got there, Will.

Yeah. Maybe he rubbed off on his hands. Where do you get something like? like that. Yeah. Maybe they've been talking about your age. Do they come any bigger? Yeah, maybe that.

I don't know what it would be, but he would say it if he notices it. Imagine seeing him every day and he notices stuff about you. Like, ah, Stephen, new suit, it's okay. Can I ask you a question, Stephen? Yeah. What about that mole right there? Have you ever thought about having that one removed? Yeah.

Like in the middle of it. Have you ever thought about that? In the middle of the Oval Office? Just that, you know, I've got a guy. You could just, real good, gone, that mole. He'd say that. And out, boom. Get it out.

And it's not coming from a mean place at all. At all. He's just a noticer and a helper. All right, that's going to do it for us today here on Will Kane Country. We hope you will follow us on Spotify or app. We appreciate you hanging out with this, and we'll see you again 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.