Will Cain Country - Ken Paxton OUSTS John Cornyn in Brutal Texas GOP Civil War (ft. Lawrence Jones & Rep. Kristin Robbins)

Episode Date: May 27, 2026

John Cornyn is out. Ken Paxton is in, and this November, he will face off against Will’s arch-nemesis: Texas State Representative James Talarico. FOX & Friends Co-Host Lawrence Jones joins Will to analyze the playing field ahead of one of 2026’s most decisive Senate races, before taking a look at Will’s explosive interview with another Senate hopeful, Abdul El-Sayed. Plus, Minnesota State Representative Kristen Robbins joins to share the results of her fraud investigation into Feeding our Future and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), as well as weigh in on California’s proposed “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” 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 (⁠⁠⁠@WillCainNews)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Paxton versus James Tala Rico. Paxton takes down Cornyn in Texas. Plus, knockdown, drugout with Abdul El-Said on the Will Cain show. It is Wilcane Country, normally streaming live every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time. Here at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page, but here for you always, by following us at Spotify. or on Apple. An absolute knockdown drag out yesterday on the Will Kane show at the Fox News channel with Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Mixed reaction from viewers. Your thoughts, your reaction.

As I break it down coming up in just a moment with Fox and Friends co-host Lawrence Jones. But first, Ken Paxton takes down John Cornyn. Not an upset, but a statement. A message is we now have the showdown with Democratic hopeful, Beto 2.0, fun-sized Beto, low T Tauro Rico, James Talarico. Joining us now is the co-host of Fox and Friends. It is Lawrence Jones. What's up, L.J.? What's happening, brother? Good to have you, man.

In as few as words as possible, and not using, not using the word Trump. Why did Ken Paxton beat John Cornyn in Texas? Change. Very simple. Change. He was winning before Trump endorsed him. I think that's the part that people are missing. You know, I always struggle with this because I get the best of both worlds.

I get to be in the same circles as what you would call the elite and Washington insiders, New York insiders. And then I'm still close to people back home. And so it was so interesting seeing these narratives from the well-connected and the people saying, yeah, I don't care what you say about who's more established, who is more electable. We want what we want. And they dismissed the charges against Ken Pax because he's already been someone to win statewide three times. So we're not talking about some scrub off the street.

that has aspirations of winning a statewide election. He's done it before with many of the same, I guess what they would call ethical challenges that they've talked about in the past. Those ethical challenges will include, and the audience will hear about them in the coming months because it will be the centerpiece of the campaign of James Telerico. Adultery, corruption, impeachment,

Ken Paxton has not been the darling of the political establishment of Texas. You know, I live in Dallas, Lawrence, and a lot of people that I know will say things like, I just don't like Ken Paxton. But statewide, that clearly isn't the message from Texans. The message from Texans was overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly by 28 points. beating John Cornyn. And there has to be a reason. And we're going to have to find if that reason carries over in a contest against Tala Rico.

Oh, I don't think we really have to find out I think it's going to happen. I mean, even to that point, you know, let's be honest, Will, you know, the Lord has blessed me and you. We can get the finer things in life and we can stay in the finer places. The demographic and the region that you live in Dallas are part of the establishment. Those are the people that are going to be writing the checks to a giant corner. They are not going to be the people that are in the suburbs part of Dallas that are going to be supporting someone like Ken Paxton or where you grew up in Sherman, Texas, that are going to be supporting Ken Paxton.

I will say this. Let's take last night off the table. Let's look at the election results, the original before the runoff. He only got 40% of the vote. John Cornyn, someone that has been in this position for 30 plus years, and 60% of the primary voters said that they wanted someone different, whether it was Ken Paxson or Wesley Hunt. So the writing was on the wall to begin with of what the voters stood on this.

It's not our job to reject what the people are saying. The people want to change. I do think change is part of that. The incumbency actually worked against John Corny. It provided him with name recognition and name ID, but it worked against him in that. People get tired of the same stuff in Washington. What more, Cornyn had his own problems when it comes to put. positions. Cornyn was soft on immigration in an age where immigration might be the defining

issue of our time. Cornyn was not someone who you could count on to be opposed to amnesty. He was more aligned with Mitch McConnell than, as you point out, Sherman, Texas. And so I think that's reflected. Shockingly, what people don't seem to understand yet is that's reflected in where Paxton won. Because I think you accurately described where I live in Dallas, but Paxton actually did well in Dallas. He did well in Houston. He did well in Fort Worth. He did well in the urban centers.

In fact, he might have won. If he didn't win, it was very close. I think some of those votes are kind of still coming in. But at the big urban centers of Texas, he beat John Cornyn. But more remarkably, Lawrence, he won with Latinos. He won in Hispanic counties. He won South Texas. And if the message is going to be anti-ice, if the message is going to be about immigration, Democrats

are making a huge mistake because these Hispanics are voting for people like Ken Paxton. Yeah, well, also think about who he's going to be running against. You know, the Latin folks that I know are faithful people, strong faithful people. And the theology that Tala Rico subscribes to, I'm sorry. You're not going to get a lot of Hispanic votes. You're just not. You're just not. You're not going to get a lot of moderate votes or independent votes in Texas.

You know, one of the problems that people, I understand, they really want Texas. They wanted to turn blue. And they're using as a pretext what happened in Alabama for that one term and what has happened in Georgia. That is not. Texas. And I don't say this from, we're private people in Texas. It's just who we are, but our identity matters to us. And I've listened for the last, I guess, 15 plus years of them saying they're going to turn Texas blue. And I would say this, they would have an opportunity,

but they're going to have to go back to the LBJ style of Democrats to be able to, you know, win some Texans over, meaning you're going to have to, you got to believe God and country first. That is one thing that they're going to have to. You can't say God is non-binary and expect to get those type of, you know, blue dog Democrats to vote for you. So I think they're missing the formula. There's potential, but you need the right candidate. And I actually think Beto would be a better do a better job than Tala Rica. Let's talk about Tala Rico. First, I want to pick up on, pick up on your offer to talk about Georgia.

The reason that a guy like John Ossoff can win in Georgia comes down to two things. It does come down to white suburban voters in a metro area like Atlanta, and it comes down to the black vote. Let's talk about the black vote. How do you think black voters will respond to Tala RICO? I don't know if. So either they're not going to show up at all, or you're going to have the black women vote for him. You're not going to have a lot of black men.

And to win, you're going to need the black men to show up. And I don't think they're going to show up for a Tala Rica. No way. No way. You know, I agree with you about Beto, that I think Beto on paper, and Beto, in practice, is better than Tala Rico. And Tala RICO is kind of, I've made a joke. I've called him Fun Size Beto, and he seems to be running on the image of Beto 2.0, the image that he put out yesterday, standing with his hands in his back pockets in front of a Texas flag, closed-mouth smile,

is basically a carbon copy of the Vanity Fair cover of Beto, which was made famous, where he's standing in front of a West Texas horizon and a pickup truck with a black lab running around at his feet. It's virtually the same picture. But here's what I would say, Lawrence. Um, Bum Phillips was the coach of the Houston Oilers back in the 70s. And I think he was asked like to define a good football coach. And he said he can win with his in or he can win with urine. Meaning he can win with his players or he could win with your players.

Doesn't matter which players he's been given that he'll be able to pull it off. He's that good of a coach. If you gave a random candidate, the statements and. positions of James Tolariko, they would get absolutely slaughtered in the state of Texas. To say God is nine binary, to say there are six genders, to say that the Bible speaks nothing of abortion, to say that there are many Hindus and Muslims who are more Christ-like than Christians, these are death to a candidate. What I'm suggesting is, and those came from the mouth that came from the mouth of James Telerico. Maybe as a little bit of evidence of his political

talent, I would suspect he will do better with those positions than your random candidate would with those positions. If you can separate the positions from the political talent, he does have a quality that is going to appeal to some, Lawrence. It's the smile. It's the soft-spoken nature. it's wearing his whatever of his Christian identity on his sleeve. Like, I'm not telling you Tala RICO is not talentless. In fact, I think he has some political talent. He has just burdened himself with the most insane positions possible that I don't think. Ultimately, I don't think can meet anybody, including Kim Paxton.

So Tala RICO has something. You're right. I wouldn't call it the it factor, but there is a form of, I don't know, Texanhood. The best way I can explain it to you is when I talk with people from New York or friends from California, and, you know, they say I like Texas. I love Austin. Like, well, that ain't Texas. That's a form of Texas.

It is our capital. But it's been changed so much is that it's not what many Texas, people that live here would classify as the heart of Texas. And that is Tala Rico. He has a form of Texan hood there. I'm not even sure if that's a word. But that's what it is. That's, it is, you know, he wears the right outfit, I guess, puts the boots on, has a little bit of the Texas talk. But it's in such a liberal worldview that we find disgusting as Texans that it's like a nasty perfume.

We kind of just say, ugh. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with the host of Fox and Friends, Lawrence Jones, my buddy here on Will Cain Country. Welcome back to Will Cain Country. We're still hanging out with the host of Fox and Friends, Lawrence Jones. Well, I would suggest to you that I don't see much Texan in Tallah, he wears the best. boots. But how about this? If if Tala Rico was the Senate candidate in Minnesota or Michigan, he might have an actual chance. That's a reflection of some level of political talent and those positions might not might be more palatable in a place like Minnesota. But those positions

cannot work in Texas. I just I can't imagine a world. He is what New Yorker, New York Democrats, New York liberals would hope you would get out of Texas, but he'll never win in Texas. I don't know. Maybe Tolerico could win in Minnesota. Well, probably, but again, it's still a different style. You know, I'm not sure. He aligns more with a Texas style than maybe he has the policies of a Minnesota person. Let me give you an example. The, the church, how church operates in Texas and church operates in Georgia is totally different. You got to Raphael Warnet, knock, who's one of the best speakers out there.

But the gospel that he preaches from the black church perspective is more from a progressive standpoint, right? So he's, you know, he's at Ebenezer Baptist Church, right, where Dr. King used to be at. He has the performative nature. He talks about scripture from a justice standpoint, right? That is power. If you put Tala Rico in Georgia, you may have something. We don't speak from the pulpit in that way in Texas. That's why I think they have it all wrong.

There is an identity to our state. And that doesn't mean you being a Democrat, means that you can't win. That's not what I'm saying. You've got to be the right Democrat. And your worldview has to at least to submit to certain principles. That's not saying that you can't be for abortion. I think a pro-abortion person could win in Texas.

But you've got to give a little bit on some other things. What he's wrapped in, it's too many things that are deal-breakers. Like saying that, and he says it again, I think, in the moment. most effective way possible, but he's saying something objectively absurd that you would think would kill his candidacy, like this. Listen to this, him talking about the Bible and abortion. Jesus never talks about abortion. The Bible is silent on abortion. And when that happens with a social issue as important as abortion, we Christians have to take scripture as a whole, and we've got to try to make some kind of ethical determination.

You're right about the look. He's sitting there in a poncho shirt, Lawrence, with an undershirt, I would point out. Pancho shirt with a white undershirt. And yeah, he says the Bible doesn't speak on abortion. You know, the Bible doesn't speak on AR-15s either, you know, but the Bible does say that thou shalt not kill. You know, and that seems to be a pretty profound statement for people that have some opinions on abortion. I'm not going to even get into his, you know, political positions. I'm just going to,

I'm just going to speak normal Texas talk. To say that God and the Bible doesn't have a position on any issue. You lost. We believe that God has an opinion on everything dealing with today. He's not moot on any issue. Anything, any issue, it's our manual. It's our manual. as believers. So to say that Christ put us here and doesn't have an answer to every issue that we're dealing with today, I'm sorry, you lost. LBJ would never say that, would never say that. And so that's why I say, look, we'll see what happens. It'll probably be 45, 55, just because of the changing demographics in Texas. But he has no shot. For the Republicans that are upset about this and the amount of money that's going to be spit in this race, I would contend.

And I think that the senior senator from Texas, John Cornyn is an honorable man and has served our state for a long time. I think he's an ethical man. I think he's done a lot of good. But you guys should have never spent any money in this primary to begin with. Texas is a safe red seat. you should have allowed these men to duke it out, and you should have never put our war chest, any of the war chest on the national stage into Texas.

So if you're losing money, that's on y'all. Y'all shouldn't ever put your hand on the scale and allow Texans to do what they wanted to do. Because guess what we're going to do what we wanted to do to begin with. Let's pull back the curtains now, because we're sitting here with Lawrence, and we would probably do something like this where we're behind the scenes in the green room in New York.

Yesterday I interviewed another Senate hopeful Democrat Michigan, Abdul al-Said, who has also been interviewed by Lawrence on Fox and Friends. Now, my interview was longer. I got to give it the amount of time that I wanted. That didn't necessarily make it more productive. There was a lot of crosstalk. I don't know if you got to see this, Lawrence. A lot of interruptions, many of which I'm guilty of, and I'll talk about with you, Lawrence, and the audience in just a moment. but just to give you a taste.

This is Abdul El-Sayed and me talking about, I think, trying to talk about in this moment, immigration and whether or not you feel safer under Donald Trump. You advocated, by the way, in a Facebook post to empty out the prisons that you think we should put effort into, invest in, and support the idea. I believe the direct quote is, I believe that any idea that gets people out of jail should be supported. And I'm talking about the cost you're imposing on society. not this system is actually making people any safer. Ask yourself, do you feel safer now pumping your gas? Do you feel safer now in your neighborhoods? Or do you feel less safe because you've got $185 billion force that's answerable only to Donald Trump? Ask yourself about whether or not

people are making good. I think we know the answer to that question. I think we know the answer to that when you've got the parents of Jocelyn Nungeret, the parents of Lake and Riley, what if they feel safe for under Donald Trump's policies. Lawrence, let's talk about interviewing for just a moment, because I think this is kind of funny. So I, you know, you know that, you know that, on my show, I will from time to time invite people who disagree with me onto the program. James Tala Rico has been on the program. Jake Ockin-Klaas, Jim Hines. Democrats come on the show when we can get them to come on.

That's why we invite Abdul al-Sayyad, who, by the way, was very cordial behind the scenes. He sat Friday for the entirety of the show, waiting to get on. Donald Trump spoke for almost the entirety of my show on Friday, so we didn't have time for what I knew would be a long conversation. I texted him. He texted me back. It was very cordial. He came back on Tuesday. When you're interviewing someone, and by the way, this is how it breaks down.

60%, 65% of my feedback yesterday was absolutely positive to the way I conducted that interview. 25% said, I just can't take it. There's too much cross-talk, people talking over each other, and I totally get that. 10% said, will you let them run all over you? You shouldn't have these people on if you're not going to mute them. But those are also some of the very same people that don't want me to have a Democrat on, period. And then 5% will be the left turning it around saying, he slaughtered you. So that's kind of a breakdown of what happens in that, in the feedback that I get.

But Lawrence, you know this, and I don't know how you feel. This is jujitsu. It is dance. It is art. And the art is this. I don't know how you feel. When I go into an interview, I do not want to interrupt the guest. I feel a level of politeness that is required when inviting someone into your home.

Your show is your home, and I feel some compelled politeness. It's just part of my nature. I also, though, feel compelled when one of three things happens. You lie. Well, now I have to correct the record. You say something egregious that I disagree with, and I don't want it to fade into the background, so I want to hone in on that point. No, let's stick there.

Let's get into our disagreement. Or number three, which was the case yesterday, you talk. talking point me. You don't respond to my question. And that was what happened yesterday. All three happened. But the main thing was that I asked him whether or not he supports the rule of law because he wants to abolish ICE. So I asked him like, how do you enforce the law then? And he starts asking me if I pump my gas. And so he's got an agenda and he's gotten talking points. And it was two people talking past each other and constantly interrupting each other. So that's kind of how it went down yesterday and I tried to give it a ton of time. I did. I think I gave it like 11, 12 minutes. I don't know,

which is an eternity in cable television. Well, you did give it a lot of time and I don't begrudge you at all for, I think it was a necessary interview. Like I said, I've interviewed him in the past. Also, you know, I told you this on air, and I think on air as well. I think you're, one of the best in the business at interviewing people because you do like to have handed conversations and you do like to go places that other people when they're doing an interview, they wouldn't go there. They just wouldn't. The problem, and this is, I'm going to get into the interview, but I want to make a larger point in here. The thing that I struggle with in our business and TV is on paper, you may feel like it's this way.

but on paper there are no rules and so unlike your first profession in a courtroom there are rules and there is ways that you're supposed to conduct yourself in TV we don't have the luxury of that and so sometimes you can have the best intentions in having a conversation and conducting an interview but because there is no referee to guide things, it goes off the rails in that way. One thing that really frustrated me about that interview is, and you're gracious in this way, but I think it's totally unacceptable. You're not the candidate, Will.

You don't have to answer any question. You don't have to answer any question. And one thing that he did consistently is that he wanted you to be. be the person that was the candidate. You don't have to answer for any of the president's policies at all, at all. But he wanted to turn this into the Will Kane running for office. And you're not a candidate. And so that frustrated me. The second thing is, if you're going to have a proper conversation and have a civil debate, one thing I expect, and you're going to have a proper conversation, and you're And you can get this from a Bernie Sanders because he believes what he says.

You need an honest broker. And Al-Said is not an honest broker. He is simply not an honest broker. And you know that- Hold on. Let's take a quick break. But continue this conversation with the host of Fox and Friends, Lawrence Jones, my buddy here on Will Kane Country.

Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with the host of Fox and Friends, Lawrence Jones. Let me jump in there. That is a really good analysis. And by the way, I don't harbor ill. will towards El Saeed. I don't know how you felt at the end of your interview. But you're exactly right. And the reason that you know this, and I know you're about to forward your reason, is here's the goal of my interview with El Saeed. Honestly, I want to get to know you. And I think

the voters have a right to get to know you. You are running for Senate. I want to know what makes you tick. Okay, if I'm being honest, I want to know if Ilan Omar is on the ballot. I want to know if Ilan Omar is running for Senate. I want to know if Zoram Mamdani is running for Senate from Michigan. I want to know are you a socialist? I want to know are you for land seizures? Like Mom Donny has just proposed in New York. I want to know if you don't believe in the founding principles of America. And I think that's a worthy conversation to be had. But when you do what you did, Saeed, you're hiding the ball. You're making it clear to me. You don't want to talk about who you really are, right? You want to talk about Donald Trump, gas prices, and that kind of thing.

And by the way, that's fine. I'm going to let you have that point. You don't like the war in Iran. You want Medicare for all. We've made that very clear to the audience. I repeated it at least twice. This is what he's for. Now, let's get to the real stuff. Who are you really? And the fact that he wouldn't accept that ground, which you're right. I think Bernie Sanders would. I think Bernie Sanders would go, okay, I am a Democrat socialist. And here are the things that I would do. I think Bernie Sanders would accept the actual premise. If he says, I'm a Democrat socialist. I'm a Democrat socialist. And here are the things that I would do. I think Bernie Sanders would accept the actual premise. If he says, I would say, I'm wrong. I'm not Democratic Socialists. We go, well, let's walk through that. Why are you not? You know, but say you kept pivoting to a talking point, talking point, talking point that made it very obvious. You're hiding who you are. And you asked him, Lawrence, and I watched your interview and I learned from your interview. Here's how I did. You asked him about Hassan Piker. And that's another attempt to get to know who you really are because you are with this dude, right? And you know his answer to you. I watched it. When did the right start believing in cancelation, cancel culture? When did the right start deplatforming? And I knew we would do it again.

And I'm like, hey, man, that's a slick word game. That's not the same thing as standing side by side with somebody on a campaign trail. So you're not just platforming somebody. You're agreeing with them. Your arm is around them in a way you wouldn't do to Donald Trump, of course, because you disagree. So what is it you agree with about Hassan Piker? and he's hiding that ball. He's hiding more than that will.

And I'll tell you something. I'll just tell you what I know. You know, there are, and I've studied this very closely, there's Muslims and then they are Islamists. And they believe in two different things, right? And how government should be formed and the authority that can happen as a result of this. When the leaked audio came out, about within his campaign and they're strategizing.

And our president had took out the Supreme leader, the IATO. Oh, you asked him about this. Yes, he wouldn't talk to the Ayatollah being killed. Yes. That's exactly right. And what he said was very telling. He said, I didn't want to talk about this. This is in the leaked audio.

I don't want to talk about this because there are some people within our community that are going to be sad. that the Ayatollah has been killed by us. And for me, for me, my brain shift immediately to what type of guy this is. He harbored, he allowed, who is comfortable with people supporting them that believes in that ideology?

And so you're not going to get a fair interview with him, Will, because he's not going to be transparent. He's not going to be honest. He is going to suppress certain things because it's about winning. It's about an ideology. And he subscribes to the ideology that I don't like. I'm not prepared to say where he falls religiously on the spectrum. But what I can say is he's comfortable standing next to him.

He's comfortable with them being comfortable. He's comfortable not offending those people. That's enough of concern for me. You know what would be a fascinating interview? I would invite Saeed to come here. here, sit at my table. I would use my video monitors, and we would spend the first five minutes saying, okay, this is what you want to talk about, this is what you want to send in your campaign about. Here now is what others are wondering about you and put it up there. You've said these

things on Islam. You've stood next to these people. What is it you believe? Do you disavow this? Do you believe the same as these people? Okay, secondarily, this is what you've said about Medicare for all and socialism and Democrat socialism and these things. Are you a socialist? Is this the pot? Like, lay it out visually, each one and say, no, no, no, we're on this right now. So you can clarify for everybody. What is your position when it comes to Islam? What is your position when it comes to socialism? And he can't keep asking me about gas prices and using the word Donald Trump while this is all laid out. Now, to your point, I have an over-inflated. sense of ego and a sense of OCD organization. I'm thinking, I can solve it if I visually and organized, forced the witness to answer the question. But it probably would be a training to your point. No, no, no, no.

And most cases, will you can. And you do. And you're great at it because you have a, you know, you have a style. It's a style listed. I've told you this many times that you can accomplish that. he is not the person you can accomplish it with. And so unfortunately, it's a waste of time.

It's a waste of the audience. Do you think Graham Platner would? Lawrence, do you think I could have that honest conversation with Graham Platner? In some respects, yes, because I think he's a true believer. Unfortunately, there is many examples that I'm seeing of him that I don't think the guy is mentally stable. not mentally stable and I think those surrounding him should do more to intervene

because they know this to be true and I appreciate his service to the country and all of that but this is a guy that goes up and down I mean think about some of the hateful things that he said and the tattoos and all of this it doesn't mix together you know his

worldview in I'm like, who is an ally of this guy? It just doesn't, there's not one view for him. So it's, it's hard to do that way. I think they're getting more bold. I think they're getting more bold in owning their democratic socialism. So with that, ought to come some more honest conversations and the lack of a need to hide the ball. But that could be wishful.

AOC would give it to you. Honestly, I don't think she's smart enough. I don't know. I, I agree with me. with you that, but I really don't. I think that she would at least have the conversation with you, tell you where she stands on it, on it. She wouldn't dodge and weave and all that because she'd go into- You know what my concern would be with AOC? You know what my concern would be? And you've done this and you see the audience's response. The audience always gets mad for the point that you didn't

rebut. So I did rebut. When he said that illegal immigration is a civil infraction, noted from the parking ticket, I did let him finish his sentence, finish his paragraph. And then I just said, that's not true. It's in a federal crime. code illegal immigration. But people, right, what happens is when you get some of these people disagree with you on, there's a fire hose of misinformation, talking points or disagreement. And if you try to address every single one, you're swatting it flies. You can't. And you have to keep a laser focus on what you're trying to get accomplished. And even though these things are said that are false or this or that, because of time and all these other things, you can't swat at every

fly. And so AOC is really good at filling the air with flies. She's really good at saying a ton of things. And before you know it, you're swatting it, everything in the air, and you're totally off track. You know what I mean? Yeah, it's true, but at least she'll be honest with you about what she believes. And I think to, in order to have a conversation, then you need honest, You need true believers and whatever their ideology may be. And she will get into weeds, but she won't be malicious. The interview that took place yesterday, he knew exactly what he was doing. His intention was the stuff the room with as many flies as pop to the audience to leave

frustrated. He did want to say BS and overtalking. Then you overtalking. To him, that was a win. Because chaos was his tool there. AOC is not trying to do chaos. She just is a radical. But her intent is not chaos. Well, here's a little more malicious interview. And you have some experience with this. So we'll get your perspective on this. I personally think she has arrived as one of the best in the business, not just at Fox, at Man on the Street. Alexis McAdams was on my show yesterday, and she was outside the Delaney Hall Detention Center in New Jersey, and there was protesters everywhere. And then this happened at the end of her

hit. People like this. You are a protester who's been out here, and you have a dirty mouth. But, okay, so that's just what we deal with. So just for people that want to know what it's like to cover these protests, it's constant with this. This is what these people do. They want people who are in this country illegally to be released out onto the streets. DHS says that's what they're going to not be doing. Nazi bitch, that's what you are. That is an eloquent argument made against the presence of Alexis McAdams, reporting on what's happening there outside of Nour.

Stay safe. So that lady called her, would she call her a Nazi B. Is that what she said? Alexis seemed to know it was coming. She kind of stuck the mic out there. Because she said at the beginning, you have a dirty mouth. It's a funny thing to say. Alexis does a great job.

You've done this. You did this with Hannity a ton. I mean, keeping your composure in that environment, tough. You want to hear something? That type of stuff right there is why I'm not doing it anymore. Sean Hannity used to send me across the country. And I tell you, I've been in George. I tell you a story.

One time I was in one of the autonomous zones where George Floyd was killed. And I get out there and the group of people, you know, there's no cops. They don't, you know, police these areas. And they surrounded me, surrounded me, all these guys. And I have to broker us leaving out of there and bring the temperature down. Anyway, I end up getting some of the elders in the community that was around. I said, let's talk this out, and the elders kind of made them back off because the security, I FOX security, they were going toe to toe to toe with this guy.

It was going to be a big mess. And Sean had he called, he called, check on me. And he goes, so you're good. I just want to make sure you're good. You know, you kept your composure and all this. I said, Sean, I do have one thing that I'm going to let you know because I'm a man first. I will keep my composure. They can say whatever they want to say, and I'll go back and forth.

But the moment someone swings on me, you're going to. see a different LJ. And Sean said, that's it. That's it. Pulled me up and I have not covered rallies ever since. The network made a decision. The network made a decision that I will not cover those type of things anymore. Really?

100%. I doubt you're the only one. I doubt you're the only one that say that. I mean, there's other dudes that sure. if you swing on them, they're going to swing back. Oh, dude, it's happened on air before plenty of times, and they did not swing back. No, they did not swing back. You're not supposed to.

You're not supposed to swing back. You're not supposed to swing back. But you're not supposed to do a lot of things that I do on TV and say on TV. Yeah, there's better people suited for things like that. Now he's in the comfortable confines of a morning studio at Fox and Friends. It is Lawrence Jones, the host of Fox and Friends. Great to have you on the show, man. Thanks for hanging out with us today.

Always great, man. Always great, brother. All right, there he goes, LJ. Real quickly, Abdul Al-Sayed was upset that I didn't ask him the questions that he wanted me to ask. He was really good at telling me what I should be asking him at the end. This is what I had to say when he seemed to say, just ask me what I want you to ask. No, you don't understand. I'm asking you a question.

I'm just saying. That's where it comes from. Okay. Well, I would suggest to you as you move forward. You don't like my answer. You don't like the fact that I keep giving you the answers to the questions you really should be asking, which is what is it that you want to do for the people in the issue. You conduct a wonderful interview with yourself, Mr. Syed. You conduct a wonderful interview with yourself.

I keep giving you the answers to the questions that you should be asking. It's not how an interview works. That's how you have a rally, a stump speech, not a conversation. Let's take a quick break. We have some stunning stats coming from Representative Kristen Robbins on the extent of the fraud here on Willcane Country. Hey, y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up?

That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home. Joining us now is State Representative Kristen Robbins from the state of Minnesota. Representative Robbins has been a major leader in the exposure of fraud in that state,

and some of what she has uncovered helped lead to Nick Shirley's investigations in that state. And we're glad to have her on the program now. Representative, great to have you. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Let's talk a little bit about where this investigation of the fraud goes from here in Minnesota. Nick Shirley was on my program not too long ago, and he seemed to suggest that this, that Ilan Omar, Congresswoman, United States Congresswoman, is nervous and this could land at her doorstep. Does this go to Ilan Omar? Absolutely.

So we shoot our majority report a couple weeks ago, and we highlight that she was the author of the Meals Act, which took the guardrails off the school nutrition program, which created the conditions for feeding our future. And that huge scandal of billing for thousands of meals daily that were just completely fraudulent in the Somali community. So she absolutely had a role to play. and I think she needs to be held accountable for it. What does that mean held accountable? Well, I think we need to have more investigations. So in the trial documents for Feeding Our Future, there are communications listed in the exhibits

between her and her office and the fraudsters. And we know that one of her staffers has been convicted in feeding our future, and she had relationships with several of the safarer. restaurant people who've been convicted. But as a legislator, I don't have access to cell phone records. I don't have access to the trial exhibits. So we're trying to get that documentation.

But if she was culpable in helping them commit the fraud, she should be held accountable. I don't know that's true, but that's why we need access to these documents. Let's talk about culpability. So she wrote that law that opened the floodgates on the meal programs. we know she did have relationships. She held, I think, a victory party or a campaign rally at the Safari restaurant. So what that would seem to suggest at a minimum is that she enabled it. Did she knowingly enable it?

And was there a quid pro quo? Did she get something in exchange? And that would seem, it's a little bit hard to prove. Like, obviously, the most obvious example of a quid pro quo is if you're getting some type of financial kickback. But I think it's also a reasonable to say, well, were you getting a vote campaign in exchange for these programs being enabled, overlooked? And I don't know how you'd expose that. It has to be communication. Are you going to, or a turncoat witness.

Yes, this is what it was. We were out there turning out the vote because of this for Ilan Omar. Right. And I think there's plenty of evidence that she was. in relationship with some of the Safari restaurant fraudsters. Not only did she hold her campaign party there, but she cut an ad in Somali that aired on Somali TV showing that she was there supporting the Meals Act

and people should go get their meals at the Safari Restaurant. So we played that in our committee. And she also got campaign contributions from a lot of the feeding our future fraudsters. When it was revealed that they were indicted, then she returned the money. But clearly she did benefit politically and financially, until she returned the money.

Is she alone? Like, where else does this go? I mean, Governor Tim Walts is at least, again, at a minimum, embarrassed enough that this happened under his watch, that he didn't seek re-election as governor. But is there more to it than that when it comes to Walts? Or what about Attorney General Keith Ellison? Yes.

Well, it's well documented that they all received campaign contributions from the fraudsters, and they claim they all returned the money when they were charged. But interestingly, we had Keith Ellison, hearing in our committee last spring a year ago. And he claimed he had returned all the money, but we found he indeed had not. And so we highlighted that contribution to him in a letter, and he did eventually return it a couple months later. But even what they're saying wasn't factually correct. So, and Ellison met with the fraudsters while they were suing the Minnesota

Department of Education, and he was their lawyer before they were indicted. And he said, well, we're going to, let's go fight these people, meaning his own department, who was slowing down the application process. So I think there's a lot more to uncover. Unfortunately, as legislators, we don't have access to their emails, to their cell phone records. That's where our partners in the federal government can step in. And I know certainly we've had tremendous support from the Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, the CMS folks at Department of Human Services. So there is a whole of government effort to find the root of this fraud and get rid of it.

And are you optimistic there? Representative, whether or not it's VP Vance's Fraud Task Force or the agencies that you just mentioned as well. I think we just get accustomed in politics to when I asked you, what does accountability look like? Ultimately, it doesn't mean much. It just means, honestly, somebody like me talking about it on the news that potentially down the road has electoral impact. on these politicians, meaning it hurts Ilan Omar's chance to get reelected or Keith Ellison's. But I think if this is what we all suspect is, then people demand a little more accountability. Like we want to see Keith Ellison pay a real price. Ilan Amar pay a real price if this is what they're

doing. Are you optimistic? So I follow the facts in the law. And I hope whoever has committed crime will be held accountable. And I think I'm out there every day. Minnesotans are so frustrated. More than $9 billion of our tax money has been stolen. So I totally understand and share the frustration. I'm dealing with this every day and nobody wants accountability more than I do. But we also have to trust the process a little bit and let the Department of Justice do their work and find the facts. And if it can be proven that they were culpable, they absolutely should go to jail. If not, you know, Tim Wall's already stepped down. That's a measure of accountability. He knew he would lose his reelection because of his absolute dereliction of duty on the fraud. So I feel like voters have

the ultimate say in a democracy. And so they can turn these people out of office. And I hope they express their frustration at the ballot box. As you pointed out to us, this has been going in Minnesota for more than a year, for years looking into this. It did explode roughly over Christmas with Nick Shirley's viral videos. Now California is passing a law that kind of has been named conversationally. The Stop Nick Shirley Act. What do you make of what's happening in California? I mean, the scope of the fraud there, I think, will exceed Minnesota just because their size of their state is so much bigger. And we should welcome investigative journalists. We should welcome Nick Shirley and other, we've had great local investigative journalists here in Minnesota as well,

who have really exposed some of these fraudsters and some of this just so obvious fraud when somebody does the work that the agency should be doing. Drive by, do a site visit. You know, that's what Nick did. And our staff had done similar work. We had photos of these. empty places. We had child care centers with nobody in the parking lot, no playgrounds. So we were aware of it and we were working on it as well. We had given the list of 72 childcare centers. Many of them were on next video back in February of 2025. So we were working on it. But what I love is that this generation and this viral exposure blew the lid off it. And so I think we should welcome that investigative journalism, both from a professional journalist like yourself and from the people like Nick.

In Minnesota, it's largely focused around the Somali community. We also had reporting here from the Daily Wire about in Ohio as well, it's centered around the Somali community. We've also had reporting in Maine that some of this is centered around the Somali community. in California, I think there's a suspicion it's much broader or wider. Is this fraud at large, which Dr. Oz and others are looking into, is this something that is much more widespread than even has gotten the public's attention in terms of, yes, in places it's been dominated by certain immigrant groups, but the fraud itself is so dispersed and so large, we've only begun to scratch the surface. Yes, I still think we're at the tip of the iceberg. And some of this is because of these tight-knit immigrant communities. It's not about race.

It's about that these tight-knit groups, some of them are clan-based like the Somali community. They, you know, have these informal networks. So the fraud in the Somali community in Washington State and in Ohio and in Maine has been linked to the fraud in Minnesota because of familial or clan-relations. relationships. And I think we saw similar in California, it's these tight-knit communities that engage in this and word spreads by word of mouth or they have a strong trust relationship. But I think what we haven't finished seeing is how it's in every state and how all of these programs are riddled with fraud. And until I was with Dr. Oz last week in Minnesota, and we have to stop the fraud so we can save these programs, which really are needed by the elders

lead by the disabled. Like we, we're not saying we don't want a safety net, but we want to preserve the safety net for the people who need it. And that's why we have to get rid of the fraud. And I think Dr. Oz is on it. The vice president is on it. Colin McDonnell, the new AG for fraud, like they have put together a fantastic team. And they are going to root it out so that we can have the safety net Americans and Minnesotans deserve. And you've seen their presence in Minnesota. You've seen the power, I presume, of their investigation. And, you've seen the power, I presume, of their investigation. and they're getting things done. I presume what you're telling us,

that, for example, as a state legislature, you don't have the power to do, subpoena, phone records, or whatever. Has it changed the game with the feds coming in and being involved? Absolutely. So I reached out to the feds last July and asked them to audit all of the DHS programs here in Minnesota. And then they started coming in in August and CMS. And they have a strike force here that I believe comes weekly to me. with DHS and they identify these 14 high-risk programs. We close down the housing stabilization

program. It's unheard of to close down a program. And that's the value of them getting in the game with us because we don't have the authority as legislators to do it. But at the federal government where they have the money that flows through the states, they can shut it down and they can have these requirements. They're doing a revalidation right now of all of our providers. It's fantastic. Like so many, it's stunning, honestly. So much. many of the providers who were fraudulent have not applied for revalidation. So they're cleaning out just hundreds and hundreds of these providers who didn't even bother to apply for revalidation because now they've been found out. So hopefully on the justice side, they're also going to go to

jail, but we're cleaning out all these programs. It's been fantastic. Oh, I'm just curious. As a follow up there, would you have a percentage? Like, what percentage of providers have not applied for revalidation? Overall, I don't know, but the revalidation deadline is May 31st, so we'll know next week. But anecdotally, in just one program, I think they'd had 540 providers, and as of maybe

four weeks ago, nine, nine it applied for revalidation, like hundreds. Really? Yeah, it's stunning. And we had another hearing about just the adult daycare, and we had a 43% increase in providers and only a 7% increase in recipients. So that delta is probably the fraud, because the guardrails for these programs are so low that anybody can apply to be a provider, and there's no cap on the number of providers.

So they're just applying to be a provider and start billing Medicaid, and nobody checks on them. And every state in the country should be watching for this. any delta between the number of new providers and the number of recipients, that's probably fraud. Everyone should check it out in their own states. Oh, wow. Well, we would appreciate an update on May 31st. I would be curious how many of those apply for revalidation. That's a stunning number, as is the one you gave us about the explosion in new providers versus recipients.

Because I think this is amorphous to a lot of us. The fact that it's in these tight-knit communities gives us something that we can imagine, and that gives it its organizational nature because fraud can be so diffused. like there's a lot of fraudsters. But when it's in these immigrant communities or these tight-knit communities, now you can see that's organized in some fashion. But that makes it tangible as well, what you're saying, like the number of revalidations and the explosion providers.

So come May 31st, I would love an update on those numbers. I would love to know how many reapplied for validation. Because if you didn't, I mean, I'm not saying that means you're a fraudster, but it definitely suggests you're a fraudster. Exactly. It's a red flag. And yes, we put together these webs, our staff on our committee. So how it works is somebody, it originally started in child care. And there was a group of child care fraudsters that were getting away with child care fraud. And we were just starting to prosecute him in 2018. Tim Walts got elected in 2019. We had this big, very public office of legislative auditor report on child care fraud. And instead of doubling down to stop the fraud, Tim Walls closed.

down the criminal investigation unit. And the child care fraud, many of those people then became the feeding our future fraudsters. And then that morphed into autism centers, sober homes, assisted living, integrated community supports, housing stabilization. So we have created these webs where you can see this person owns non-emergency transportation, assisted living, an adult daycare. They own several of these businesses. And it's the same person.

and the state cuts off funding for one, but not for all the others. It's stunning. We have a guy who just got convicted last month in feeding our future, and his wife runs two assisted living facilities in property he owns that he bought with the shell company he used in feeding our future, and the state is still paying them. You cannot make it up. They say they cannot just stop payment to the wife. Like, it's crazy, but it is these networks.

And they're in multiple businesses. is. Incredible. All right, Representative Robbins, thank you so much for being with us here today. Keep us up to date on what happens in Minnesota. Yes, thanks for covering it. Nice to see you. All right, nice to see you as well. All right. It's another day where two of a day stands still under the weather and tinfoamats still at Disneyland or Disney World or Universal Theme Parks or Epcot, wherever he takes his family on his day off. We'll find out. Tomorrow. when he returns. That's going to do it for us today. We hope you'll follow us on Spotify or Apple.

We'll see you again next time. Listen to 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.