Will Cain Country - Trump’s Unlikely Role in the Epstein Investigation (ft. Senator Markwayne Mullin)

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

If mandatory voter ID has the support of 80% of the electorate, why won’t Congress pass the SAVE Act? Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) joins Will to explain the opposition to the bill. Plus, Senator Mullin weighs in on the recent El Paso airspace closure, new developments in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, and a female teenage wrestler who alleges she was sexually assaulted by a transgender opponent during a match. Plus, Will and The Crew take you behind the scenes on the reporting of the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie and discuss an alleged phone call made by President Trump to law enforcement that potentially led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. 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

Airspace over El Paso shut down for 10 days due to Mexican drug cartels and then mysteriously lifted within 20 minutes. 80% of Americans think you should have voter ID and yet we can't pass the SAVE Act. And a trans wrestler is accused in Washington of sexual. violating his opponent. All that was Senator Mark Wayne Mullet. It's Wilcane Country. It's the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page, the Fox News Facebook page,

Spotify and Apple. Full-time Nancy Guthrie duty. The mystery, the search for the perp, and for Nancy Guthrie. Meanwhile, some very big stories, including the fact that, Donald Trump blew the whistle on Jeffrey Epstein. That flown under the radar, but not today, not here, not on Wilcane country.

We get into it now with the senator from Oklahoma buried somewhere in the bowels of the Library of Congress, a closet next to brooms. Presumably a bucket we find the senator. What's up, Senator? I am in the closet of the Library of Congress. We're actually, the irony of it is we're going over the SAVE Act and trying to figure out how to bring that to the floor. So we're over here in a policy meeting, and I had to step out here and find a closet. You can see the library behind me. So I opened the door so it wouldn't be as like I was in an echo chamber.

Is the closet at the Library of Congress closer to a janitorial closet at a random, non-descript building in downtown Dallas or something that would remind you of Nicholas Cage in National Archive. Nicholas Cage. In fact, if you want to, I'll pick up the computer and I'll walk out and you can see what's behind me. It's kind of cool. You want me to show you? Let's do it. Stand up. Yes, for anybody watching on YouTube or on Facebook, you will get to see now the senator, show us the Library of Congress below the closet from which he is broadcasting from a listening now. Senator, tell us what we're seeing. So that is the, that's the congressional room. So the closets look like this. That's my call, that's my call room. So there's a little bitty secret staircase right there that goes through an unscripted door that you wouldn't notice.

And that's the congressional reading room that you're looking at here. That is incredible. So what happens in the congressional reading room at the Library of Congress? Well, every day they set out papers from around the, uh, truly around the world, that you can go in, you can read. We have a code that we have access to 24-7, and then you can request any literature of the millions of books they have here, and they deliver them for you.

So if you're doing research on any topic, you can say, like, look, I need the top three books on this. I need the top five books. I need references to this, the historical facts behind. So if there's historical articles about something you're dealing with or a history of a country, they'll have it set up for you when you get here and they just pour through it. And then they'll have someone, a researcher with you to help you go through it. So for me, it helps because, man, I'm not one that likes to dig in deep.

I mean, I like to dig in deep, but dig in deep and try finding the tour myself. If I can get it in front of me, I pour through it. But if I can ask somebody to go find it, they can go find it real quick and bring it back to me. So for someone that's got very short on time, you have it already pre-research and you just got to read it. So it's actually really helpful if you utilize it. For anybody listening on Spotify, Apparel Terrestrial Radio, it really is cool looking. It does look like something out of Nicholas Cage's National Archives. But here's a question for you, Senator, on this.

Is it antiquated? Meaning not in a charming way. I don't mean that because I do see the gold, the paneled ceilings, the gold leaf trim from around what you're sitting. It's beautiful. But when I say antiquated, what I mean is, is it necessary? With everything in your pocket, in your phone, with AI, with research so easy, is it obsolete the Library of Congress? No, I mean, is a space needed? No, a lot of the material that you find, remember AI and the stuff you find online is only there,

because someone put it online or they had an opinion about it and it's a interpretation of something that is that's read. So there's a lot of stuff that they'll pull that's not been scanned. It hasn't been uploaded, but you can find topics on it, but their topics has been interpreted. And you know how an interpretation goes. You know, you can tell somebody one thing and then have them stand right beside somebody and lead it down a line of 10 people. And by the time it gets to the end, it's not even close to the same. So what the library does is it allows you to go straight to the source and not the interpretation over 100 years or 20 years. And so it does, if I can't get a straight answer, you know, how many times you do chat GDP or GDT, what is it, chat sheet, whatever it is, whatever, you use one of these platforms and you ask it three questions and every time you ask it, it can come back something else.

or you can go to different platforms and you get a different interpretation. That's what the Library of Congress does is it takes you straight to the source. And that, so that does help. Yeah, original source. Original source material. Chat GDP, that would be a great rename for Chat, GPD. Chat GDP is looking bright, by the way. It is.

Not so bright and not a great testament to the continued usefulness of the Library of Congress is that when you showed us, the reading room, I believe it was empty. I hope we didn't disturb the reading of Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett down there, but I didn't see her studying away. So I don't know how often you bump into AOC in the reading room. Never. You know what's interesting, and I mean this sincerely, I've never bumped into, and I don't mean this ugly, because if I did, I wouldn't say this. If I mean, as far as if I, this isn't a joke, I've never bumped into a Democrat here, not one single time. Now, I'm not saying that they don't. Maybe we just have different sleeping patterns, but there's only a few people that actually use this probably on a somewhat regular basis.

And I've been guilty of not using it for lengths of time because it's not always something I need. But it is, you know, it's sometimes I say it could be useless space. That's sad. That's sad. I would have expected Congresswoman Crockett to be a regular attendee at the congressional reading room. You might have more time to sleep here. Your library card is punched, Jasmine. Yeah. You might, you might, you know, it looks like, I might have more time to see her.

I can't, I can't think of what's going on the Democrat Party there to see that she's leading the Democrat primary in Texas. I'm just like, my mind's just blown, just blown by that. She might be a colleague. Yeah. She might be a colleague of yours in the city. Please don't. Please don't do that to me, Will. Please don't.

That's it. the esteemed nature of the United States Senate. And now your six minutes, Senator Crockett. Let's talk about what you said you're working on right now. Let's talk about the Save Act. The idea of proving who you are in order to vote is one that is accepted readily by, I believe, it's roughly 80% of the population, 70% of Democrats, 75% of black Americans, 80% of Hispanic Americans, and 90% of Republicans believe this is a good thing to prove that you're a United States citizen before you vote. And yet Democrats stand in the way. And the shocking thing is I'm not sure it passes the Senate because Democrats aren't the only one standing in the way, Senator.

Some of your Republican colleagues like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, not into the SAVE Act. So I mean, 37 states in the union already have voter ID. So to vote, not just to register to vote, but to vote. So the idea that 13 states, which all 13 states are blue states and all 13 states went for Harris and Biden, I'm sure there's some type of line to be drawn there. But 37 states already have this. And of course, Chuck Schumer goes out and calls it Jim Crow 2.0 because when you can't have a logical argument about it, the first thing they start saying is it's racist. The truth is, in 37 states, you haven't seen the minority vote suppressed. You're not seeing the ACLLU go out and start saying that they're going to file lawsuits in these states

because they know the same thing. You can't do anything in this country without an ID. You can't buy tobacco. You can't buy alcohol. You can't get a bank account. You can't buy a car. You can't rent a car. You can't get a hotel.

You can't use a credit card at a hotel. You can't go into a bar. You can't sign up for government programs. I mean, you can't even enroll in college. You can't fly. You can't do anything. You can't even get on a train if you don't have an ID. And so to say that we need to have it to vote isn't that unrealistic. The problem that you have up here with a few Republicans, not the majority of us. I think there's 50 or 51 Republicans that are already co-sponsors of the SAVE Act.

But you do have Mitch McConnell that's pushing back and Lisa is pushing back. those two are the only one that's been vocal about it, saying that it's that is federalizing the election. But if you actually go to Article 1, Section 4, it's not that. It says that the federal government, we can do certain things with federal elections, not state elections. State elections are state-bound. They can have their own state regulations underneath it. But we already set like the distance between when a runoff has to take place, or we see. set the general date. We don't set the primaries, but we set when the general election is going to

happen. We also set certain rules to Senate and to House of appointments or elections on it. And we also say in the Constitution, that you've got to be a citizen of the United States before you can vote in federal elections. So we're not telling states where and how to have the elections. What we're saying is that you've got to prove that you're a citizen, and when you do show up to vote, when you register your vote, you got to prove your citizen, but when you show up to vote, you got to have an ID reflecting that that is you who did register to vote, and you already proved since, approve of citizenship. And so the whole part that we're trying to federalize election is not accurate.

This isn't like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi when they were trying to ram our, around federalizing elections when they were literally going to tell states that they had a mail ballots to everybody in the state, that they didn't want to have proof of citizenship, that they were also trying to say that census, you know, that when we went through and did the, you know, the population census every 10 years, that you had to count illegals in that census too because they could pick up more seats in blue states. And so it's, the argument falls on death of years. We'll probably bring this up in two weeks and have a vote. It will probably still fail the Senate, but we'll pass it with, I would say, 51 votes. I don't think we could get any

more than that, but we'll probably have 51, and then the Senate would vote it down. That's our expectations. Now, remind you, 37 states already have a similar law in place that this save act already has. And out of those 37 states, there's several Democrat senators that represent those states. So you never know once you put it on the floor what the final vote tally will be with the Democrats. Because you need 60. Because of the filibuster, you need 60. We have to have a six. We need 16 unless we do away to the filibuster. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with Senator Mark Wayne Mullen on Will Kane Country. This is Ainsley Earhart. Thank you for joining me for the 52 episode podcast series, The Life of

Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma. Is there any appetite to do away with the filibuster? This continued stagnation of the legislative agenda, and I understand the purpose of the filibuster. I understand the checks and balances. I understand it should be hard to pass laws. It's the very nature of the, the, constitutional form of government that we have, but it's really turned into a situation where you can't get anything, really anything done with the filibuster. Well, I'm in the mind that we need to really

rethink where we're at, the position we're at, because if you go to the history of the Senate, the Senate wasn't a 60-vote margin or, you know, a supermajority. The Senate used to be a simple majority, but it had endless debate. And the debate, which was actually not put in place until 1807 when we did away with what we called the previous question was set up with similar as the filibuster today. It was in place until 1907. So 100 years, we didn't have, we, we, we didn't have anything but the simple majority, but you had endless debate that was put in place. In 1917, which is 117 years later, they had a few senators holding the floor. And so they went to what they had two thirds, which is basically today would be 67 votes.

Back then, it wasn't 67 votes because we didn't have all 50 states in place. And then in 1970-5 is what they put us to the three-fifths to where we are today at 60-vote threshold, because each time we ran into a stalemate where Senate couldn't get their job done. Well, we're back in that place again. It's 2026, and we're back in the same place we were the other three times where we've had to look and read look at the rules, not constitutional, We're not changing the Constitution. Constitution is silent on this. It's the Senate rules. And so if you look at the Senate rules, I think it's time that we do look at what is holding up the progress of this great nation.

Because we've been getting polarized by the Democrats' hatred towards President Trump. It has nothing to what's right for America. There's hatred towards America to President Trump that's holding up the country from moving forward. And there is an argument to say, we know the Democrats are going to do this. the Democrats are going to do this if they refine themselves in complete power. And if we know they're going to do it, what are they going to do it for? We, Republicans, we want to do it for good governing. We want to have, we want to be able to govern the nation, put the strong economy in place, put the rules and regulations that's choking the economy in checks and balances and balance our budget

and build and move forward. What they want to do is they want to use it for political purposes. If they change the filibuster, then what they're going to do is they're going to, they're going to pack the courts. So they already said they would do that. They want to make DC a statehood, which would give them two more Senate seats and at least one more House seat. Maybe Puerto Rico, maybe Guam. Of course, Puerto Rico right now, if you look at it, they're probably more Republican than they are Democrat, but you just never can count that in for sure. But they're going to try to change the foundation of our country not for governing purposes. So if they're going to do it, and that's not an argument that they're going to do it, then Republicans should do it underneath President Trump.

We should do it now and put the policies. place that's going to steer the economy of this country for quite some time. Senator Markway Mullen sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning. Airspace under the FAA was stopped for reportedly 10 days over El Paso. The El Paso airport was shut down, as reports were for 10 days. Mexican drug cartel drones are the stated reason. That lift, that air restriction was lifted. it feels like some 20 to 30 minutes later.

What happened in El Paso, Senator? Well, I haven't fully read in on this, but I was slightly briefed. Essentially, as you said, the drug cartels were flying drones inside the airspace. We had to reposition some assets we had that we could prevent those drones from coming over the border.

They weren't coming in from the United States or coming in from WREs. And so once we were able to position those, then we had to reroute air traffic controllers so we wouldn't. So we could have the jamming signals in place to able to jam the drones, but we didn't want to affect the FAA air traffic. So we basically had to work with El Paso. It moved really quickly underneath Sean Duffy and his ability to adjust the assets. that border patrol had in place. We were able to put the assets in place real quick to secure the border and or secure the airspace and then reroute traffic to use a different direction

and a different path for run for 10 days. An initial 10 day shutdown. That's serious. Well, we've never done it before. So the first reaction was, is we don't know how long it's going to take to organize and put the assets in place. Once we started it, it was remarkable, remarkable how quick, we were able to re-secure the airspace.

It really, it's going to be something that we're going to have to look at a future airports on and have assets positioned because of where El Paso was actually located, because we had already been having trouble with the cartels flying drones over and dropping drugs. We had the assets in place to be able to do it. This wouldn't be possible, let's say, if it was in. Dallas, Texas, right? It would be a much harder task in the Dallas in the DFW area. Okay. One of the news stories that was unfortunately flown under the radar while the nation's attention has been captivated by the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, is that more documents have been released from the Epstein files. And for the past six to eight months, there's been a huge clamoring among the Democrats for the,

the release of the Epstein files. Under the belief that this is going to implicate President Donald Trump, you can't post an article on social media from a Fox News account without the primary comments underneath that article being released the Epstein files, accusations that anyone who is a pedophile. And yet now that some more information has been released, what has been released is that Donald Trump, in 2006, I believe it is, called a local. law enforcement in Florida in Palm Beach and told them, hey, this guy's an awful guy. Good for you. Focus on him. Get after him. And also said, and focus on Galane Maxwell, I believe the quote is, she is evil. Many are describing it as a whistleblower type situation.

It seems this is huge. And this is getting very little attention, Senator. Well, it doesn't fit the narrative that the Democrats have, which is honestly, the Democrats had this same information, and they could have released this same information they wanted to when Joe Biden was in office. The truth is they didn't want to release it because it didn't fit what they were saying. And we all know this for a fact. If there was anything in these files, when Garland was at DOJ, when Biden was in office, they would have released anything they could have on President Trump. Even if they didn't legally release it, they would have leaked it out, and it would have made it its way to its public. We aren't surprised. I have not surprised. I talked to President

Trump about this in length, and he was wanting to release it. There was a lot of pressure from other actors, especially around the world, that was kind of not wanting to or wanting to negotiate. There were some courts. A lot of courts was pushing back that had the files that were taken through grand juries that were sealed. Pam Bondi, you know, the public thinks that they can Pambani can just wave a wand and everything can be released real quick. That's not true because once it's in court and judge of us sealed it, you've got to work through the courts to get them unsealed. But as these documents are dropping, the Democrats have a tremendous amount of guilt on their face. And Trump is looking just like we knew he would.

A very honest, straight shooter. Let's take a quick break. But continue this conversation with Senator Mark Wayne Mullen on Will Kane Country. Welcome back to Will Cain Country. We're still hanging out with Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma. What do you mean there was a tremendous amount of pressure from other actors around the world? So if, and I, let me see, Will, I'm going to walk in on this because I have been, I went through some classified briefings on this. And so I need to, so, okay, one, let's use a guy named Andrew, for example, who is attached to a, a, a, uh, a, uh, a guy named Andrew, for example, who is attached to a, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a,

a certain country. There was a lot of pressure from the family that was afraid that this would look bad on them and his relationship with him. So there was some pressure from there. There was some pressure from the Caribbean area that was afraid that this would look like they were harboring and abetting,

which we were very, We were very assurance on them that this isn't a reflection on them. This was a loophole that Jeffrey Epstein was using. And I believe there possibly could be some more names that come out that would probably make my statement a little bit clearer as the names get released. Connections. There's constantly been concerned, questions, and some evidence out there. Connections to intel agencies around the world?

No, I haven't seen any of that. I can tell you, I have not seen any of that. In fact, all the information we're getting was gathered by a lot of our intel agencies and not just in the U.S., but our partners, too. It looks like they were feeding a lot of the information. It's just some people were setting on it and wasn't actually doing it. You had a lot of, I mean, think about the influence that if it is accurate about Bill Gates. I'm meaning that very sincerely here, if it was accurate about Bill Gates.

what type of influence money like that has? Not necessarily here in the halls of Congress because I don't think Congress, it doesn't appear that Congress was even read in on this or knew anything about it, so I'm not saying Washington, D.C. was, I'm not trying to say that we were innocent in this, but I'm saying it doesn't appear that Washington, D.C. was ever part of this decision.

It was locked up in courts when they were investigating, they would get a lot of the stuff, a lot of documents sealed on purpose. and it takes, as I said, once a grand jury locks up these documents and the judge seals them, the DOJ can't just go in there and open it. They have to get it signed off by them. And so you go back to how long the first time Epstein was investigated in Florida, and then you look into what was happening in New York, you have two areas that were keeping the majority of this stuff locked up,

where the DOJ couldn't release it as simple as we thought we could. All right, we have about five minutes left together before the senator has to get back to the job of being a senator. The other story I wanted to ask you about is something that you have a great amount of personal expertise in, and that is a story from the world of wrestling. You have three daughters who wrestle. You wrestled. There's a story, this is personal, yeah, the story out of Washington. The reports are, and I'm going to couch everything in the characters.

of an allegation, but it's a high school wrestling meet in Washington females. One of, as it turns out, unbeknownst to apparently many of the competitors in the event was a male, a trans female, in the competition. The true female in the competition alleges that during the match, she was sexually assaulted, that the other wrestler's hands went to her private area. I think she even allegation alleges penetration. There's some video real time of the event, and you can see the female wrestler's face is pretty appalled and mouth something to her mother. Her mother can't make it out. The referees line of the side apparently isn't right there.

But you can see in the video the movement of the trans wrestler where he puts his hands, how he positions his arm and so forth. And now there is, I believe, much delayed, but an invest. I don't know if you got to see the video, Senator, but I'm curious what you make of this story. Well, first, I have three daughters that wrestle. I have six kids at wrestle. I have two that wrestle for Oklahoma State University. One that wrestles for the University of Oklahoma. Those are my boys. And then I had three girls that are in high school that are in Bigsby High School wrestling team, which was one of the best girls' wrestling programs in the nation. I think it's in the top five. And one's the hundred. pounder, the other one's a hundred and seven pounder and the other one's a 125 pounder. And I'm pretty protective of my boys. I've literally, and I coached them. I can't coach my girls because I get very protective of them.

The daddy side of me comes in place. And when I have a male coach, just hollering at a girl to do something to my daughter, I don't handle it well. And I know my personal boundary, so I have to step back. I can't imagine what I would do if my high school daughter stepped on a mat with a high school trans female or a high school male pretending to be a girl.

I don't, I don't, and that same circumstance happened. I would probably be arrested for assault and I'm not trying to talk tough. I'm just saying personally, I know how I react. This is why males should never be able to participate in. in a female sport. I don't care if it's a non-combative or if it's a combative sport like wrestling, especially wrestling that is, you position,

your hands do go into positions sometimes. Your body goes in positions that are extremely vulnerable and that's why a lot of people laugh about wrestling because of the nature of wrestling. But there's never an excuse for something like that to happen, but there's never an issue for a male to be able to allow to participate in a female sport. I'm just sorry.

And this is why someone's going to get hurt. Fortunately, that's never happened. Not just the athletes that's going to get hurt. The athlete that's pretending to be a female, that's a male, is going to get hurt. Because this is what I would do. If I wasn't physically there to be able to take care of it, I would expect my boys that are men themselves to take care of it, to protect their sisters, that wouldn't fly. And I'm not like, once again, well, I'm not. not trying to talk tough. I'm saying this is the danger side of allowing this to take place.

Because when I say when you first started it, I knew where you're going with it. And I said, it's personal because it just gets my blood boiling. And I guarantee you that that female athlete has a dad out there that's feeling the exact same way that I am about this. It just, it should never take place. What kind of world we lose? With your expertise in wrestling. With your expertise in wrestling, Yeah. With your expertise in wrestling, one last question on this. You know, I read the article about this and it referenced it. It's, you made the reference a moment ago, awkward things happen in wrestling. And there's like, I guess it's a quasi-joke, but check the oil, meaning it happens from time to time. And yeah, and usually when it happens, the offending party, like jerks their hand back pretty quickly. It's not, it's pretty obviously unintentional. I don't know if you've seen the video of this, but the expert, analysis that I've read is everything about this movement is unnatural. It was two coaches who are not connected to this story, analyzed the video and said, reaching in that way at that time in that position is not a move. I don't know if you've seen the video, but if you have a wrestling

thought on that. Let me talk to you. It might happen accidentally, probably not. Anybody that's got their oil checked, it probably wasn't accidental. You see it in UFC fights too, by the way. You see it in a lot of these grappling matches, it's not accidental. Maybe one out of a hundred that is accidental. And I may or may not have been guilty of the same thing, you know, checking somebody's old or having mine checked. I mean, I'm just saying it's just, it's usually a jerk move when it takes place. And so I would say in this particular case, it wasn't accidental. I can't guarantee it. I'll watch the video if you want to and I can, I can holler back at you, you know, on, I can text here or something, but I would say it's probably not accidental, especially if it happened

and if the penetration took place in the, you know, in, in the female area. That's a hard reach, and I'm not trying to be graphic here, but that is a very, that's a, and a very awkward position. Natural. Yes, very unnatural position for you to find yourself in your hand. be in because you're typically going inside the thigh. So you grab, because when you're doing that, you're grabbing, you're grabbing inside the thigh because you're getting an angle. You're pulling yourself around, not pulling up. Right, right. Well, I knew you would have personal expertise on that and a

personal passion and opinion on that. So a perfect person to ask about this story, which I think is going to gain some steam and attention here. All right, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen from the congressional reading room. We really appreciate your time today. It's always good to talk to. Senator. Thank you. Thank you. Brother. Appreciate it. All right. Take care. All right. Nancy Guthrie. Now, this has dominated everything for going on

almost a week now. And we haven't talked about it here on Will King Country. And the fellas, tinfoil Pat and two a day and thought, well, Will has become a breaking news real-time expert. What can I tell you, as they have some questions, about this story behind the scenes. That's next on Wilcane Country. Scott's text from Senator Mark Wayne Mullen.

He's now looked at the video of the wrestling incident in the state of Washington. It is Wilcane Country. It's the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page. We're always here. Just follow us on Spotify and Apple. Tenfold, Pat, two days. I literally just got this text from the senator. That's funny.

I guess he got the video really quickly. He said, just saw it, that is 100% completely unnatural move. No excuse whatsoever for that to take place. That's a wild story. That wrestling move in Washington. Pretty wild, he said also, by the way, about the oil checking thing. It's a jerk move. I can't say I've never done it, basically. I don't think I want to wrestle. But dude, I mean, it just shows. That highlights, look, there's a certain tolerance for that, not a tolerance or acceptance or understanding. That's a jerk move, but it happens, it could happen to you.

You may be the jerk in that moment for whatever reason. But doesn't that just all of a sudden put the highlight and the extra attention on? We all intuitively, instinctually, yeah, but that's why dude should never be with women in this. You know what I mean? It's like, I don't know. I imagine some guy could like be totally, that's an assault against another guy if that happened. But, you know, I don't know. There's a different.

that's the whole point. It's just different. It's different. You can't really explain it, but it is. With men and women. Yeah. Right. I don't understand that people get upset about this.

Like, I understand inclusivity, but damn, man, this is wild. Wow, are you guys turning? A dude should never be competitively pitted against a woman, most especially in a combat sport. Yes. Why is, that's like the most obvious thing in the world. But, like, is it, I don't even, this is the, this is the, like whatever in me being like is it because we is it uncomfortable to talk about that the physical strength of men over women i mean just genetically i don't know is that why people don't want to

talk about it pat well there's a lot of reasons that's one patrick talks about that he thinks that they've done a real disservice by turning all these female action heroes into somebody that could beat up 20 dudes yeah that's true you watch a marvel movie they take down like 35 Not even. Yeah. So we're just pretending like that's equal playing field. Okay. Nancy Guthrie.

You know what? How many times have you said that name? You can ask me what you... It's taking over the TV show. Patrick, it's not taking a list show. You're the one to stop. He's putting it out of you. You're the one that produced this part of our show today.

You're the one that put it in the rundown and said, we should talk about this. But you, tinfoil, you're the one that gets all the emails. And tell me the nature of the... Trust me, I've seen my social media, too. You tell me the nature of the bulk of the emails.

So about a third of them, maybe close to half, but I'd say about a third, are, would you report something else other than the Nancy Guthrie thing? Because I used to love your show, and now I don't, because it's all you talk about is Nancy Guthrie, Nancy Guthrie.

Two days. By the way, I've been doing it for two days. You used to love my show. Two days. Two hours of two days. To be fair, I don't know what happened Friday because you were off that day. So they might have reported on it then, too. I don't know.

But a lot of them are just people who are like, it's almost, this is a live true crime event that we're experiencing. And a lot of people are giving their breakdowns. They're like, Will, what about this? Did you see this guy, the guy's teeth? Did you, is that a, is that a, everyone becomes a detective online. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, I think a lot of people are fascinated by the true crime element to it. Yeah, it becomes a, um, well, at a minimum, it becomes sort of a, a 48 hours.

What's that show? 40, is it just called 48 hours? Um, well, there's other ones. Like, wasn't they're talking about 48 hours on, on ABC? back in the day. Yeah, yeah. It's like a Netflix series. How about that?

That's an easier one. A dateline unfolding in real time. Yeah. In real. And that's what I was going to say. That's at a minimum. It is like a Netflix series, Dan, unfolding in real time. And so look, that demands a great amount of interest from people.

And I'm just here to tell you, like, I don't hide the ball. is it the most important story in America? No. Is it something that a lot of America is very interested in? Absolutely. Now, I could give you any number of metrics that validates that. Most notably, ratings, like I know how many people tune in and tune out, right? And people are tuned in for this. That's the truth. Okay? Now, does ratings, Should that be what we, you know, exclusively and only rely on? And absolutely not. I totally agree. I think this Trump Epstein story is huge. And I think we should be talking about. And that's why we did here today.

I think I consider my job in part, in part to be like, it's like if you saw a massive group of people headed for a cliff like Lemmings, ready to dive off. the cliff. I think a great job of a big part of my job is to stand at the edge of the cliff going, stop! Hey! Whoa! Right? Or, less dramatically, all headed in the direction of something false and wrong and manipulated in their mind. And what more importantly, that there are other lemmings of they're going, Will's wrong. Keep running, boys! You know, then my job is to go, BS. And the Epstein story is that. The Democrats yesterday posted from their social media account the line, everybody knows that Epstein's an awful guy or everybody's always know. Something like that, right?

It's supposedly a quote from Donald Trump. And then they posted their framing of it. I've talked to you guys about framing. The framing was, see, Trump always knew. What they leave out is that's a line from his call to the police department when he's telling them, hey, focus on Epstein. And so right now, that's a huge story that I'm like, whoa, it's like the very fine people thing. A huge percentage of our population ran over the cliff of believing that Donald Trump said that Nazis were very fine people. Okay.

And to this day, even though that record has been corrected and that hoax has been exposed, I would be very fascinated by the percentage of the population that still believes that he said that, right? And by the way, you could show them the video that disavows them of that conclusion, and I don't know that they would change their opinion. I don't know that they were because they're wedded to. Yes, right. There's going to be some other reason they want to believe the falsehood. Well, the Epstein thing is now in that lane. It is now in the lane, because I know every social media comment, it's like Trump's a pedophile. You're a pedophile.

You support pedophilia. Release the Epstein files, which is really the wildest thing in the world of Democrats are there because as Mark Gwynne, and it pointed out, they had everything for four years, meaning the presidency to Senate and the House. They had Joe Biden's ability under the DOJ to do whatever they wanted to get Donald Trump, and they did do whatever they could to get Donald Trump. But they somehow didn't do this? They're like, no, but not the Epstein deal. And now it's the number one thing that everybody on the left believes, huh? Their own team might have been involved, like people they know and are friends with. That's probably why. Or it was a nothing burger, and they knew

that it wasn't going to be something. And yet now it becomes this thing that I would imagine your average person on the left out there believe somehow that Donald Trump was connected to a sex trafficking ring with Jeffrey Epstein. And it's important now to stand at the edge of the cliff going, that's false. Quit running, folks. Quit running. So I think that's a huge story. The point I'm getting into all this is like, yeah, I don't think Nancy Guthrie is the most important.

important story going on in America. And I think that you'll see, by the way, the new cycle move back into some of these other stories as well. But you can't deny the intrigue in this. And by the way, I'm intrigued. I'm intrigued. I wasn't at first. You know, for two days. Same. I wasn't at first. It's unfortunate. It was sad. And, uh, but what? The story? Yeah, just the story. But, you know, you put your effort into different types of stories and things. And, you know, you know, the most intriguing part of it is probably the least discussed part of it at this point, the motive.

The motive potentially is really intriguing, but probably, probably not. So in other words, like, is this connected motive-wise in any way to Savannah Guthrie? Was somebody interested in manipulating a national news media personality toward or a from a story. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. Probably not, but the potentiality exist. Is it more likely? Yeah. Money or what most of these

things always end up being, and I'm not suggesting this is the case, but it almost always is some family issue. You know, most crimes are in some way either really simple in their explanation, money or, you know, domestic in some nature. So that's probably where we end up once we figure out the motive, but the execution of this thing.

And the length of time that has gone on also demands attention. The 11 days is a lot. You had a good question on TV yesterday. And it really shines a light. Sorry? You had a good question on TV yesterday, why it took so long for this video to come out. I think that's a great question. Well, doesn't that give you some interest in, like,

Like, don't you assume at this point that nothing is private? Like, when you go about your daily life, like, I don't know how criminals get away with anything anymore. The phone? Your phone being turned off, too. I didn't know that. You said that on TV. I had no idea. Not that I need to know that, but.

What? Just because your phone's off doesn't mean you're not trackable? Yeah. Yeah. In fact, just because you're, we know this as well. Turn your phone off. They can still listen to you through your phone. That's crazy.

Like, I mean, I think that's, I've been told that by people. who know over and over. It doesn't stop listening just because it's off. What? And so, you know, you add that to the fact that everything in the world is on video now. And by the way, maybe that's a bit overstated. Yesterday, I had a private investigator on the show, and he said to me, you know, one of things you don't realize is most of those cameras, like at traffic lights and places like that,

they live stream, but don't record. So, you know, you go through a traffic light, they're live streaming all of that into a database, into a command center. But they don't keep recordings of this stuff. Now, he said there's something called the flock system, which they do. And they usually put that in high crime areas, but it's not exactly like they put that on every traffic light in every intersection. But, yeah, I mean, the fact that this has gone unsolved and remained a mystery for 11 days, in and of itself, sort of of sort of opened your eyes to, I guess we're not quite completely surveilled to the extent that we thought we are. That being said, Google did go back and get that stuff. Google was

capable at some point of getting that video that was revealed yesterday. Yeah, I just think going back to your point about covering this. So you had some questions for me today is because it's two days in a row of no commercial breaks, live breaking news. It was wild. Nancy Guthrie. I was in the control room. It was crazy. The team does a fantastic job.

It is chaotic in there, but in a good way. But like going back to your point about the... I can't hear you. What's that? You can't hear me? Hello, testing, one, two, three. It's not in the control room. I can't hear it two days.

I don't know what's happened. You can't hear me, one, two, three? Hello. Can you hear me, Patrick? We're getting our audio. I can hear you, Dan. Can you hear Patrick, Will? You can hear it.

You hear it Patrick, Will? Nope. I don't know. I've lost I-fby. What about you, tinfoil? Can I hear you? Talk. Can you hear me? I've lost these guys. I can't interact with these guys. I don't know what's going on. Way to go, Eders. My-B.

Is that howdy down there? Is he messing with stuff? I can't hear you. Huddy. Stop messing with stuff. That's really compelling content. So, I don't know if you. Do you wear a catheter will? Like, how do you go through all those breaks? So I could say whatever I want.

Totally dead. Totally dead. I can see you talking tinfoil about today. I can't hear a word that you're saying. So I don't know if we can solve that in the short term, but this is Will Kane country. This is the digital show. Part of me was supposed to lead into it and let it fly and let it play out, let everybody behind the scenes know exactly what's going on. Testing. Can you hear me now? I'm hardwired in. Everything's plugged in.

Oh, well. Hey, who's in the control room? I'm working on it, Will. I'm working on it. Scott King's working on it. We only got one IFB, so. No. You can't hear Scott King? Well.

Nancy Guthrie. Again today. Now, I will tell you, it's two straight days of live breaking news, no commercial breaks. And I will tell you from a production standpoint, there is an element of this that I actually like, that I really love doing, which is really akin to what we do here. And that is, no production, no plan. Here's who's coming next. Just keep going. Dive in with your curiosity.

Continue to ask every follow-up question that pops into your mind. Are those manicured eyebrows? Is that the mask? Is that a gold tooth in his mouth? Is that a flashlight that he's holding? What are those gloves that he's working on, working with, which are totally non-traditional? Testing.

And so forth. I think every bit of this allows you at some point to tap into something that I think is a little too rare in content production, which is raw, authentic curiosity. Curiosity is the only thing that can drive you. I doubt it's going to be the only thing we focus on today. We will talk about Epstein. We'll talk about the Save Act, I expect.

and other stories that I've been putting on the backburner and building over the coming days here on H-1B visas and the organized and funded nature of the protests that we saw over the last couple weeks in Minnesota. So, thanks for fighting through this today. I might be the only one fighting through it, but thanks for hanging in with the difficulties. But we will be back again tomorrow. Same time, same place. Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Facebook. We will 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.