Will Cain Country - What Can We Conclude From The Release Of The JFK Files?

Episode Date: March 19, 2025

Story #1: Showdown! A federal judge demands to know when the U.S. plane deporting criminal illegal immigrants back to El Salvador left U.S. soil and airspace. What happens next as President Donald Trump and his administration takes on the judicial branch with Author of ‘People's Republic: Blue Flame,' Trial Lawyer, and Senior Columnist for Townhall.com, Kurt Schlichter Story #2: What were the four biggest takeaways of the JFK Files? A conversation with Schlichter and President and Executive Editor at ‘The Daily Signal,’ Rob Bluey.  Story #3:  The rest of Will's conversation with comedian, Andrew Schulz on the most important job in America: motherhood. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

one showdown a federal judge demands to know when the u.s plane taking off left soil here in america when did it leave the united states airspace and when did it land in a foreign country showdown donald trump versus the judicial branch two john f kennedy assassination files 80,000 released and now processed through AI

the four biggest takeaways that in the end suggests there is no way Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut acting alone three Andrew Schultz on the most important

job here in America It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Terrestrial radio, three dozen markets across this great United States of America, always on demand by subscribing at Apple or on Spotify or setting a reminder to join us every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern Time on Facebook or on YouTube. We're going to be joined today by Kirk Schlichter and Rob Blewey, along with revisiting a bit of my conversation with comedian Andrew Schultz. But late last night, the JFK assassination files were released. I believe something like 60,000 of the anticipated 80,000 documents were released to the National Archives.

It's hard to go through that, and people are struggling to digest. They're coming away with easy takes, like the document that shows. that John F. Kennedy Jr. described then Senator Joe Biden as a traitor. Another easy takeaway is that it's all a big nothing burger. It is admittedly confusing and it is admittedly overwhelming. We decided, as a show last night, to use GROC, to use chat GPT, and to use perplexity, three different platforms of artificial intelligence to analyze those 60,000 documents and show us what is new, what is revelatory, and what are the biggest takeaways from the dump of files on the assassination of John F. Kennedy? We'll get into that a little bit later here in the show,

but let's get started with story number one. Kirk Schlichter is the author of Attack. He's a trial lawyer. He's a retired Army infantry colonel, and he's a senior columnist at townhall.com, and he joins us now. What's up, Kurt? Hey, just chilling, I'llan, but no longer Bill. because I'm not practicing law all the time, so I'm pretty excited about that. What was your minimum increment of billing, Kurt? Did you go down to seven-minute increments? Were you stopping at 15?

No, my clients were Fortune 500 companies, and they were hip to the scam, so the minimum was 0.1, and they closely monitored our outrageous billing. But, you know, I'm occasionally doing a thing here or there. for, again, an outrageous hourly fee. But, you know, it's pretty exciting to be like a full-time writer guy. I'm just kind of psyched about that. Every lawyer I've ever known is so excited not have to count their days in three and six-minute increments. And did you take a phone call and how long did that phone call last?

It's just a better life. My dad, Kurt, who was a trial attorney, small town plaintiff's lawyer. Because when you're a small town guy, you also take family. law, you do some defense work as well. He used to have a Old West six shooter framed on the wall with six bullets underneath it and then a placard that said gunfighters don't charge by the bullet. His deal was, of course, contingency fee, we don't charge by the incremental hour. We charge by the job. I was just to love that walking into his office and seeing that plaque. Nobody likes to count their hours and their minutes.

My mom was a prosecutor and then a judge. So for me, it was kind of like being a steel worker punching the clock like dad did. There were these lawyers who were like, oh, the romance of the law. And we're here doing good things. And I'm like, how much money can I make in the smallest amount of time possible? And of course, now with all this crazy stuff going on out there, Will, I'm doing more lawyering than ever on the social media. Because I've got to tell you, there's a lot of terrible lawyers out there.

And I don't know. I look at that. Now, look, if you're a law professor, you are presumptively a bad lawyer. Okay. You, you are presumptively terrible. But there are so many in there who've evidently never met a judge or never argued a case. And they're insane. They come to these bizarre conclusions. They have no idea how courts work or think. And it's, you know, I spend an inordinate amount of my time clearing up people's misconduct. conceptions about the law. It's, uh, and I don't get paid for it, which makes it a tragedy. Now you're not counting it in three minute increments. You're giving it away for free. I've got two quick stories on that before we move into the news, which is going to tie directly into the law. I am one of that group. I am one of those people with a law license and, um, who has not appeared before a judge. But I do find that in what I do for a living, I majored in broadcast journalism. It offers me virtually nothing to advance my career. It is not helpful. And I have advised kids do not major in journalism, learn how to think, get some background and some wisdom and intelligence.

And because of that, I attribute law school heavily to what I use and how I think and how to go about learning. It was incredibly valuable for me to go to law school. But to the point of just because you have a law degree or just because you went to law school, you have some special merit badge that gives you insight. It was this guy in law school, Kurt. And I don't think it was the bar exam. I think it was a, I think it was a final. And he was in some, you know, special classroom test-taking environment that I don't know how you qualified for, but you got to go in there and take your blue book exam, you know, separate from the other students. And he was in there with maybe a dozen others. And he set up and he had like candy bars and a typewriter, whatever, maybe a computer. He had all

this different paraphernalia says to take the test and one of the other gunners in law school who paid attention to all the rules and shot their hand up at every question said hey man i don't i don't think you can have all that in here i don't think that and he responded relax man i've been here before so he had failed more than once and he was there to take the course and the and the test once again he knew very well the rules not everybody who goes to law school is impressive on that note let's get into what's going on with Donald Trump and the judicial branch. He has, as of most recently, everybody knows, this Washington, D.C. District Court federal judge has put a stop or attempted to put a stop to the first flight of deportations of criminal illegal aliens.

And he has since, I guess, grounded other flights until the administration can answer a set of questions about that first flight, like, what time did the flight take off from U.S. soil? When did it leave U.S. airspace? They're supposed to answer these questions today to find out if they violated his order somewhere over, presumably the Gulf of America or Mexico. But he's just one, Kurt. He's one of, I believe we're up to almost a dozen executive orders who have been tied up by district judges across the country. It's more than that. It's more than that.

Yeah. Because of the latest one, I think, is that the transgender ban in the military has also been put to a stop. So you name the executive order. we have a ton that have been stopped by district judges, Kurt. Yeah, my favorite, maybe the transgender one where the judge decided to go do her own research, you know, on the issue, and decided, well, I don't know why I have to take the authority of, I don't know, the guy who was confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I, a district court judge who's never been in the military, let me substitute my judgment for your article to authority.

You know, I look at this and I wonder when Justice Roberts is going to slap this nonsense down. Now, and I blame Roberts because he is an institutionalist. He wants to protect the Article III branch, the judiciary, and he thinks the way to do it is to allow the process to unfold in regular order. Okay, none of this is regular. I want your people to understand that. All these emergency ex parte application for a TRO stay, this never happens. This is not normal stuff. The procedure is not normal.

The substance is not normal. I mean, a judge presuming to tell the President of the United States when a plane he is sent to a foreign country can land or where it can land or when it can land, that's literally insane. insane. None of this stuff is normal. But John Roberts desperately wants to force this back, this round peg into the square hole of normality, and it's not going to work. When you are faced with an abnormal situation, you often have to use abnormal tactics, right? Okay, it's not normal to go punch somebody. You don't do that, right? But sometimes somebody's going to punch you. you have to do something abnormal back. You have to punch him.

You have to step out of the norms because there are no norms and enforce them by doing something that's outside the norms. Anyone who says, well, maybe we can normal this abnormality back into normality is hallucinating and probably a bushy

because this is the kind of old Republican thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. is the abnormality you you referenced several times there is the abnormality you're talking about the circumstances regarding illegal immigration in this country or is it the use of executive orders to the extent that it's been done by the Trump administration to alleviate the the problem of illegal immigration which is the abnormality you're having you're suggesting the system is having trouble grappling with well there are multiple abnormalities and they and they cascade into a tsunami of abnormality. The specific abnormality I was talking about was the district court judges issuing

very detailed micromanaging orders to the executive. I'm surprised I haven't seen one that requires them to use the new cover sheet for their TPS reports. But this comes because of the abnormality of ignoring all our immigration law. I mean, that's what Biden did. There's the immigration law, and he said, well, I'm just not going to enforce it, which kind of is problematic for democracy, but there it is. And then the response to it, the executive orders are abnormal because we haven't had to do those things before, but we've got to do them now to deal with an abnormal situation. And then the abnormal judicial presumption to micromanage the Article 2 executive is itself an abnormality. It is a festival of abnormality. And if you want normality, you've got to stamp it down and not let the abnormality prevail.

And that's the problem will. You get these guys issuing temporary restraining orders. They're really preliminary injunctions that can't be appealed, which for between two weeks and a month, prevent the executive who got elected by the people to do certain things from doing those. certain things. It's a bad situation. Right. And Justice Roberts has no friends on the left. He's not going to have any friends on the right either. And he famously has no armored divisions. So he's got a problem and he wants to save his branch. Okay. There's the there's the practical effect and then there's the legal analysis. Let's talk about the practical effect for just a moment. You you shared a tweet thread this morning, which lays out the practical effect of all of these

preliminary injunctions on Trump's executive orders. The practical effect is that he comes into office, he issues all these executive orders. He starts taking immediate action. This action, by the way, is overwhelmingly popular with the American public, not just illustrated through the mandate of his presidential election, but in current polling, he's at a massive approval rating and a right track that is at least historic in terms of the highest in 20 years. So the American public practically is behind the actions that he is taking to solve problems in the U.S. And the practical effect of all these preliminary injunctions is essentially to shut it down. Yes.

While they are temporary and preliminary, to your point, they drag the legal process out through a series of months. You know, a district judge has a hearing, then he issues his ruling. First, he's already issued the preliminary injunction to stop it. Then it goes to the appellate court, and then it finds its way to the Supreme Court. We're talking about a matter of months over which this plays out. So everything Donald Trump does in his first month of office is shut down, perhaps for as much or more than six months in total, which also, by the way, in a political world, it could be a permanent shutdown because at some point you're on to the legislative process and the political process of a new election and a new Congress. So the practical effect is a complete shutdown of Donald Trump's wishes.

is. The legal analysis, Kurt, though, also has to come in, and I want to talk to you about this for just a moment. So let's just take the one, the one Judge Bostberg in D.C., who has shut down until these questions are answered, the deportation flights of criminals, also practically very popular with the American public. Also, right, on everyone's gut instinct level, right, who really, beyond a few activist groups, want to stop the deportation flights of gangstress? from Venezuela and El Salvador. Nobody wants to stop that. But Donald Trump used the Alien Enemy's Acts of 1798,

and that gave him, without a hearing, the ability to just immediately deport anybody who is a wartime enemy of the U.S., and then comma or an invasion or predatory incursion. But it's never, you know, I had Greg Jared on yesterday, and he said, look, it's not only been used in wartime. It has been used in peacetime in the lead-up to war as well. Yep.

But it has, nevertheless, only been used three times, two of which were World War I and World War II. The administration's argument is this is an Article 2 power of the president, but they do seem to go out of their way to make this argument, Kurt, that Venezuela's government purposefully flooded the U.S. with TDA. And even by making that argument, they seem to be laying the groundwork for how that qualifies under the Alien Enemy Act. Like, the argument that I buy is invasion or predatory incursion. I buy that argument legally. I do too. But then why do you need to go ahead? But then why do you need to lay the groundwork for, well, this is actually a governmental

wartime action by Venezuela. I know how lawyers write briefs and they write briefs to cover every angle. But I almost feel like you water down the weight of invasion and predatory incursion by making the argument. It was coordinated by the Venezuelan government and therefore applies to the alien enemy Act. Well, I think those facts support invasion or predatory incursion. I think to be a predatory incursion, you need to have some sort of intent to damage the United States of America. I think they're establishing that Venezuelan government has that effect by releasing these scumbag

criminals and facilitating their invasion in the United States. What it does also is it anticipates that the Supreme Court is going to allow some sort of judicial review. Now, my take is this is a non-judicial, non-judicial, judicial, political question. And for you guys out there, there are certain questions that the courts should abstain from ruling on, questions that deal with the very clear, unique powers of another branch. For instance, a court should get involved with the Senate filibuster. That's a non-justiciable political question that the Senate needs to deal with on its own. And the use of the American military power, which the Youngstown steel case very clearly shows, is the height of the president's power.

He is acting at the height of his power when he acts in a military or foreign policy capacity. I would argue this is a non-judicial, justiciable political question. and they're doing what you always do as a lawyer. You say A, B, and C, but if not A, B and C, D. Or A, but even if A was true, B. So I, look, I'm very impressed by the, the lawyering I've seen from the DOJ. It's been really sharp. I've been reading the briefs.

They are quality briefs. They are getting right to the legal issues. And it tells me this has all been planned. I don't. None of this was unexpected by the Trump administration. Now, I, I, I, look, I, I, I don't work for the Trump administration. I have made it clear I am not going to work in government again. I spent 27 years doing it dressed like a tree. I'm done. But I got to say, I'm really impressed with this crew because the work that they're doing, they've anticipated this fight and they are picking great fights. All the fights are 80s. 20 issues with Trump on the 80% and the other guys on the 20% right I'm standing up for illegal aliens and dudes who want to come in naked to your girls locker room okay they're politically Trump is really at the height of his power politically as well as legally so he's in very strong position his legal position is very strong his political position is very strong

And frankly, the antics of the courts are really pushing what's tolerable. So I think they have really set up this ambush very well. The left is walking into the kill zone. And we're just going to have to grind it out. I don't think that Trump should outright defy the courts. And keep in mind, the defiance by the executive branch of a judicial ruling is a check and balance provided for by the Constitution. The legislative branch can impeach in an extreme case, because obviously you need 67 people to impeach an official. The executive, in an extreme case,

I'm just not doing it. And the judicial branch is kind of helpless. It is a check. And it's out there, but I don't think we use it. I don't think we're near using it. I think we use these processes. We push them as hard as we can. We continue to pressure John Roberts to protect his institution by getting these outrageous district court judges under control. And we establish powerful precedents that prevent this nonsense from the future. I like the way they're handling it. I think they thought it out strategically and tactical. Okay. A couple of follow-ups here. So, first of all, let's talk. about how this plays out. I hear you that it's non-justiciable, meaning this shouldn't be

subject to the decisions of the court, but it's going to be. And that's why you and I are talking about the Alien Enemy's Act. And we're talking about how that's going to be digested by the court. Will they see it as a predatory incursion? Will they greenlight it because of their reading of the Alien Enemy's Act? Or will, you know, as is the case with most John Roberts' courts, just sort of go along with precedence to preserve the institution, say this is not appropriate use of the Alien Enemies Act. That's going to be the legal argument between the administration and whatever court makes this ultimate decision, presumably the Supreme Court.

But in the meantime, do you argue that, I hear you arguing, Donald Trump should defy the courts. He should defy the TROs. No, no. No. I'm arguing. It's just the opposite. No?

Okay. I'm arguing the opposite. Okay. Have the legal fight. For instance, in the fly away the Venezuelan gang members case, I think, you know, you, after a while you get a sense of what the court's going to do, Roberts is going to follow Marbury Madison. He's going to say, well, it's not a political question and we have potential input into it. And our input is you can do it. You know, you can do it. It's fine. So he preserves the court's ability to have a say and gives, you know, what is the right answer. So I think that's going to happen. And I want that to happen. I want Justice Roberts to get the courts under control. I don't want to defy it. I want to use it. Okay. Okay, wait. So when you say

you want Justice Roberts to get the courts under control, I presume what you mean by that is because he has very little power to say anything to the district judges to change the way this is being handled across the country. Right. But he has speed on his hands, right? That's what he can do. I presume that's what you're saying. He can take these issues up very quickly in the Supreme Court to issue a ruling. You're presuming, by the way, Kurt, in opposition to these varied district judges when it comes to the executive orders. But what if Justice Roberts and his court actually validate these judges, at least some of them? And we'll just use the Alien Enemy's Act as an example. What if he says, no, Trump, you don't have this power? Are you are?

arguing then that Trump should challenge Marbury v. Madison? Like, well, stop me. I'm going to do it. You stop me, judicial branch. And you made the joke a minute ago. You don't have an armored division judicial branch. Stop me. Look, we're going to lose some of these cases. If you're a lawyer, you understand there's a certain percentage of cases. We're not all Jerry Spence. I've never lost a case. Okay. That's not a thing. Yeah. Okay. We're going to lose some of these cases. And you know what? that's okay. I think we're going to win the vast majority of them primarily because we should. These are outrageous procedurally and substantively. So just because we lose one does not mean we throw up our hands and say let's throw the whole system on the bonfire. If we lose all of them

and Trump is effectively not allowed to be president, that's really a very different story. I don't think that's going to happen. But there are, like I said, there's that, you know, tactical nuclear weapons sitting in Trump's pocket, which is pulling an Andrew Jackson or an Abraham Lincoln and ferryman and just saying, nah, I'm not going to do it. I don't think we're anywhere near there. I don't think we should be anywhere near there. Justice Roberts needs to come in and do some procedural things like limit the ability of district court judges to create these vast quote-unquote temporary restraining words. They're really injunctions.

There are some important legal differences between them that aren't reviewable and that affect more than just the parties at issue, affect the whole United States. He needs to limit that. And that's an issue that's been talked about for a while. And then substantively needs to slap down some of the more outrageous ones that we've seen like this ridiculous transgender one, where the judge, first of all, the judge's bearing was disgraced.

I mean, her whole attitude, her whole behavior was, I mean, it was, it was borderline psychotic. You got to understand, judges don't usually act like that. Judges are tough. They ask hard questions. Sometimes they disagree with you. But she was, you know, she was completely out of line. And Justice Roberts needs to get, you know, police his own. It's like, it's like with cops. We love cops, but cops, you know, the jerk cop, you're the first line of defense. You've got to fix that. Justice Robert needs to, you know, clean his own house. Okay. All right. That's what we'll be watching for.

Will Justice Roberts put this up post-haste? We get to this with speed. That's the way he handles these district judges. All right. The other big news of the day is the release of the JFK assassination files for that conversation. I want to bring in to join both me and Kurt Rob Bluey, who is the president and executive editor at The Daily Signal. And he joins us now as well. What's up, Rob?

Hey, Will, good to see you. Kurt, always a pleasure. Hey, good to see you. Good to see you guys. So it's 60,000 pages. 80,000 will be released in total. It's impossible to digest. So here's what we have done here on the Will Kane show.

We have gone to chat GPT. we have gone to grok and i had a high recommendation from a friend just a week ago that i should start looking into the ai app perplexity which i did use last night now these ai applications can analyze 80 000 pages 60 000 pages in a record a number a record amount of time and you can ask it to tell you what's new what's revelatory what's the biggest takeaway and we did so and i came away from the analysis of the JFK assassination files with about three or four interesting angles that have been supported. I cannot speak to how new this is because I haven't kept up with every document release and every minutia over the last 30 years. I simply have not.

But what I found, guys, is that there is documented support, basically ammunition for every conspiracy theory. There is basically, you would come away. from that and you'd be like huh and i don't know if i'm superimposing this after the fact oliver stone was on to something you know with jfk there is documentation for for example lee harvey oswald's relationship with the cia without a doubt there was a relationship with the cia now was that relationship simply somebody that was monitored and they failed to keep up with him and see the seriousness of what he was doing or was it overlooking it or putting him into play. But just as an example, I'm going to give you guys one example, and then I want to hear from

each of you. There's documentation there, and I think this was known, but that Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City reached out to both the Cuban and Soviet embassies. Those calls were transcribed and monitored by the CIA. They knew that he was trying to coordinate at least a quick exit to one of those countries. And this was in September and I believe October of 1963. There's more, but we'll start there. I think my reading is that you come away from this and you're going, it stinks. It stinks when it comes

to the CIA, Rob. Well, we're already starting from the point where a majority of Americans, in fact, there was a poll earlier this year from the Napolitan News Service that found 54% of Americans think the federal government was involved in some way. So you have a majority of Americans who are already believing that there

is some sort of conspiracy here with, whether it's the CIA or some other branch of government. And so, yes, I do think I agree with you. There's certainly a number of things that, based on what I've read, you could point to and say, oh, my goodness, we've found something new here and there's a link and we're going to have to follow this path and see where it leads. The big question, as you raise, is like, you know, there are historians who have studied this for decades. And I think it's their expert opinion that we'll probably need to rely on because they have the full breath and the whole context of what's going on here. As a teenager myself, I mean, I remember watching the JFK movie and being fascinated by this. And so I give President Trump the credit for releasing these and finally, after decades, putting them in the public sphere to review. And whether we do it through AI applications like you've done or just study them the old

fashion way, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this and find some answers. All right, Kurt, I think if we were looking for a top line, here's the top line. I want to hear your thoughts. It's at the end of all of this, the one thing that I think you can feel certain about, is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an unknown lone nut who killed JFK with no further context. There's just a bigger story. There's just more context. At a minimum, they missed Lee Harvey Oswald.

At a minimum, they didn't see this coming and should have when it comes to Lee Harvey. Well, look, you know, the CIA is a failed organization. And my limited interaction with it has left me distinctly unimpressed. I would think that a guy who had been a defector to the Soviet Union would be somebody that the CIA and maybe the FBI were watching. So they should have known about this. The key point you brought up to me, though, is it appears that, you know, he was trying to build his own out, like Robert De Niro at the end of heat.

How am I going to get out of town after I pull off the big score? which doesn't indicate to me that he was being that somebody was sponsoring him. It looked like a DIY kind of thing. So that bit of evidence actually supports the lone gunman theory. The fact is, I don't think the CIA could be part of a conspiracy because I think it's too damn incompetent. I think it's unable to perform even the most basic functions

and has been for a long time. Hopefully that'll change under, you know, new management. But I think at the end of the day, until I see some more evidence and the evidence you've given me today kind of supports my initial thought, this is an ex-marine who knew how to shoot. He shot the guy twice. And not that far. I mean, I've walked around Dealey Plaza during times when I was in Dallas for court cases. And because we lack trust in our institutions as a resolving institutions deserving our lack of trust. We've got a lot of conspiracy theories. But like I said, I don't really believe in conspiracy theories involving the government

because after all my years working for it, I don't think it's capable of pulling it off. Kurt, the only one thing that I did see, it's go ahead, Rob. Oh, I was just going to say the only thing that I did see is that we have to remember that even among all of the files that were released yesterday, there still could be some that the CIA is holding on to. And I think that that's the question we don't know. Is do those files exist? Have they been destroyed? You know, is there, evidence that the National Archives simply doesn't have in its possession that might lead to more answers? And so I think Will is on to something with this Mexico City connection, you know, and it at least, you know, leads us down a little bit of that path. But I don't know that that even

despite 60,000 pages, we're going to have the answers that we need. Well, maybe we'll find the stuff about Ted Cruz's dad in there. I don't know. Could be. You're absolutely right, Rob. It's impossible to trust that you would actually get the full picture. If it wasn't destroyed or not released now, it was destroyed in the 1960s or 1970s. And I don't know why it would have been left in some files to be revealed later.

And if there was a plot, I don't know why it would ever have been documented in the first place. And I also think to simple but most often true point, and I was pointed out yesterday, while I called it Murphy's Law on TV, it's Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right explanation because complexity and conspiracy require a level of competency that is hard to see inside of any organization, much less the CIA. What it is, though, is the nexus of overlaps that definitely are documented. So Oliver Stone paints a picture in a movie that is widely discredited

and seen as unsurious. And he paints a picture of overlapping connections between the CIA, and the mafia, then the CIA and anti-Castro groups, and Oswald's relationship to anti-N-pro Castro groups in New Orleans. And finally, Oswald's relationship to the Soviets, both his original defection and then return, and then his ongoing relationship with him in Mexico City. Those overlaps painted as a ridiculous conspiracy in the movie JFK are documented in these files. That much is true. Like, we know from these files that the mafia was used by the CIA in failed assassination attempts of Fidel Castro.

The mafia had a relationship with the CIA where they were the foot soldiers trying to get rid of Fidel Castro. Those mafia bosses have connections to some guys in New Orleans, New Orleans mob bosses. And potentially then, and it gets more tenuous, and I totally acknowledge it, to Jack Ruby, Oswald's assassin. Same thing with the Castro stuff. Like, at one point, Oswald is marching or trying to join

anti-Castro groups. Then he's a pro-Castro guy, and he is interacting and getting in a scuffle with anti-Castro guys. All those anti-Castro groups, by the way, funded by the CIA. They were absolutely funded and created to run the streets of New Orleans

and other places in America by the CIA. So what you get documented is this overlapping picture of relationships. Do those relationships lead us to any smoking gun that, oh my gosh, Lee Harvey was actually a CIA asset, and he was actually, as he said, a patsy to be the man who executes this on behalf of the CIA attempting to eventually place this on Castro. No, there's no smoking gun.

But the documents do show all these weird relationships that give ammunition to someone that goes, maybe, maybe Oliver Stone is not a complete crackpot, Kurt. Well, that's, well, look, there's lots of things out there. I mean, Jack Ruby, of course, was mobbed up. He was a strip club owner. And the Kennedy's had an adversarial sometimes relationship with a mob. Other times, you know, they shared girlfriends. And look, there's a lot of pieces at play.

But at the end of the day, you know, we've got a communist who had been a defector who knew how to shoot. And he was obviously there. I mean, he killed J.D. Tippett, the police officer afterward. I'm kind of an Occamers razor guy. I think it was just this commie jerk. Although I love how it's become like this trope that the right wingers killed him. You know, the right winger who defected to Russia, that's always. been interesting to me. But look, I think the simplest explanation is usually the most likely.

Again, I've got trouble believing the CIA or any of these other organizations could manage to pull this off and keep it secret for, gosh, a year longer and I've been alive. Yes, real quick, to you, Rob. And I, so I like, obviously like any American, I'm interested in this conversation. And I want to have this conversation away. It seems like you get. two groups of people on this. Those that are completely dismissive of the conspiracies, which has been the majoritarian line, I think actually for most of the last half century, even though 65% of Americans, as you point out, Rob, believe there was more than Lee Harvey Oswald and the government might have been involved. But that's sort of the majority line. But if I

cross to the other side, then it's like, down the rabbit hole I go in Alice in Wonderland, where I am looking at every single connection, kind of like I'm hinting at right now. But I am roughly familiar with the rabbit hole. And to Kurt's argument, the rabbit hole argument is that he was an asset, Lee Harvey, of the CIA, and it was a fake defection to the Soviet Union, and he was a fake pro-Castro guy, and he was actually used to eventually try to plant this entire assassination on Castro. The argument is to justify the failed revisiting the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, now successfully going in and getting rid of Castro.

Rob. Yeah. And let's put ourselves in the context of the time, I mean, which you just did. I mean, we have to remember what was going on in the world and how that there were some in the Washington establishment at the time who were frustrated with Kennedy and some of his decision making. And so all of that, you know, is part of the whole map. And, Will, you just went through all of those various things that we've learned. You connect all those dots. And yes, you probably can have somebody who goes down that particular rabbit hole. One thing that also came out was the fact that it just shows the CIA's involvement in so many of these institutions. I believe it was in Paris. The CIA had such a strong presence within the State Department there. And so it just raises questions, I think, in the minds of Americans are, to this day, does the CIA, are they operating in these different agencies?

And fast forward to the summer of 2024 and Butler, Pennsylvania and any of the unanswered questions we have about the attempted assassination on Donald Trump, Trump, you know, who millimeters away from losing his life. And I'm frustrated that we still don't have the answers to what happened in that situation. More of the Will Cain Show, right after this. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery.

This is Jimmy Phala. Inviting you to join me for Fox Across America. where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. Yeah. To your point, by the way, the documents do show how active the CIA was in coups across the world,

including potential assassinations, I believe in Vietnam, in I believe it was Laos or Cambodia, and in Cuba. It's not like this is like, obviously doing it at home is one other huge thing, and they saw, there's no doubt that there was an antagonistic relationship between the intelligence community and JFK. No doubt about that. But, yeah, I just, I don't know. I'll give you last word on this, Kurt. I just, I do think Rob makes an interesting point about Trump's two assassination attempts. Like, are we going to have to wait another half a century to get the details on what actually went down in Butler, Pennsylvania? Well, that assumes anybody's bothered to

investigate it. We know almost nothing about the guy who's somehow got 150 meters from the president with a rifle, you know, I, is yet another institutional failure. The best case is a massive institutional failure. The best case is, yeah, what a relief. They're merely grossly incompetent at the one job they have. But yeah, I frankly, I don't think the FBI knows. I don't think they've actually done the work to get this investigated and to get this understood. I just don't think they've done it. I don't think they cared.

Maybe under Cash Patel and Dan Bongino they were. To your point, Kurt, if you're right, if you're right that the minimum revelation is all we can take from this, that these institutions, be it the Secret Service, the CIA, or the FBI were incredibly. incompetent in Butler and in Dallas, then also I would add, I would add whatever the Israeli intelligence apparatus was that missed October 12th, and that's the argument, just missed it, is yet another example. Like, how do you miss thousands of dudes massing to invade Israel? And that's why people start going, you can't be that incompetent. This is your mission. This is where conspiracies come from. If that is our takeaway, that's all we have. that you are massively incompetent these organizations need to start publicizing their successes

like it always is shrouded in conspiracy right until they fail start having what are you good at which ones have you stopped or or telling us it the presumption is oh you don't tell us when you have big successes we don't have any idea how many terror plots that you've stopped well maybe you start telling us because otherwise i don't see what you're doing well well look what what are they doing well what have they done well we failed in iraq we failed in afghan Libya is a disaster. Syria, I don't even want to go into. That just makes any normal human being sick. Look, all our institutions are failing. And the end result is this lack of belief in the institutions and an understanding that many of them can't be reformed, they've got to be

raised. So hopefully the CIA can be reformed into something that performs its job. But, you know, we'll see because there are a lot of people who aren't in these institutions to do with the institutional purposes. They're in these institutions either to get a pension or to promote their, you know, communist ideology. And transparency is a great form of accountability. Thank you. Yeah. Kirkslithier is the author of Attack. Check them out at townhall.com.

Always good to get them in on all these subjects, most especially what is going on. the showdown between the judicial branch and Donald Trump. Kurt, thanks for joining us today. Hey, great talking to you guys. Thanks a lot. Okay, take care. There goes, Kurt. All right, Rob Blue is going to stick around. We're going to take a quick break.

We're going to come back and talk about the potential domestic terrorism taking place on Tesla dealerships and against Elon Musk when we come back on the Wilcane show. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason and the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests.

Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.

The left celebrating vandalism and the stock price more than halved of Tesla. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe, please, at Apple or on Spotify. Tim Walts, former candidate for vice president, took to a stage where he asked everyone to celebrate as Tesla stock was down from 450 to. 225. Watch. Saying on my phone, I don't know. Some of you know this on the iPhone, they've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day. 225 and dropping. So, and if you own one, if you own one, we're not blaming you.

You can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off, you know, and take out of just telling you. Rob Lewy, the president and executive editor of the Daily Signal is still hanging out with us here on the Will Cane show. Tim Walts has never built a thing in his life, not a thing. He's never built a company. He's never built a product. He's never really built anything productive for society. And here he is celebrating, like much of the left, the troubles for Tesla, Rob. It's sad.

I mean, you're absolutely right. Tim Walts has been on the taxpayer dime his entire life collected a salary that we've paid or the voters of Minnesota have paid. And it's one of those things where, well, I don't understand this. I mean, we went from a situation where under this last administration, they mandated that car companies had to make all of these EVs, largely against their bottom line. I mean, they certainly were not selling. The government was going to subsidize them. Now they take to trashing them, burning them, releasing toxic fumes into the environment that they so claim to cherish and celebrate as their religion often. And so I frankly don't see where this ends. I mean,

it's just, it's just maddening. You know, Buck Sexton made this point yesterday on the Will Kane show. He said, you have been preaching for several decades now that climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Existential means will end our existence. And because of that, you've asked for all kinds of drastic measures to be taken economically. And you've asked consumers to move to electric cars. One of the pioneers of electric cars is certainly Tesla. And for that, Elon was celebrated. And if you looked at the Tesla ownership group right now, a little false start there on a clip from Chuck Schumer. Their argument for that was, you know, I mean, if you look to Tesla ownership, I bet it over indexes to the left. I bet it did, at least did. And now they're telling me

existential threat to the planet from climate change is a lower priority than hating Elon Musk. Hating Elon Musk and hating Donald Trump are the central animating figures, the moral compass of the left. There is nothing. I don't think they ever really believed in the existential threat of climate change, but it just shows, like, what is the number one thing that unifies the left? Hating Donald Trump and hating Elon Musk. You pinpointed it. I mean, and that's been the case for Trump for the last 10 years. I mean, we've seen it on display almost every single day. The whole fascination over Elon Musk, though, is just truly baffling to me because, I mean, here you have a man whose company rescued the astronauts

who were stranded in space, and they can't, you know, bother to even celebrate or acknowledge that great feat this week. You have, as you've pointed out, the fact that, you know, they have for long talked about how we all need to move to electric vehicles. You know, this morning I had the privilege of going to and hearing from the Interior Secretary, Doug Bergam, who gave some fascinating statistics about the coldest day of the year, which just coincidentally happened to be January 20th of this year, the inauguration day. And he went through, he said, the amount of electricity that was generated from solar power was zero percent. The amount from wind was 2%. I believe the rest was all between nuclear and traditional fossil fuels. And so, I mean,

we can certainly have this conversation. And I'm one of those all of the above, make your own decision. I drive a hybrid myself. I mean, it's, you know, it's one of those things that I should think should be left to the consumer. And you're probably right, Will. I think there's probably more conservatives, Republicans who are purchasing Teslas today because they like Elon Musk. And you have people like Senator Mark Kelly and Democrats who are deciding to sell their Teslas. I wish that politics didn't interfere with it and people just made the decision that was best for them. But in this society that we live in, clearly the Democrats want to make this all about politics and they're going to continue to trash Elon Musk as long as he is riding alongside Donald Trump.

But it gets worse because we've seen the videos out there of people keying Tesla's. So by the way, the videos are the people doing it. They just look like normal, frumpy men and women coming to and from the airport and keying a Tesla in the parking lot. And then there's worse vandalism. There is firebombing Tesla dealerships, Molotov cocktails. And this is how Jimmy Kimmel, quote unquote, comedian feels about vandalizing Tesla's. Tesla stock is way down, almost disastrously so. People have been vandalizing Tesla vehicles, new Tesla vehicles.

Please don't vandalize. Don't ever vandalize Tesla vehicles. And so. I don't get it. I don't know. Was that sarcasm? I don't know what that was. But the hatred of Musk is totally manifesting into violence.

It's absolutely manifesting into violence. I mean, we've seen it over and over again. I mean, you can go back to the beginning of the year. And the cyber truck explosion in Las Vegas, right? You have the fires that people are saying. setting on Tesla cars. I mean, you can go down the list of all the things to just, you know, harming your neighbor because you don't like the fact that they drive a Tesla and you're keying their car and can, you know, carrying out property damage. So the thing is, though,

I don't understand with Tim Walls and Jimmy Kimmel celebrating the fact that the stock price is down. I mean, in the day and age that we live in, when most people probably have an SNP index fund or, you know, some sort of fund where Tesla's stock is incorporated into that. They're basically clapping and applauding the fact that they're losing money. I mean, that seems just frankly un-American to me in terms of their celebration of this issue. And I, again, I think that this just illustrates Will how far the Democratic Party has come. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was largely celebrated across both parties, Republican and Democrat, for trying to streamline government, cut government waste, eventually balancing the budget with Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Right? I mean, we all celebrated that moment. And Elon Musk isn't trying to do a whole lot different. He's trying to say there's a lot of inefficiencies in terms of how the Social Security Administration is running on decades-old computer programs, and we need to modernize and update the technology. We need to cut wasteful spending that, you know, is going to fraudulent purposes. These are, these should be simple bipartisan issues that really have no debate, particularly for Democrats who want to see government grow and expand. You would think that they'd want to root out those inefficiencies. but I guess they don't. No, I guess there's no cut that is not immoral, according to Democrats. Okay, Rob Louis, he is the president, an executive editor of the Daily Signal. Check them out. We always appreciate you jumping on.

Thank you, Rob. Thanks, Will. Have a great day. All right, there he goes. We've talked about on this show several times, the value, the societal importance, the civilizational foundation of motherhood. So I was surprised when I heard that. as well from comedian Andrew Schultz. That, and we've asked you, did you learn anything new from

the JFK Assassination Files? That coming up on the Will Cain Show. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me, Kennedy. Make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast.com. Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify and hang out with us every day. We'd love that right here on The Wilcane Show. Listening to Rob Bluey talking about lefties, keying Teslas

and throwing Molotov cocktails into Tesla dealerships made me think it's become the party of destruction. But I know that they would make a separate argument. They would say that Elon Musk is destroying. But I would ask you what? On one hand, as they celebrate the drop in stock price for Tesla, they're talking about the destruction of private creation, of wealth, of even stocks and 401k holdings of average Americans. On the other hand, you're talking about the destruction of government largesse. Chuck Schumer was on the view, and he talked about this. And actually, in many ways, I thought he laid it out decently well.

Listen to Chuck Schumer. And you know what their attitude is? I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me. I don't want to pay taxes. or I built my company with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, the land and water that I own, or my employees. They hate government.

Governments a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it. We are not letting them do it and we're united. That, I think, is a pretty good synthesis of the difference in the two parties. They think the government is a barrier to doing great things with things that you own. Yes, we do. Largely, you're not going to let them do it. You're going to preserve and protect against the destruction of any type of government.

Yes, I believe that is your position, Democrats. I'm glad we can agree to disagree. Now let's see who can get their agenda done. Over on YouTube, Strange Main says, this is a distraction, talking about the JFK assassination files. Nancy Russell says, believe these files are going to say the truth. LBJ was involved.

Of all the conspiracies, that one is the hardest for me to buy, see any connection. Obviously, you say, well, LBJ had something to gain. And whenever you look at an action or a conspiracy, you say who has the most to gain. And he's among those, you would say, does. But it's hard for me to see any evidence yet, even in these files. And you know what? We could go right now. Let's go, you guys go to one of the AI bots and look for LBJ evidence.

I don't see it yet. Bridget Clark, it's taken way too long to reveal the truth. Americans shouldn't have had to wait this long. We should be told everything. No redactions. And then finally, Marissa says, Schlichter, you're a good-looking guy. There you go, Marissa. So we'll pass that along to Kurt Schlichter.

Got an admirer. Daisy knows, says Kurt knows his law. Thank you, Kurt, for your input. Kurt Schlichter does know his law. Andrew Schultz knows. His comedy. We sat down the other day and he talked about not just what makes him funny and blew up his career, but important jobs like motherhood.

Here's a bit of my conversation with Andrew Schultz. When I just met you. Oh, man, Will, they got to admit. Did they just put a sticker on the, hold on. It's a new show. It's a new show. And I said before we came on set, that somebody goes, ooh, you got your fancy mug.

It's a sticker. Print the mug. How did he do that? We only have 20 minutes together and he found the sticker. Let's go. Let's do this. Was there any hesitation for you to start owning some of your viewpoints on this stuff? Because if you and I reround the clock five years ago, maybe it's a little more than five now, it's pretty rare to A, see somebody famous.

Comedians have a bigger pass and they do it more readily, but even comedians some five to ten years ago were not saying the things that you're saying. Not your edgy jokes. Yeah. Your viewpoint jokes. Yeah. No, it wasn't difficult for me. I maybe have a higher risk tolerance than most. So it's like, is that the right way of saying it?

Yes. Yeah. So I don't mind taking risk. But like, no, it didn't really concern me that much because it's just how I felt. And I also thought that was the only way I knew how to be funny, especially when it came to comedy. Like, I can't do somebody else's version of comedy and be funnier than them and more successful than them. Like, I can only be the most successful at, like, the version I do.

So I'm kind of like shackled to that, right? which is, like, talking about things that I feel strongly about, right? So, not to plug my special, I'm not doing a shameless plug, but, like... We'll plug it. But the special right now is just about how, like, my sperm doesn't swim, and it was really hard for me to get my wife pregnant, and then we had to go through this whole thing. So you've seen it, so it's like... But that's the only thing on my mind, so I wrote the whole special about that.

Before that, it might have been these, like, social or cultural issues. I loved what I saw you say about moms. Oh, yeah. It is something I've said, obviously, not as famous. famously and it's funny, but, you know, we have spent, again, I think it's a half a century suggesting that job is beneath you. Yeah. And that job, okay, is probably the most foundational job of civilization. Most important, without a doubt. Being a mom. And we have to figure out a way to honor what we were talking about, honor that job. 100%. Yeah. I think it's, and I think there are,

there are places like, where are you from originally? Texas. You're from Texas. So I imagine, like there's more of like a familial importance in Texas where the moms, be them stay at home or working, are more honored in their positions. Whereas I imagine, more so in New York. There's still attention. And even with my wife, who's also from Texas, there was a transition period where, oh, they're working. I'm not. I'm less than. Yeah. And they have to deal with that as well. There's like a societal pressure on them, which I would like to alleviate 100%. I heard this great story from this guy that I was talking to this past weekend about his mom. He didn't even realize he was telling me. He was just talking about his experience. He was like a military kid. His dad was like

an engineer, so he grew up in Asia a lot. You know, it was in Japan and Korea and some other places. And I kept telling me these stories about like his mom, she was like, she was going to make sure that I had friends. So she, this is 70s and 80s. So she found a way to get Superman 2, a copy of Superman 2 and she threw this party and all the other kids that were like these international kids or these military kids came in and he was the

cool kid who had so she's found all the black markets and she's getting Apple Jacks she's getting the American serial you can't get over there I know this sounds ridiculous now because you can get everything in the world but like I looked at this these stories that she would tell or that he would tell about

her and I was like oh wow this woman is not going my job as a mom is just to make sure that the baby's fed and then put down and maybe teach himself. She's like, no, no, no. I'm going to be super mom. I'm going to do everything to give my kid the best shot at whatever it is in the world. He was playing too many video games and stuff. And one day she just came in the room. She's like, all right, it's over. You got to start socializing. You got to meet some friends. They moved to Oregon. She walks door to door with him. And she's like, we're finding friends today. And it was like this dedication. And I don't even know if he realized

what he's telling me. It's like this beautiful dedication. to the role of mom that is beyond just feeding and nurturing, but, like, really cultivating, like, what that human is and giving him the best experience in life. And it made me feel guilty that, like, I'm working, and my wife is at home right now, she's taking care of the baby. And then I'm also, there's a part of me that's also like, okay, but, like, can you handle the renovation as well?

Because I'm busy working, so maybe while you're at home, you can do it. And I'm, like, putting other things on her plate. And until that moment, I didn't realize, Like, what if her only focus was just how can we give every amazing experience, opportunity, like personality growing situation for our daughter? And she's not bogged down by like the stain of the foot in a house somewhere. You know, like, I just thought that was really cool. Now it's a huge privilege to be able to do that focus.

But it would be really nice if America would really embrace motherhood in that way for those that have the privilege to stay home. with them. I did push back on that, that our job can't be to optimize kids, you know, making it the optimal experience to grow up. We just raise them. And somebody, a friend of mine said, we're gardeners, not carpenters. We don't build our children.

We just try to prune away the weeds as they grow. All right. It was a great conversation with Andrew Schultz. I really enjoyed getting to know him. I have another big, long sit-down with Vake Ramoswami. that's going to air, but it was like 20 minutes, 20, 30 minutes with Vivek over what is the American identity. I'm looking forward to sharing that with you as well here on the Willcane show. Before we go, we have a poll up. Did you learn something from the JFK files? Anything new?

Two at eights, you have the results of the poll. What are the people? What does the Willisha think about the JFK files? Do you feel you've learned anything new from the JFK files? 58% say no, 42% say yes. So it's almost split. I just, my thing about that is I don't think anybody knows what to think yet because it's almost impossible that anyone has digested it, you know, and you're looking for needles in a haystack, and instead what you find is breadcrumbs in a haystack, you know, and more breadcrumbs and more breadcrums. So you stay up till four in the morning. And at some point you do have to say, is there a bigger picture to piece together, or is it just a never-ending trip down the rabbit hole? And I think it probably is, in the end, a never-ending trip down the rabbit hole. And what the shame about that is, the inertia of the moment feels like it'll be the same thing on Thomas Crooks, the Butler, Pennsylvania, would-be assassin.

Right? Like, it's like, why don't we have that information? Why can't we have that kind of trust now on the would-be assassin for Donald Trump? Go ahead, two days. No, I'm just wondering if we'll look back on this time when these files were released and think of it in the same realm as the conspiracies of the assassination. Like, is this another chapter in that whole story or will we overlook it completely? Yeah, I don't know. I think that yesterday when the three of us were talking, Tenfoil said, if there was video or evidence or a big news story today that aliens had landed, what percentage of the audience would even believe it?

even if you had video, even if you saw the alien face-to-face. What if you saw him face-to-face? Would you believe it? We are in such an information inundated, but trust-deprived world that you have to wonder how we ever get to a place of commonality of truth. All right, that's going to do it for us today here on the Will Kane Show.

We're going to see you again, same time, same place here at YouTube, Facebook, Fox News.com. Radio, Spotify, and Apple tomorrow. to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon Music app. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $6.5 million. Visit go.box forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts.