Will The American People Trust The FBI On Their Jeffrey Epstein Claims? (ft. Ben Domenech and Dean Cain)
Story #1: Why are we giving credit to the various talking heads on the Left and within mainstream media who are finally speaking out about things that were obvious from the beginning, like the mental acuity of former President Joe Biden? Will calls out the cowards in the media who played it safe with their opinions over the last 5 to 10 years.
Story #2: Will is joined by the Host of 'The Big Ben Show,' Ben Domenech to break down the most recent threats to President Donald Trump's tariff regime. Is a recent Federal court ruling against the tariffs another 'nothingburger?' Plus, will charges be brought against staffers in the Biden White House over the misuse of the 'autopen?'
Story #3: Did FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino likely kill a classic internet meme with their recent claims that Jeffrey Epstein did, in fact, commit suicide? Plus, insight into a new direction for creators who are trying to fill the major voids left by Hollywood with the Writer, Producer, Director, and Star of 'Little Angels,' Dean Cain.
Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing WillCainShow@fox.com
Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show!
Follow Will on X: @WillCain
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Video games and podcasts: Can Democrats win back the bros?
Advertisement Throughout the campaign, I Meanwhile Trump was Advertisement Democrats are just coming around to that reality. Pete Buttigieg gets soft kudos for recently Even though Buttigieg recently Or when they got onto the topic of public services, Buttigieg argued that the Scandinavians' high taxes turn into top-notch public resources. To which Schulz declared: Public spending is 'easy to do when, like, every girl's hot.' Granted, Buttigieg is gay, but even when Schulz conceded that Scandinavian dudes are cute, too, Buttigieg laughed, shrugged a little, and eventually asked: 'Where were we?' Pete Buttigieg at a Town Hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on May 13. THALASSA RAASCH/NYT To be fair, those are questions that would make both woke progressives and straight-laced conservatives squirm. But Trump isn't a polished politician — he's a guy's guy. You can imagine him in that situation, completely at ease. He would have chuckled at the joke about not hiring women, smirking and wagging a finger at Schulz: 'You're a funny guy, you know that, but boy, you're gonna get me in trouble.' And on the question of spending money on attractive women, well, we know where Trump falls there. He would have made them laugh, just like he did when he Advertisement Trump clearly never had any qualms about going on edgy shows. But Democrats did. Akaash Singh, one of Schulz's cohosts, told Buttigieg: 'We've begged so many Democrats to come on this platform. You're the first one.' Trump didn't need to be begged. He simply took advice from his In their rush to find a tough-talking guy who can mobilize voters against Trump, Democrats could find themselves embracing influencers who alienate some of their own voters. Like streamer Hasan Piker, a former Rutgers frat boy who loves lifting, who's been The biggest problem Democrats will have is convincing bros of their authenticity. It took an electoral walloping for Buttigieg to embrace the manosphere. And while Democrats try to talk the talk, they still hold onto the same progressive ideas that alienated them from many voters. On a podcast in March with the conservative bro-in-chief Charlie Kirk, who cofounded the right-wing political machine Turning Point USA, Gavin Newsom said that the question of whether to allow transgender athletes in women's sports is 'an issue of fairness.' But as California continued to be under fire for its liberal policies on transgender athletes, Newsom Advertisement Is just showing up in bro-ey spaces enough to win back some young voters for Dems? I conducted my own little study, free of charge, to find out. Gabe, a finance worker in his early 20s who voted for Trump and declined to give his last name, told me that Democrats might win over a few curious voters with a new male outreach strategy, but ultimately, cosmetic changes alone won't make a lasting difference. 'I think you have to realign the ideology,' he told me, listing frustrations about equity-based initiatives, costly energy policies, lockdowns during COVID, and more. 'You might be wearing a flannel, have a beard, drink protein shakes,' he said. But Democrats are 'still spewing the same garbage.' This column first appeared in , Globe Opinion's free weekly newsletter about local and national politics. If you'd like to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up . Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
CBS News
6 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump budget bill would increase deficit by $2.4 trillion and 10.9 million would lose health insurance, CBO says
Washington — Republicans' sweeping policy bill aimed at advancing President Trump's second-term agenda would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to a new estimate prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO also estimates that 10.9 million more people would be without health insurance in 2034 as the result of the House-passed legislation, given changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act under the bill. House Republicans are aiming to cut at least $1.5 trillion in spending to offset trillions in tax cuts, while also raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The package, which Mr. Trump refers to as the "big, beautiful bill," is now in the hands of the Senate after making it out of the House before Memorial Day. The bill is expected to undergo changes in the Senate before heading back to the lower chamber. This is a developing story and will be updated.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued that Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.'
