Will Cain Country - A Tale of Two Presidents: Who is Guilty?

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

Story #1: Former President Donald Trump pleads not guilty while President Biden looks increasingly guilty.   Story #2: How many 5 year olds would it take to tackle Tennessee Titans’ star RB Derrick Henry? The answer may surprise you.   Story #3: The National Basketball Players Association believes that it can dictate who their governors (AKA owners) support politically through the team. Is this the final straw for NBA support?   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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 $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, Donald Trump pleads not guilty. and Joe Biden looks increasingly guilty. Two, how many five-year-olds would it take to tackle NFL running back, Derek Henry? Three, the NBA Players Association says it's not cool for teams and owners to contribute, to donate to Ron DeSantis.

Maybe they should publish a list of who is applicable in what cases can an NBA player or an NBA owner, truly have free speech. It's the Will Cain podcast on Fox News Podcast. What's up? And welcome to Friday. As always, I hope you will, download, rate, and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News Podcasts. You have anything in your life that you just like?

It doesn't matter what anybody says. Doesn't matter how uncool. It's just me, man. I like this. I do have a defiant streak. I do have almost a little bit of a reactionary individualist instinct. If everybody tells me something is one way, I want to look at it, another. If everybody's into one style, I want to consider an alternate style.

But I'm not devoid of caring about others' opinions, from my clothes to my hairstyle. I will listen, I'm interested in feedback, I want to know, and I will factor that in to my decisions. But I have one thing in my life that doesn't seem open for suggestion. It's a pair of jorts. Man, I really like these jorts. These are from born primitive, and this is not an ad. And they're made of that stretching material. They're light blue jorts that everyone in my family absolutely hates.

My sons are embarrassed and ask me not to wear them outside the house. My wife wonders if I'm still into women. They are incredibly unpopular in my house. And I have factored that in. I have factored those opinions into my analysis and not completely rejected their opinions. I don't, I try not to, maybe on only a handful of occasions, like to the pool before swim practice. I try not to wear them out of the house. But man, do I like to wake up in the morning and put on those shorts?

They are really comfortable and I don't care that their opinion of me is so low. I like my jorts. Story number one. Donald Trump pleads not. guilty and Joe Biden looks increasingly guilty. Former President Donald Trump yesterday flew to Washington, D.C., and stood in court along with Special Counsel Jack Smith, where he pled not guilty to the indictment in charges, the four counts filed this week by Jack Smith against former president Donald Trump. There seems to be some.

consensus conclusion within I guess what we've come to understand as the popularly acceptable zeitgeist the stream the river that flows down that provides for the unthinking their thoughts that this indictment is rock solid if you go onto Twitter and you start pointing out the logical flaws or the philosophical failings or the shaky legal ground of this indictment you're met with stuff like Donald Trump's a threat to democracy. You haven't even clearly read the indictment. You ever passed a law school course, bro? But the truth is, like so many other things in life, people are guilty of the sins, which they accuse others. Those sins, of course, do include they haven't read the indictment. They didn't pass a law school course. And as much as Donald

Trump's a threat to democracy. These individuals in and of themselves are a threat to democracy because they don't believe in the foundation. Not the principles like the First Amendment, nor the protectors, like the checks and balances of this republic. But Will Scharf, who is running for Attorney General, had, I thought, an excellent analysis of the indictment. Sharf is running for Attorney General for the state of Missouri, and he went through the indictment. The most interesting part of his analysis, which included laying out the case, the attention with the First Amendment, and the necessity for any jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt Donald Trump's state of mind, his intent, that he knowingly spread falsehoods in an attempt to defraud the United States. United States government that he told lies and knew they were lies. Beyond that part of Sharf's analysis, I found this the most interesting. He said, as follows, Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and many, many others have claimed for years that their elections were stolen

from them. Stacey Abrams continued her efforts to challenge her defeat to Brian Kemp long after the results were clear. Andrew Jackson claimed that John Quincy Adams cheated him out of the election of 1824. After the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, Democrats attempted to interfere with the electoral count process. Did those actions constitute a conspiracy against rights under Section 241? For what it's worth, a conspiracy against rights,

as far as I can tell. has really only been used in two instances, and that is denying black diners the ability to freely avail themselves of the rights of the United States of America, protect black Americans in the early part of the 20th century against the KKK, and police departments that would release, in many cases, black Americans, and then perform extrajudicial punishment on those individuals once they were appearing to be free. But conspiracy against rights is one of the four counts lodged by Jack Smith against Donald Trump. Sharf goes on. Under Jack Smith theory of the case, I think the answer is unclear, but possibly.

Taking political speech and political acts of this sort and shoehorning them into criminal statutes that has never been done before and used in this way is terrifying. Political candidates should not. live in fear of prosecution by their political opponents for stating their views about their elections. Jack Smith, in his rush to get Trump, has done serious violence to our constitutional order and Bill of Rights. I thought that was fascinating analysis from the Missouri

candidate for Attorney General, Will Scharf. The most important point to underline in that analysis is that these legal theories, these counts, lodged against Trump, obstruction of an official proceeding, attempt to defraud the United States government, violations against rights are novel. They have never been applied in this way. They have never been applied to a political candidate. They have never been applied to a former president of the United States. that seems on its face, and at the most superficial level, a direct rebuttal to those that see this as a slam dunk as such a clear indictment of Donald Trump.

Oh, yeah? Why wasn't it used in 2000, in 2004, in 2016? Why wasn't it used against John Kerry? Why wasn't it used against Stacey Abrams? Why wasn't it used against Hillary Clinton? Why has it never been used in American history? What this indictment has done is take, yes, the First Amendment and free speech and put them on trial, but it has put a specific category of speech directly in the crosshairs of criminalization. And that is political speech.

If one does not like what Donald Trump had to say, if one thinks Donald Trump is a liar, the way. way to hold him accountable is politically, is to deny him your vote. And if you have the powers of persuasion, then you and your fellow Americans will deny him in the future public office through the political process and not through criminal law, through the judicial process, through criminalizing political speech. It's absolutely hilarious to watch our respected commentators today pulled their pants down around their ankles and reveal their ass. Michael Fanon is a CNN contributor. He was a Capitol police officer on January 6th.

He said this indictment to him was a moment of joy that almost brought him to tears. reminded him of the day that Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden. That statement in of itself was enough to raise the eyebrows of a CNN host, which once you're raising the eyebrows of a CNN host, you have probably skated out into the middle of the pond. But Fanon doubled down. Oh, no, no. Bin Laden was a terrorist, crimes against Americans.

And so too was Donald Trump, he said, on CNN. Donald Trump was a terrorist. and a threat to Americans. This insanity, which is all too common, so I guess it's a collective insanity, shows the mindset and honestly the depth of analysis

for those that have gone full, never, Trump. They only see the world through the prism of the personality of Donald Trump and reason and facts and evidence and principles in the Constitution are no match for the world they divided into pro or anti-personality of Donald Trump. Not to be outdone on MSNBC, Al Sharpton said, can you imagine, can you imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson going down the path of Donald Trump?

Can you imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson attempting to overthrow the government? Yeah. Al. I can't imagine Jefferson and Washington attempting to overthrow a government because I'm familiar with American history. They were, of course, seminal figures in the American Revolution, which of course threw off the shackles of a tyrannical government and established independence of the United States of America. So, yeah, Al, I can't imagine this from Jefferson or Washington. On this day that Donald Trump pled not guilty, it becomes increasingly clear that Joe Biden is most likely, in all probability, guilty of influence peddling bribery and corruption. These two stories at this point are almost inseparable from one another.

The two leading candidates for President of the United States both face their own controversy, but only one so far has been drugged before the justice system of the U.S. The transcript and text of Devin Archer, Hunter Biden's longtime buddy and business partner, were released this week, and they showed and gave us yet more insight into the relationship not just between Devin Archer and Hunter Biden, but as well, the relationship between these dirty business dealings and Joe Biden. Here are some of the texts shared between Devin Archer and Hunter Biden. Archer was arrested sometime around 2018 for defrauding a Native American tribe. At that time, he texted Hunter Biden in 2019 in March.

March, the following. Why did your dad's administration appointees arrest me and try to put me in jail? Just curious, some of our partners asking out here. Denny texts Hunter, why would they try to ruin my family and destroy my kids and no one from your family's side steps in and at least tries to help me? I don't get it, and I'm depressed. A bunch of these Asians getting in my head asking me the same, so just curious what I should answer. Cully Devin Archer, considers himself in league, in business, in conspiracy with not just Hunter, but the family, as he mentions, the Bidens, and some of their quote-unquote partners out here. He references the Asians, which I'm going to, I think, safely assume references business dealings in China, are asking about their business partners. Hunter responded to Devin Archer

Buddy, are you serious? Because there's no connection or control between the two. The same Justice Department can investigate and prosecute this president and his family it does for all administrations. It's democracy. Three co-equal branches of government. You're always more vulnerable to the overreach of one of those co-equal branches when you're in power. Every president's family is held to a higher standard and is a target.

It's the price of being the most powerful, group of people in the world. It's why our democracy remains viable. It's unfair at times, but in the end, the justice system usually works like you and we are redeemed and the truth prevails. The unfairness to us allows us for the greater good. Interestingly, that the greater good always seems to play in the favor of the Bidens. For what it's worth, the Justice Department is under the power of the presidency. Archer went on. He said, I love you anyway.

Everyone other than you sucks, including them all. And your brother was with me. Hmm. I assume he means in some of his dirty business deals. And then Hunter says, Yes, he was, and I always am, and turn the discussion around, Devin. Every great family is persecuted, prosecuted in the U.S. You are part of a great family.

Oh, puk. These texts drip of entitlement. Can you imagine? Yes, we all can, how you would end up thinking you're bulletproofing on crack with hookers when you are from a great family. Not a sideshow, not deserted by them, even in your darkest moments.

That's the way Bidens are different, and you are a Biden. It's the price of power, and the people questioning you truly have none, whereas you do through perseverance and poise. Devin Archer says, Love you, bro. Sorry. Long way from home for a couple of weeks

and demons are talking to me. Hunter, I love you too, buddy. And know that I understand, but please, of all the people in the world to decide to put the blame on, please don't let it be me. Almost every other person in my life has done that and I'm somehow the source of all their disappointments. Oh, he just played the Ace of Spades.

Now he's won the Victim Olympics. He's on top. Watch, Archer will backtrack. Hunter, unrightfully, is the source of everyone's disappointment. Never mind the M&M's lined up along his dong. He's the victim. He goes on, I'm beginning to believe all of them, and we aren't a banana republic buddy. The powerful are targets in this country, the more powerful they become, but the truth prevails,

and you have the stamina and guts and enough love to stay the course. Devin Archer, I never blame you. by the way. We'll be right back with more of the Will Cain podcast. Book Club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday.

It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexsavers. to book your next eye exam. I exams provided by independent optometrists. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring common ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his all-star panel and much more. Available now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Now, that love affair didn't seem to go on forever because, of course, Devin Archer submitted a testimony this week by the House Oversight Committee looking into these dirty business dealings. And since then, James Comer, the head of the House Oversight Committee, has released some of the transcripts of that interview. Now, the question is, as always, not whether or not Hunter Biden was attempting to peddle influence. I think everyone, even those on the left understand that was the goal of Hunter Biden. The question is whether or not this extends to the sitting president of the United States, will not it extends to Joe Biden. So let's listen to some of the testimony from Devin Archer, behind the closed doors with Democrats and Republicans.

And what I'll now read you will include questioning from Republicans and Democrats. And it will give us some insight into the relationship between Devin and Hunter's businesses and Joe Biden. Majority Council, which will reference James Comer. You keep saying the brand, but by brand, you mean the Biden family, correct? Mr. Archer, correct. Majority Council. And that brand is what, in your opinion? Was the majority of what, the value that was delivered from Hunter Biden to Burisma? He's testifying that the value of Hunter Biden sitting on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, is the brand. And now he's being pressed on what is the brand. Archer says, I didn't say majority, but I wouldn't speculate on percentages. But I do think, That was an element of it. Congressman Andy Biggs jumps in. When you say Biden family, sorry to cut in here, I just want to get a clarification.

You aren't talking about Dr. Jill or anybody else. You're talking about Joe Biden. Is that fair to say? Archer. Yeah, that's fair to say. Listen, I think it's, I don't think about it as, you know, Joe directly, but it's fair. That's fair to say. Obviously, that brought the most value to the brand.

there's Archer saying that corrupt businesses brought a man like Hunter onto their board or entered business arrangements with a man like Hunter who had no real business expertise, couldn't speak any of these foreign languages from Mandarin to Ukrainian, had no direct experience in the energy business, was not known as an international wheeler and dealer hedge fund financier, But they entered into these business arrangements because of the brand that was associated with Biden. But was that brand limited to Hunter Biden? No, says Archer.

It's fair to say these companies were in essence buying the brand of Joe Biden. And of course, that passes the smell test in common sense because what could Hunter Biden do for them? nothing but what could Joe Biden do for them well bring to bear all the power of the United States the interview goes on majority counsel that Hunter Biden was adding value his value that he was adding was in part as you said his family archer uh-huh counsel and so what is your basis for knowing that archer my basis for knowing that well I think there was there are you know, objectives that Burisma was trying to accomplish. And a lot of it's about opening doors, you know, globally in D.C. And I think that, you know, that was the, you know, and then obviously

having those doors opened, you know, sent the right signals, you know, for Burisma to, you know, carry on its business and be successful. Hmm. Okay. Open doors. Let's leave that ill-defined. We'll see that undefined. I'm sure a lot of businesses out there would like to have connections to D.C. to open doors, make introductions. Maybe that's all he's talking about. Maybe it's cool and fun to be connected. Let's go on. Archer.

My only thought is that I think Brisma would have gone out of business if it didn't have the brand attached to it. That's my like only honest opinion. But I have no basis for any, never heard any conversations. Now, Democratic congressman from New York heir to the Levi Strauss Billions Dan Goldman

steps in Goldman but that's different than Joe Biden's action Archer right Goldman you're just talking about that Hunter was on the board

Archer right and I think that's why Goldman and so Archer he was able to survive for as long as it did he's saying that Hunter Biden was on the board is why Burisma

didn't go out of business why it was able to, quote, survive for as long as it did. Goldman, by, because of additional capital or Archer, just because of the brand? Here's Archer fishing for what those open doors may be. Was it that Hunter Biden was capable to marshal more capital for Burisma to keep it from sinking, from keeping it going under? No, is what Archer responds, just because of the brand. Here's Goldman again. Well, I don't understand.

How does that have an impact? You can almost feel him naively walking down the hallway. I mean, you're taught in law school, and I think anyone has ever invested a little bit in understanding trial, that you don't ask a witness, a question that you don't already know the answer. Certainly the case when you're on cross-examination. You don't want to be surprised. You want to know the answers.

And it's here Goldman, who I guess somewhere in the process of, inheriting, I don't know, millions and billions from Levi's didn't really do the reading, didn't understand where this might go. He's like a volleyball setter right here. He's floating this up for Archer to spike

and Archer doesn't want to spike it. In fact, he's leading Archer by the nose down this hallway. Sheesh. Let's see what room they end up in. Again, Goldman. Because of additional capital or Archer? Just because of the brand,

Goldman, well, I don't understand. How does that have an impact? Archer. Well, the capabilities to navigate DC that they were able to, you know, basically be in the news cycle. And I think that preserved them for a, you know, from a longevity standpoint. That's like my honest. That's like really what I, that's, that's like how I think holistically. Goldman, he just won't let it go. He doesn't see it coming. I'm so interested. What room will they end up in? Goldman. But how would that work? Archer. Because people would be intimidated to mess with them. Goldman. Who just won't let it go.

Remember, the allegations are that Joe Biden had a prosecutor fired. Holding a billion dollars of U.S. loan guarantees over the head of Ukraine unless they would fire a prosecutor who was given trouble to Burisma. I want to back up so we can do this all together, okay? I'm sorry, this is repetitive, but I just think it's so sweet. I wish I could have been there for this part. Because of additional capital? Just because of the brand. Well, I don't understand. How does that have an impact? Well, the capability is to navigate DC that they were able to, you know, basically be in the news cycle. And I think that preserved of them, you know, from a longevity standpoint. That's like my honest, that's like what I really, that's like how I think

holistically. Goldman, but how would that work? Archer. Because people would be intimidated to mess with them. Goldman, in what way? Archer, legally. I mean, drop the mic.

Nail the coffin. Archer didn't even want to say it. But Goldman asked four questions. leading him to the conclusion, in what way? How does the brand help Burisma? For more capital?

No, no, no, not for more capital. In what way? To navigate D.C. But I don't understand what impact would navigating D.C. have in being associated with Joe Biden. Okay, okay. To intimidate people that might want to mess with them. Intimidate them in what way? Legally.

Stunning. Stunning. transcript testimony from Devin Archer. In other parts of the testimony, he went on to say that Joe Biden spoke on speakerphone with Burisma executives and Hunter Biden, something like 20 times. It talks about meetings they've had over the years as well. Just amazing day. Not for the brand.

Tough day for the brand. With all due respect to Pat McAfee, this is a different brand. Tough day for the Biden brand. Amazing day for justice. Back to the not guilty plea by Donald Trump. You know, Al Sharpton told us that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would never consider overthrowing a government. In my estimation, that's not the most impressive thing that was ever done by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. A little upstart, set of colonies, winning a war.

against not A, but the global empire, really honestly, it's sort of the B side for the accomplishments of our founding fathers. The A side, the true hit, the one that stood the test of time, is the genius that is our founding documents. It's almost beyond comprehension, much less explanation. I feel like I know that because I've tried at various times to explain it to those that don't want to hear. The history of humanity, once again, is a history of violence, struggles for power, tribal rivalries for who can dominate, who can hoard and monopolize power. The Founding Fathers of the United States attempted to create a government by and for the people, but they were geniuses. They understood the threats to that, not vision of utopia, but vision

of the best of us, of our prospects, of our possibilities, enshrining principles that evolved over thousands of years from Judeo-Christian ethics, passed through the filter of Greek and Roman civilization, Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, enshrined first and attempted to be executed in the Magna Carta in England, and ultimately arriving on the shores on the Eastern Seaboard of America, where they understood that rights were granted by your creator, not by a king, and that you had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They went on, some argue unnecessarily, to lay out some of those rights and the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech.

Those principles, and the corresponding checks and balances of power, Justice Antonin Scalia gave one of the most, I think, enlightening speeches about what made America special. He argued it actually isn't these principles. It's not the Bill of Rights. It's not even really the Constitution. What it was was in the Constitution, the checks and balances they created in power. three branches of government, executive legislative and judicial, two branches of the legislative, a Senate and a House, all designed to thwart the accumulation of power. What I think that we are seeing here with this indictment of Donald Trump against both the principles, and I think as well, against those checks and balances of power, is a real attack on the foundation of America. not on our democracy, but on the foundation of our republic.

Now, I think that most people on the left believe they're on the side of angels. As we've often seen, they believe in a higher truth, a moral truth. And that moral truth is so powerful and important that it can undercut the actual objective truth. We saw that during COVID. It was fine to lie about masks. It was fine to lie about vaccines. It was fine to lie about the risk to children. because it served a higher moral truth protecting people from, in their estimation, a worldwide killer pandemic and disease.

I mean, think about that. Play that out. If on the left you told them you can lie to everybody and save their lives, you can tell them the truth and they'll run the risk of losing their own life, you know which path they would choose. Option A has already been chosen. And that has meant the same throughout history of the same when it comes. to free speech. The principle of free speech is easy. Like, you know, I hate what you have to say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it. The principle of free speech is not about speech you like. It's about speech that you hate. And I think all humans have that instinct inside of us to yell shut up, to yell silence, to censor.

It's not as though I'm telling you. I don't think either side's on the side of angels and has no devil on their shoulder when it comes to censorship. but I think that at least one side still understands the bumpers that you put up in society to keep you from the worst version of yourself but because the left believes in a higher truth, a moral truth, they're willing to overlook those bumpers. They can't stand in the way.

Those checks and balances, those quaint principles, those documents, that founding, that foundation, those are quaint compared to a higher moral truth. By the way, it shouldn't go. without mention that higher moral truth evolves and it's getting faster probably almost on an 18 month cycle at this point there was a time when you would have said every decade then every five years we're probably on an 18 month cycle i mean seriously like 18 months ago did we really know that the only moral position to hold was that boys can be girls that you should allow children to chop their

privates off in the pursuit of a higher moral truth no i mean everybody failed that test certainly three to five years ago right everybody i mean left as well so that moral truth evolves It revolves, it revolves progressively, with increasing frequency, now it's every 18 months. It's hard to keep up, and trust me for them as well. It's really hard for them, meaning those on the left, it's really hard. But again, if you're on the side of angels and moral truth, everything's quaint. I don't, what do we talk? What constitution?

And so you blow through it. You bro through rationality. You blow through principles. You blow through checks and balances. is you blow through legal analysis, it doesn't matter. Donald Trump's a threat to democracy. And if you believed, if you, I'm talking to you directly now, if you believe that Hitler had taken over the United States,

well, what would you do? Would you be constrained by the Constitution? If you thought we were on the verge of a Holocaust, if we had a megalomaniac in charge of the United States, would you decline? Would you neglect? to stand in opposition and do everything in your power to stop Hitler? Or would you go, well, the Constitution?

They believe, they believe that Donald Trump is Hitler. I think that's insane. I think it's insane to compare him to Osama bin Laden. I think he has a coarse personality that rubs many people the wrong way. I do not think he wants to be a dictator. I do not think he is a fascist. I don't think he's a racist. I don't think he's right on everything.

I think he has his flaws. But I think that you have to look beyond them and not fall into this sick rabbit hole, this demented insanity. Then here's the important point. Allows you to believe your position is on the side of angels and at a moral truth, a higher truth, then those geniuses at our founding

put in place to stop because once you do it's over I mean everyone believes they're on the side of angels everyone has a higher moral truth it's just about who has the humility to understand hey time and other people's points of view

sometimes tell me I might not always be right maybe we should air with the thousands of years of Western tradition that has achieved the height of humanity and the greatest enterprise in Republic in the history of mankind. Maybe we should err on the side of our founding. Don't go anywhere. More of the Will Kane podcast right after this. 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. Story number two. How many five-year-olds would it take to tackle Derek Henry? Hey, look, this is fun. So I thought I might bring it up. Mike Vrable, the head coach of the Tennessee Titans, was asked this question at a press conference during training camp.

he was asked how many five-year-olds coach do you think it would take to take down your star running back derrick henry what is henry two hundred and forty pound running back stud two thousand hey henry's had a two thousand years season right i don't know off the top of my head i think he has i mean henry is a man among boys in the nfl and so he was asked

i don't even know where it came up but i love conversations like this like i love asked we used to do this on the will cane show and i've heard people discuss this. I asked Pete Heggseth, hey, could you throw a no-hitter? At what age could you throw a no-hitter against five-year-olds, for sure? Could you throw a no-hitter against 12-year-olds? I don't know. You ever watch the Little League World Series? I don't think I could. I don't think I'd walk them home over and over. I guess it'd be a no-hitter, but they'd score some runs. They'd eventually tag me. Tag me pretty good. My arm, not so great. I don't know. I think Hegg said that he could fan all the 12-year-olds.

So at what age is it they catch up with you? Okay, but let's do this one now. How many five-year-olds does it take to tackle Derek Henry? Vrable said 35. 35. My son, 15-year-old, said, it's not near enough. Okay, let's say Derek Henry is on the 20

and has to get into the end zone. And you load up the red zone with five-year-olds. how many before he doesn't make it to the end zone. I saw people out on Twitter saying, I mean, he is stiff-arming. No, no, no, he's not. He's not stiff-arming. I don't think he's stiff-arming a single five-year-old.

They're going to be knee height. He can't be, I mean, I guess he could get his hand down around his knees and be crowning guys, you know, top of the crown, push him down that way. But I don't think he can do that. Like, I'm taking, I think 35 could do the trick. Like 11 on a defense, you've tripled it up, you're covering a lot of square inches.

And I got to give, I think the five-year-olds could swarm. That's what I'm counting on. So the question is, how quickly could he get downfield before a critical mass of five-year-old swarms? And I don't, I don't worry about tackling. That ain't, that's not my concern. I mean, the first five yards of five-year-olds, Derek Henry's knees are doing serious damage. I mean, knees and thighs are concussing out there. And there are a lot of tears, a lot of, a lot of, you know, five-year-olds, very upset at the situation.

But here's my, here's what I think. I think, you know, five yards of that, and now he's got some five-year-olds piling up under his feet. That's what I think's going to happen. And then how he's got, he's at real risk of trippage. And so I think the question is how long till he trips. How many, I need critical mass to swarm him. And I'm a little worried within five yards. I couldn't get a critical mass to him.

him. So now he's at the 15. Now he's starting to, you know, bulldozer over him. And he can probably bulldoze him for another 10, to be honest. But if they keep swarming, by the time he gets to the five, you know, now he's starting, he's got him all at his feet. Now he's starting to trip. But from the five, Henry could probably lunge to the end zone. Okay, so I got to get him to swarm him quicker. I can't give him a 45 yards. That means I need more kids on the field, like in the zone that he runs. He runs a sweep to the left. And I, you know, I can't have half of them on the right over there because they're not going to get to him in time. So now I'm down to 17, right? On half a field, again, even at 17. Yeah, I don't like the numbers on that. But I don't think it's that

many more. Like 50, 55-year-olds? I mean, if he's going up, the gut or the sides. I've got to be able to load the zone with enough five-year-olds to swarm and trip. And that's the game. How many before he trips? So I'm, I go 50. That's 15 in the middle, 15 on each side outside the hash marks. 15? He runs into his own. He sees 15, 5-year-olds. Okay, maybe it's, could be 75. It might take 75, 5-year-olds. I don't know. Hit me up at Will Kane on Twitter. Story number three. The NBA Players Association says

you can't donate to Ron DeSantis. And really, honestly, I don't know, is it shocking anymore? And really disappointing. That's not a good enough adjective. In an infuriating story, the Hill's headline reads as follows.

NBA Players Union calls Orlando Magic donation to DeSantis, alarming. I read, the National Basketball Players Association, the NBPA, has called out the Orlando Magic's donation to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' presidential campaign, referring to the donation as alarming. Quote, a political contribution from Orlando Magic is alarming given recent comments and policies of its beneficiary. The union sent a statement on Thursday. Here's their quote. NBA governors, players, and personnel have the right to express their personal political views, including through donations and statements. However, if contributions are made on behalf of an entire team, using money earned through the labor of its employees, it is incumbent upon the team governors to consider the diverse values and perspectives of staff and players. The magic's donation does not represent player support for the recipient.

$50,000. was given from the Orlando Magic to a pack backing Ron DeSantis. Orlando Magic are owned by the DeVos family. DeVos family is a conservative, very conservative family who is given to Republican causes, think tanks, candidacies over the years. So let me see if I understand this correctly. The NBA Players Association has fully endorsed players' ability to share their political views. No, no, no, that's not correct. encouraged their players to speak out on politics, not even, but especially while on the job.

Kneeling during the National Anthem, wearing I Can't Breathe shirts, Black Lives Matter shirts, slogans on the court, shirts in every pregame of every kind, on the sneakers in every way. Be political, in your face political during the game. But should an owner, and they, by the way, use the PC term governor, so stupid because owner somehow connotates slavery so so stupid but if an owner makes a donation through the organization that he owns not governs but through the organization that he owns to a political candidate that I don't know the Players Association doesn't like well that's beyond the pale the Santas they don't like because this

idea that he has, you know, put African-American history off out of the history books of Florida. False. That's false. And that he said there were, or the books that he has said are approved for African-American history include something about the, that some slaves learned trades that ended up benefiting them at some point. Which, by the way, I mean, I'm not fully invested on that debate. I haven't read in, but I mean, that's not an apology for slavery. It's, I'm sure in some cases factually true, and I don't know how a factually true statement can somehow be offensive, but even if it's factually true is not an apology for slavery, nor an endorsement. And certainly isn't perpetuating the idea that there is some redeeming nature to slavery, because, you know, depriving a human being of their rights and forcing them into labor severely offsets any skills learned during enslavement. But it doesn't deny the underlying fact, which again, I'm sure is true.

But it's been dumbed down into Ron DeSantis says slavery was good for black people. So stupid. Why do we have to live in stupid world? Why do we have to live in an idiocracy? And I know why. Then we can exert tribal power over one another. And that's what the NBA Players Association has done. They've taken a dumb down version, dumb, dumb,

dumb, dumb down version of what's happened in Florida. And every time you think that this is all about Donald Trump, I want you to see what's happened with Ron DeSantis. I've heard this increasingly about the people on the left that believe he wants to deny the Holocaust and apologize for slavery and deny African-American. So dumbed down. None of it true. It takes just cursory Google searches into looking into all of these issues.

Google searches that no one will do. Google search that no one invested in this tribal struggle for power will do, because it's not about understanding, it's about winning. And so here we have the NBA Players Association, and I'm curious. Okay, Ron DeSantis, not cool. So if the DeVos family, through the Orlando Magic, made a donation to Donald Trump, would that also be not cool? What about Aza Hutchinson? What about Vivek Gramiswamy? Are there any Republicans that it would be cool?

What about RFK? could you make a donation to RFK he's on the ticket for Democrat I mean I sincerely don't know I don't know what is on the NBA Players Association approved free thought

I mean I know like Black Lives Matter and I can't breathe that's on the cool list but now that they want to have fully free speech themselves

but limit the speech of their employer by such a backwards where we have been right most situations in this world. It's the employer that limits the on-the-job speech of employees, and now it's the employees telling the employer what they cannot say on the job.

But we need a list from the NBA PA. I did have a listener, and I always appreciate comments from you guys. I asked me if this was the final bridge for me. I don't know, man. I don't know. I was just on vacation and hanging out with a good buddy. He said he kind of quit on the NFL, and my friend was a huge Raiders fan. We used to always have Cowboys Raiders debates.

And now he's like, yeah, I don't really care anymore. I don't do the NFL, don't do the Raiders much. I still care. And I still do sports the way that sports is supposed to be. I separate it, you know. I separate my politics, and often I celebrate theirs. I try. I'll give you an example.

It's hard with the U.S. women's national team. They have made it so hard because they don't want to separate it. I'd be defying their wishes. They want their politics, front and center, in front of the American flag, by the way. They want it to define them. So if that's the case, what am I signing up for? Not the flag, not the country, but your politics, this makes them so unlikely and so hard to root for. But look, man, I love the Mavericks.

I love Luca. I don't love Mark Cuban. I love the Cowboys. I don't love the NFL. I love the longhorns. I'm not always filled with love for the University of Texas. And maybe I'm a normie who's swimming down the river and floating along with it. But I still separate it, and I still love my sports.

That's going to do it for me today here on the Will Kane podcast. If you thought it was good today, hey, leave it a five-star review. Leave me a comment. I will appreciate it, and I will see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon Music Apple. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson.

Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox Truecrime.com.