Will Cain Country - ‘Code Switching’ Or Phony? The Question For VP Harris

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

Story #1: Code switching. Authentically being yourself. Connecting with other human beings’ EQ. A different audience and different versions of yourself OR an absolute phony? The question for VP Kamala Harris. Story #2: Vladimir Putin endorses Kamala Harris while the DOJ says Russia is funding right wing influencers. A conversation with President of Corcoran Street Group and Democratic Strategist, Brad Howard. Story #3: Tim Walz origin story, has it joined his military service and his DWI as yet another piece of mythology with Investigative Reporter for the Washington Examiner, Gabe Kaminsky.   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

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. Code switching. Authentically being yourself. Connecting with other human beings.

EQ, although a different audience, different versions of yourself, or an absolute and utter fake, a phony. The question for Kamala Harris. Two, Vladimir Putin endorses Kamala Harris, while the DOJ says Russia funding right-wing influencers, a conversation with former chief of staff to a Democratic congresswoman, Brad Howard. And three, Tim Walt's origin story, has it joined his military service, and his DWI as yet another piece of mythology? It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, Terrestrial Radio, Market to Market, always on demand. Just head on over to your phone. Hit subscribe on Apple or on Spotify.

Hit subscribe on that internet, Browse. in your phone while you're watching the Will Kane show on YouTube. If you're over on Facebook where numbers have climbed to close to a million per episode this week, head over to the Will Cain show page, and hit subscribe, you can keep up with us day-to-day. Clips, announcements, part of the Wallitia, both on air and online. We got two guests today. Gabe Kaminsky of the Washington Examiner is going to join us to talk about his investigation into Tim Walts' origin story when he decided to run for office. Was he carted at the door of the Republican National Convention? George Bush is the nominee. Was he

turned away for a sticker with the words John Kerry inspired then to become a politician? Or is it yet another fabrication? We're also going to be joined by Brad Howard. He is the former chief of staff of a Democratic Congresswoman. He's also now the principal, the founder, the president of the Corcoran group, and he's going to talk to us about the role of Russia in this election with new information from the DOJ, talking about influencers on the right and where they might have received money and did it come from the Kremlin? While the Kremlin says out loud, hey, I'm endorsing Kamala Harris. So says Vladimir Putin. But let us get started with what? or not, you and I change how we talk, whether or not we change how we act, whether

not we change our energy, depending on who we talk to, whether or not we code switch, whether or Kamala Harris code switch, or she's a complete, an utter phony. Let's start with story number one. Kamala Harris, as made news earlier this week, has given speeches in Detroit and Pennsylvania, in Atlanta, and she's taken on a different accent, depending on the different. different crowd that she's talking to. Here's a little reminder of the way she sounded, for example, in Detroit or Atlanta versus the way she sounds when she speaks in Pennsylvania.

You better thank a union member for sick leave. You better thank a union member for paid leave. You better thank a union member for vacation time. And you all helped us win in 2020 and we're going to do it again in 2024. You know, the one thing about all of us is we like hard work. Hard work is good work. Hard work is good work. Do I see people testify it?

Can I get a witness? Nate Silver, Polster, has up on his substack this week, the founder of 538, has up on his substack this week that he believes the Electoral College prediction market is leaning heavily now towards Donald Trump. at Battleground States, he sees a 58 percentage point probability for Donald Trump to win the presidency. That's up from July where he had a 52% probability. At the same time, Kamala Harris's numbers have dropped from a 47% to 41% probability to win the presidency. I've spoken at various times on the show how I think that commentators or politicians indulging in questioning Kamala Harris

as a human being, whether or not she's black, whether or not she's Indian, isn't the best course of action. Talk about her ideas, to the best of our ability, to the extent that she reveals her ideas. We have a history. We have a voting record. We have statements in the past. Talk about her policies, her vision for America, rather than maybe, for example, her diverse accents. But I think not only is her political policies, something that's important to the American people that acknowledging people don't often like to think. Thinking is hard. And they revert, as was laid out to us in our conversation earlier this week with Professor Gad's sad, they revert to emotional decision-making because it's easy. That as important as Kamala Harris's

policies will be, so will be the diagnosis and the indictment. on whether or not she is a phony. I think this will be very important in determining the election outcome for the president. Now, in response to people questioning her various accents, there are some like former ESPN commentator Jamel Hill who said white people clearly do not understand the concept of code switching. A code switching is the idea that largely for black Americans,

but you could probably apply this to many demographic groups. You speak differently depending upon your audience. A black person in front of black people speaks differently, has a different accent, a different style of speaking than when they speak to their white boss. That, I'm sure, is true. I mean, I think we all do this, or most of us do this. We adjust our energy, we adjust maybe various versions of

who we are depending upon the audience we attempt to connect that's how human beings do connect actually you know they do say vulnerability is the number one you know grease in the gears of human connection but we in some crowds we're the comedian and some crowds were more sincere in some crowds we slip into slang and others we speak more formally there are very few of us i would nominate Donald Trump as someone who is consistent regardless of the audience. You get the same version of Donald Trump. So I understand the concept of code switching, but I don't think that what we're talking about here with Kamala Harris is an effort toward authenticity.

Let me show you who I really am when I'm in a crowd of like-minded people culturally. And Kamala Harris grew up. as much Indian as she did black she grew up all over the country some of that in Canada I don't think Kamala Harris grew up speaking the way she's speaking to a crowd in Detroit or Atlanta I don't think she's slipping into authenticity she may be trying to connect with people

but the question isn't whether or not she's code switching the question is whether not she's being real whether she's being phony I saw Donald Trump last night on Sean Hannity. I also listened to him on Lex Friedman. You know, you listen to Trump enough, you hear the same things over and over. That's the truth.

I mean, he plays the greatest hits. You know, he hammers home that same message over and over. Really, regardless of the interviewer, Will Kane and Fox and Friends, Lex Friedman. The only one that I've seen really get Donald Trump a little different from playing the greatest hits is Theo Vaughn, where he took on the role of questioning Theo, for example, about cocaine.

but most of the time you get the same greatest hits from Donald Trump with Kamala Harris I feel like you don't even get a greatest hits you get a chorus you get a snippet you know you get the the middle of the song that everybody knows the chorus but you don't know the rest of the lyrics and so you fill them in you almost like you ever listen to a Zach Brian song you know like like two bars you know and then the rest you know the pacing but you don't know the words are difficult and so you just kind That's what Kamala Harris' campaign strategy is.

She gives you snippets. My values remain the same. And then you fill in the rest of the words. You fill in the lyrics with what you suspect it is that she's saying with some sense of rhythm. Oh, oh, yeah. Yeah, value climate change, racial, equality, equity. You start filling it in the buzzwords, which you want to feel because she's only giving you the chorus. She's not even playing you a greatest hits.

You couldn't forget an album. you couldn't name a Kamala Harris song. Donald Trump, you understand the greatest hits. He gives them to you over and over and over. And the point from the accents to the policies is, and I think this is going to be at the most surface level, but also the most motivational level, of getting people to voting booth and making a decision,

is Kamala Harris phony? Is she fake? And my suggestion to you is she's not code switching in search of some authentic connection. She's adapting. I think she has a high-lawful. level of EQ. I do. I think she can read. What does this person want? What is this person like? The problem is she loses herself in the process of trying to connect with that person until

she in the end herself is not a person. She's just a thermometer. She's a window vein. She's reflecting back. That audience, whatever they are, whoever they are, whatever they want to hear. I think the biggest question is, is Kamala Harris a phony. We'll talk about that. Plus, big news out of Russia on the right and the left with former Chief of Staff for a Democratic Congresswoman. Brad Howard, coming up on the Will Cain Show. On July 18th, get excited.

This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only theaters July 18th. is your ticket to more, more perks, more points, more flights.

More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash ViPorter to learn more. The DOJ says Russia has funded conservative influencers to the tune of $10 million. Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, endorses Kamala Harris. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com, Fox News YouTube channel.

750,000 of you yesterday on the Fox News Facebook page. Also, terrestrial radio, market-to-market. So join us whenever and however you like. All you have to do is hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify. I'll show up in your feed. You'll hang out with us here. You'll become a member of the Wallitia. So what do we make of all of the events coming out of Russia? From manipulating our media to endorsing Kamala Harris. Let's break it all down with the former chief of staff to U.S. Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of Florida, the president of the Corcoran group.

Brad Howard joins us now on the Wheel Cane Show. Hey, Brad. Hey there. How's it going? Good. I know you've been hanging out. I appreciate you coming in, and I appreciate you listening to the beginning of the Will Kane Show. I'm curious what you have to say, what response, what might have been inspired in your mind, as you heard me monologue about what I think is actually at an emotional level. The decision for many Americans is the authenticity of Kamala Harris. Well, look, I think Americans are starting to get to know. A lot of Americans didn't know too much about the vice president before she was selected on the ticket. And, you know, the role of the vice president is typically a very low-key role in an administration. And so they, particularly when you have someone like Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who are consuming all the news in the airwaves.

So Americans are just now starting to get to know her, which is why I think, you know, and it's a good time. And we're all listening for what she has to say and what she's proposing. And hearing her story. I think the convention did a great job telling Americans who she was, why she fights for the people she fights for, and why she's running for president. And so, you know, I don't detect that much of a difference in the audio. But, you know, as a southerner, I'm from the state of Arkansas. Oh, Brad. When I go home, I know my southern accent tends to come out a little more when I'm around family, particularly up to a glass of bourbon or two.

But, you know, like, to be fair, she wasn't, she's not from the South, and she wasn't doing a song. Southern accent. She was doing a black accent. She was, that's what she was doing. And I relate to that too. Honestly, I really do, Brad. But, but, I mean, come on, man. You definitely detect a difference. You know, I mean, that's a vastly different accent she's doing.

But the real question is, and like you say, we're getting to know her, okay? The thing is, I don't know how much they actually want us to know Kamala Harris because they're definitely protecting her. They're not subjecting her to interviews. We don't get to see much or know much. And they're positioning her as simply the referendum vote on Donald Trump. So that's what's left us also in this position of it's the journalistic, it's the journalistic requirement, Brad. It's like, okay, how is she voted?

What is she said? What is she running on? And who is she really? And she's doing two things at the same time in my estimation, keeping information from us and a calculated way, which, by the way, if I are running a campaign, I would probably do. I mean, that's probably what you should do. And giving us what I think many people are afraid is a fake version of Kamala Harris. Well, look, in my experience, I've run several campaigns at the congressional, gubernatorial, and senatoral level. In my experience, voters have a really good BS detector.

And what they're looking, one of the things they really liked about Donald Trump in 2016 was his authenticity. Here was a guy that was, you know, putting caution to the wind and saying what he believed at the time. And that was super refreshing, especially compared to a very controlled candidate like Hillary Clinton. And that worked for him in 2016. It did not work so well in the middle of a pandemic when people really needed, you know, accurate facts and information and actionable intelligence. And kind of the flying by the Steve's pants that people liked in 16 didn't really work in 20. And that's why Biden, I think, was able to win in 20. We're now in an environment where, you know, Donald Trump is who he is.

He's not changing for anybody. And, you know, I would hope that he would have evolved on some issues over the years. but he has it, but he has flip-flopped on a lot of issues, and we can talk about that later. You know, so Kamala Harris, you have to look, the dark secret of politics is that politicians all the time adjust their position on issues. What you've got to look at is you've got to understand who they are as a person,

why are they in this race and how they make you feel and do they provide you hope, optimism, and confidence in a future that is good for you and your family. And I think that is the focus. Like, we can talk about policy all day long, but voters don't go into the booth and vote on policy. They vote on how candidates make them feel that they were going to have their backs and that they are going to lead the U.S. into, you know, good fortunes.

And so, but to your point, journalists' job is to hold them accountable on the positions of the issues. And that's what we're going to see. We're going to see it in the debate. I guarantee you Donald Trump's going to criticize some of her evolution of the issues. But I will also tell you as a moderate, and again, I was a former spokesperson for the House Blue Dog Coalition, which are the moderate pro-business Democrats on Capitol Hill that the coalition started in 94. What I appreciate, though, is I appreciate when politicians evolve on issues.

You know, for instance, so Kamala Harris here was originally opposed to fracking. But what she had said, and I think this did not get quite highlighted in her interview enough, is she said she discovered that you can achieve clean energy goals while not having to ban fracking. And in fact, fracking is a good alternative to, you know, oil, which we get from other countries. and when we drill for oil in the U.S., we do it more responsibly than other countries. So if you're going to drill for oil, let the U.S. do it. And so I think that is a really smart evolution on policy, for instance.

And so, yeah, that's a flip-flop, but I think it's good when politicians learn new information and adapt and adjust their positions. Okay. I agree with that proposition. I totally do. But this is actually not divorced from – I totally agree with you. I think that people vote on how they feel more so than policy. but I think that this idea of authenticity versus phoniness applies to policy. And so even in your word choice, which by the way, I don't want to bog down these debates,

but I don't think Donald Trump lost because people thought they were getting a stream of consciousness of bad facts when it comes to COVID. I think they, whatever they felt in 2016 about his bluntness and authenticity, many might have felt differently in 2020, untethered from any particular issue, but they might have just felt I want some more, I don't know, collegiality. But the question is how do they feel in 2024, on the same note when it comes to Donald Trump?

But you had a couple other pieces of word choice in there that I really listened to and I noticed. So let's talk about staying on this idea of phoniness and authenticity when it comes to policy. When you mention Donald Trump changing positions, you use the concept of flip-flop. When you talked about Kamala Harris, you called it an evolution. Now, I happen to believe the opposite.

I think Donald Trump has showed some evolution, and Kamala Harris is flip-flopping. But, okay, let's both own our biases. And let's just put, let's just do this for both of us. Let's pick one, and we're going to try to together ascertain whether or not we think it's an authentic evolution or a phony flip-flop. So you said Donald Trump has flip-flopped.

Give me the issue that you think best highlights that. Well, let's say for, you know, let's say on the issue of abortion, for instance. I mean, he was once pro-choice. He became adamantly pro-life. And now is once again supporting, you know, certain things that the pro-life movement have traditionally opposed, such as IVF. In fact, I think he switched his position on what he was going to do on the Florida ballot initiative on abortion within a matter of 48 hours. So, you know, it's kind of like when he, When you're all over the place like that and consistently moving even within days of each other,

it's hard for voters to know where you're reliably going to be. And I think that women who believe this is a fundamental right of their own ability to make the freedom to make their own health care decisions. Like that really makes them really nervous. And I think particularly what they're concerned about is the far rights attempt to promote a national abortion ban. So what do you think real quick on this, Brad? I think it's a great example. What do you think, I'm going to ask you this earnestly, what do you think, not just Donald Trump believes, because that's the hardest for us to ascertain? What do you think Donald Trump would do?

If elected president, do you think Donald Trump would, A, advocate for or B, even sign a national abortion ban forwarded by, let's say, a Republican Senate and House? What would Donald Trump do as president in your estimation? Well, look, I would suspect that he would stay in line with his party. in hopes of, you know, a legacy building there because he's got, you know, this is a signature issue for Republicans. This is a number one, this is a top two issue for nearly every conservative voter is the issue of choice. And so I would imagine he would vote or he would veto or he would sign it where his party

have passed it. I disagree. But again, it depends on where that bill falls and what the exemptions in it, et cetera, et cetera. Right. I disagree. Okay. Now, you think it's a cynical flip-flop.

that he is giving you now and that if he were president he would actually be the man that he was for example perhaps in a republican primary i think like i've just skeptical that he traditionally feels like he should have government funding of IVF fertility treatment right i'm going to tell you why i disagree okay and this should be important to any woman out there that considers this their number one voting issue i don't disagree with you many many do right but but they have to at least acknowledge i think many women would have to acknowledge we got a kind of debate? What would Donald Trump do? Because your diagnosis is right on his evolution or flip-flopping on the issue. My suspicion is this is not a major animating position for Donald Trump. I don't think he

is passionate. I think he's passionate about immigration. I think he's a I think he's passionate about the economy. I think he's pretty actually passionately anti-war. I think he's pretty doveish because I just think going back to even when he wasn't running for president, he was talking about Iraq. You see evidence of him on late night talk shows talking in this manner. And so I look for some consistency over time on that. I don't think abortion is an important issue to Donald Trump personally. I don't think it controls his passions. And because of that, I think he is a pragmatist as well, a dealmaker, that he'll revert to that instinct. And so what I think I hear from him today is I got to become the President of the United States. I got to win a general election. I'm never going to

reflect my parties where they are on this. If they're more pro-life than I am, that's not the way you win. And I actually think, because he's not running for office again, this would be, you know, it's a one-term deal for Donald Trump. We do know that. You're not talking about running for office. You're making a joke calling him an authoritarian, which I, he's term-limited at the end of this.

So he's not running. Okay, let's just accept your joke. If he's authoritarian, then he doesn't give a hot damn what anybody's opinions are on the policy issues, okay? if he wants to win an election, he has to care. In this situation, he's not running, so he doesn't have to care what other people think. I think he would think about legacy.

I don't think he would absolutely veto a national abortion ban. I think he would veto it. I don't think he'd fall in line with the party. I think he'd revert to the pragmatic guy that he is. And I think he would think his legacy is more as a centrist than as a Republican. I truly believe all of that. I think the two things I would say is, number one,

that's a pretty big gamble for women to take, number one. And number two is, you know, Trump is going to do everything he can to either elect or keep in power a Republican Congress. And I have, I fully believe a Republican Congress would indeed send to his desk some kind of national restrictions on reproductive health rights for women, whether that may not be a total national abortion ban, but there will, I mean, they can't help themselves, right? Like, when everyone, the problem with Congress right now, particularly in the House is that you can only really lose a primary. Very few members of Congress can lose a general election thanks to redistricting. And both parties are guilty of this. So what you have are a constant

battle to the extremes within both parties. And so, you know, abortion is a great measure to excite your base and make sure that you come out of a primary, you know, victorious. And so I just, I just think the pressure is to placate to the far elements of your party. And abortion is one of those elements. I'm skeptical that a Republican Congress would put forward any big restrictions on abortion. I truly am. Now I'm going to do my turn on Kamala Harris. And I think the best evidence we can muster is who were you before you were really trying to win a general election. In Donald Trump's case, we have a little bit more evidence because he wasn't even running for any office when we can go back to some of these statements. But with Kamala, she's kind of always been a

politician. But we have a consistency with Kamala Harris. I'm going to pick the issue you gave us, fracking. She said, and you know this, no, in unequivocal terms, I am opposed to fracking. I would ban fracking. I believe, and I have a little more humility on this one, I think she said offshore drilling as well, that she would severely limit offshore drilling. She has made, she, on this issue, she was one of the furthest left politicians in the United States Senate on restrictions for oil and gas. Now, all of a sudden it's different, right? And I think that the reason why is it she needs to win Pennsylvania to win the presidency. And she knows that fracking and the fracking industry are huge in Pennsylvania and she can't win with her previously held position. To me, that's not an authentic evolution.

That's a flip-flop in pursuit of electoral victory that I, then I'm left with the ultimate question. What would she do if she won and who is she as the president and her co-sponsorship of the Green New suggest me the real Kamla Harris would absolutely come down on oil and gas. And I'd say two things. Number one is she has admitted that when you're talking about things like this too, like science and technology evolve and they get more advanced. And when they do, you can start, for instance, you know, the burning of fossil fuels is cleaner now than it has ever been thanks to technology, right?

We're doing incredible things to make sure that we're reducing carbon emissions and that We have already seen, you know, the benefits of that in terms of climate change there and of air pollution, right? Most of us in America get to breathe healthy air. And so the science and technology are evolving, right? And so she has admitted that, number one, she has learned that you can achieve clean energy goals within the next, you know, 10 to 20 years while also allowing fracking to help achieve those goals because there's certain things. She learned it fast, like over the last couple of weeks. Well, I'm glad. But number two is, you know, her voting record in the U.S. Senate, right, was tied to, you know, her as a representative of California, right?

And so she's running now to represent the entire country. And that includes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And so do I think it is politically convenient to evolve on this issue? Correct. But do I believe in her reasoning? Does it sound reasonable to me that you can evolve on a policy when the technology is involving? And we're learning all different kinds of ways we can produce U.S. made energy? Absolutely.

I don't think those two things are in conflict. You know, you described yourself as a centrist. I know that you were part of a blue dog Democrat group in Washington, D.C. I'm curious what you think of this. You know, we've certainly seen a scrambling. I find the, I find it a very antiquated and overly blunt and simplistic diagram to say. say Donald Trump far right, Kamala Harris far left, and, you know, we're living on the extremes. I don't think that's, I think tonally, you can get away with that, maybe.

But on the issues, you know, Donald Trump, I really believe is also this, one of the most centrist Republicans we've had since Richard Nixon. I think on the policies, you're looking at a guy who has scrambled political lines. And it's manifested in some interesting scrambling of endorsement. So, you know, Kamala Harris just got the endorsement of Liz Cheney. She also just got the endorsement of John McCain's son, self-described Republicans of the past. Donald Trump has gained the endorsement of RFK Jr. He has gained the endorsement of Elon Musk, self-described, you know, I don't know about Democrat, but at least on the left in the past.

Guys like David Sachs in Silicon Valley, you just see a scrambling. that defies the old school far left, far right, where you would have described yourself as a moderate, as a centrist, as a blue dog Democrat. Don't you think it's interesting what's happening in politics? No, like this is like, I agree with you, actually, on this point that there is this interesting.

And this is typical for most presidential elections. Like when you hit Labor Day, everyone laser focuses on the center and the middle. But I think that when you have, And I think the, for instance, the progressive base of the Democratic Party, you know, the AOC, the so-called squad, you know, they were really pressing hard that, you know, it doesn't matter about winning elections. We have to be right on policy, right? And they were forcing party to them. They were primary committee chairs enforcing them to the right. Since that time, they have dramatically changed their tune. In fact, two of the squad members have lost renomination. The Democratic voters in their district said, you're too far to the left. And then add to that a quote from AOC. last week, which was something along the lines of, you know, the impetus of a movement is to be effective, not to just be right. And so I think there's also an awakening in the Democratic Party, particularly on the far left elements that like, hey, guys, we've got all this cool stuff we want

to do, but we can't do it unless we win, right? And so I think they're allowing a lot of the Democrats to appeal to swing voters and not get attacked from the far left by abandoning, you know, the base, so to speak. And so with Joe Biden, we had some problems. problems over Israel in the base. He was starting to lose, you know, swing voters because they were drifting to Donald Trump. The money was drying up. So for a lot of reasons, it made sense for him to leave. Kamla has now offered a way to heal for all those factions to come together, united behind one thing, and that is to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. So, and Republicans are interesting here because, you know, to your point, there are people that are, that are,

traditionally were Democrats at one point, though I would argue their, their, the rhetoric and kind of with their position of the issues, I've never really been Democratic, like Tulsi gathered in RFK Jr. But at least on the left. But okay, maybe not Democratic, but on the left. Correct. Yeah. And so what you're seeing here is, and Donald Trump is also placidding to the middle, too.

I mean, his announcement that he wanted government-funded, you know, IVF treatment is very much a play to, you know, swing voters, particularly women in the middle. And so I think that is a good thing for democracy, that both candidates here are trying to appeal to center voters. And again, these are like, I think what the 6% of voters in six states are going to determine this election was a headline axios head a few months ago and so this is a good thing for democracy right the what happens and that that is traditionally what happens this time of year so and i think comela not having to go through a competitive primary also allowed her to establish a lot of these

moderate positions uh and if she gets there we go back to 2020 right but i'm saying this time we go back to who she was in a primary in 2020 oh no it's a great gift to her that she didn't have to do it this year we have to go back four years and but but to your point that's why it's so important to out who they really are because even in your own words you just said hey guys we can't do any of these cool things unless we win and I'm worried and a lot of people watching and listening are worried about your cool things like I'm worried about what you do if you win for example for example I think this is the whole calculus like for anybody who is a self-described monitor centrist who are these two people really not who they promise from September from Labor Day

to election day and the you when i i happen to believe that setting aside rhetoric and tone but according to policy and governance donald trump is entirely more common sense pragmatic or centrist than comal harris who is openly saying hey you know what maybe we should pack the supreme court that to me is radical like packing the supreme court is the most rat it's so radical it's only been tried once more by one of the other furthest left presidents we've ever had who had his agenda stymied and that was a good 90 years ago fDR well look so a couple things here like the republicans um you know i think here the problem with Donald trump is he like he the way you kind of positioned him is a good way to brand it but the reality is he is all over the place when he was

in the white house it was impossible to predict what he was going to do from the from the side of Congress. Like even his own leadership team in the house was continually unaware where he was going to be on any issue. Take the TikTok ban, for instance. I mean, he ran hard on trying to ban TikTok in the last moment reversed his position. You know, he ran hard on trying to put more resources at the border and then killed a bipartisan immigration bill that would have done that. So like it you get the reality is governing is difficult. You know, we campaign and poetry governed in pros. And so the focus on the flip flops or whatever like is is it's a good thing to focus on. It's a good thing to question canons about their position on the issues but deep down Americans just need to know

they need to look at these people they need to know their stories their motivations and try to determine based on what they're hearing and seeing who is going to fight for them and and protect their family and help them find prosperity and so that is that is something the voters are going to have to do and each campaign is going to try different ways to do that I think people are attacking comments she's not doing enough press interviews but you got to understand we have a very complex way that we now absorb and consume news and so people are getting their news from me. various different mediums, not just cable news networks. So the fact she hasn't sitting down with all the cable news networks doesn't mean people

aren't seeing her. I think when you talk to people on TikTok and social media and Twitter or X and all these other venues, they are seeing and hearing from the comic campaign. There are videos all over the place. No, it's not a sit-down interview. That's not exactly. I agree with you. No one is begging for more cable news interviews.

They're begging for a little bit of rigor when it comes to what the videos might be that we're seeing. like Donald Trump is sitting down for an hour with with Lex Friedman. Yeah, but it's an hour of non-off. Trigonometry. It's, that is nonsense. That is nonsense, what you just said. You have an hour of unscripted.

And say like almost nothing. It's just personal attacks. Well, you may not like what he's saying, but it's an unscripted. Okay, that's fine. I can't deprive you of your subjective consumption of that media, but you can't deprive me of the fact that it is an hour unscripted. not pre-veted questions from the hip with multiple individuals now when all I get from Kamala Harris to your point is a few like polished videos on TikTok so I can have her image wash

over me in 15 second increments I mean you right we do consume media a different ways but how about you go into one of these new media's Kamala Harris and answer a few tough questions and that's what people are talking about not hey where's your 15 minute interview on fox and ABC I mean I'll take it because that's the best I can probably get in asking for this rigor. But any form of rigor would be nice when it comes to Harris. My point is when you talk to voters, especially swing voters in the middle, I don't think any of them are clamoring for more of like sit down news debates. They're wanting to see in here from the candidates. They're going to get an opportunity in the debates.

She's going to have to answer tough policy. The moderators are going to make her explain, you know, any kind of evolution she's had on the issues, where she stands now and what she's going to do. And that's why debates are critical. And I'm so happy that both sides have agreed to these debate rules. And we're having our first debate. But she is running a 21st century campaign where she's talking to voters where they are in the mediums in which they're consuming their news. She's doing it in a way that's part that's for the medium. You've got to run this kind of sophisticated campaign, particularly when you're reaching out to, you know, voters of color.

You know, the Hispanic community, for instance, doesn't all speak like one dialogue to Spanish. they speak like you say sophisticated I hear manufactured I mean the future of candidacy artificial intelligence my Brad I want to ask you about this

speaking of media there's two stories I think they're interesting one the DOJ has released an indictment against a conservative influencer I think her name is Lauren Chin and I've read the indictment I've actually read the indictment

and it is essentially essentially goes like this. The Russian government, which is directly connected to RT, funded RT to fund then conservative influencers out there, which included Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, Tim Poole, and others to the tune of $10 million. I guess that was split up amongst all these. The media company was called tenant media. Everything I've read so far suggests all those personnel I just said to you didn't know where the money was coming from and were duped into this, victimized into taking this money maybe they should have asked more big questions about where the money's coming from uh but the chin character the indictment suggests did know and was was offering also by the way

from r t suggested talking points now each one of those individuals i just mentioned say they were totally in charge of their own editorial they sit down and i actually believe that on each of those people but um you do as well that's interesting um yeah yeah here here What's your takeaway from this story? I find this story interesting and fascinating. I'm skeptical. I'm going to be real with you, Brad. I'm skeptical of the DOJing in allegations, of course, of Russia collusion.

But I don't think, I definitely think Russia is trying to play, like China as well, trying to play in American politics through influence schemes. And I find this story fascinating. And let's be clear. This is nothing new, right? All of our adversaries have been trying to do this for the history, of our country. I mean, like, to try to sway elections in the U.S. And it's one of the careful considerations you have to plan for in a democracy, right?

And so I think you get, but let's pull out a little bit, right? Russia is trying to funnel disinformation to voters in the United States to, you know, basically undercut American support for Ukraine, right? It's very clear why they're doing what they're doing. But, you know, just this week, too, you saw them. I believe arrest and expose a Chinese agent working for the governor of New York, who is a Democrat, right? So our adversaries, and then Iran has got its own digital operation where they're funneling disinformation across all these platforms. And so that part of it is nothing new.

And I have no reason to think that those individuals knew that they were getting Russian disinformation from Russia and we're using it to support Russian policy and advance Russian objectives. Like that seems a stretch to me. I just, I think any patriotic American would reject that. And so what this comes back to, though, is Americans need to understand that what is not fake news, but what is absolutely accurate news is our adversaries are trying to influence our elections and advance policy that is better for their entry and that weakens American democracy. Because American democracy is a threat to, you know, their, you know, communist and authoritarian preference. I think the goal, you write about specific policies, but I think the goal is also division, just foment division in America. Yeah, just destabilize America, right? Yeah, and I think you'd be naive.

Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, you'd be naive to not believe that those countries you just rattled off. I'm sure all three of them and more, probably North Korea and others, are playing in the American media influence game. I mean, just, of course they are. Of course they are. Now, by the way, the answer to that for me is not censorship. That's not the answer for that. More information and let us vet out the truth is the answer for that.

But don't put our heads in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. Right. And I think, you know, I kind of described, it was interesting if you looked at the, for instance, the TikTok ban debate. You know, the Democratic lead on the intel committee actually voted against the ban. And he had a really good statement in this sense that at some point we have to trust. the American people to make their own decisions and understand what is real and what is not, and it's not the government's job to do that. Because I think with the governor, if the government becomes the arbiter of truth, that's a very

dangerous position for the government. I love hearing that for me. I love hearing that from a Democrat. That's wonderful to hear. But that means that every American out there has to do their due diligence, right? When you hear a story that the baby sounds fishy, right? or like it's so extreme that it can't possibly be true. Maybe dig a little bit and don't just spread it.

Yeah. Kind of, you know, local news is so critical. Like, you go to your local paper. Like, Russia is not going, for instance, to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and trying to shove misinformation in there. You know, like your local news is a great resource to try to figure out what's going on. You know, local news and TV can assume that. Just be mindful of stuff that comes across.

The only push back on that is every newspaper is made up of individuals, reporters, human beings who also. are subject to influence in various ways. And you make, I'm glad you brought that thing about the governor of view. That's a different bias, different concern of bias, right? That's not going to be foreign disinformation. That's just going to be natural human biases. And that's a different issue altogether.

Well, like you don't, you shouldn't take anything you read as pure fact. You can get foreign influence. You can get foreign influence on any human being. They might not be taking money, but they, they, they, but at least there's an editorial process. Right. But at least there's an editorial reporter has to say. Real quick, I want to ask you about this as well. Kamala Harris endorsed by Vladimir Putin.

He came out. He's on TV. He said something. I will, I hear you chuckling. I mean, he is a KGB. He's a former KGB, FSB guy. So I don't know what to think about Vladimir Putin. And there is like this, it's like a glimmer of sarcasm in his voice in his eyes as he's doing it.

But the timing of it too. He does. Right after we find out Russia's, you know, funneling all this information into conservative media, he then comes out and endorses Kamla. trying to like well i don't know when the video i don't know when the video was was recorded to be fair but um he did endorse Kamala harris what do you make of that uh i think there's a there's a headline from CNN that says uh Vladimir Putin trolls u.s presidential race with endorsement of kamala Harris that's what he's doing is just trolling i think he's got his you know his

to what effect Russian well i think he's just trying to cause chaos just like as we said earlier chaos undermines in american democracy and so he's like no no we're not funneling you know We're not funneling all this money to help boost, you know, Donald Trump over here. And we're where I endorse Kamala. And so he's just throwing it all around. Like, it's just games from Vladimir Putin. He's really good at this. And he's going to continue to play games all the way up to November.

And even after that, he's going to do everything he can to, you know, to disrupt things. That's what I think. Well, I also want to add one more detail to this story because you just said that, you know, was this money going to help Donald Trump? That's actually a debatable point. because all of the individuals involved had come down kind of anti-Trump for purity reasons to tie back in the conversation we were having earlier. Conservative media.

About abortion, for example. Right. The real, what he's really trying to do is to, he's really trying to weaken American support for, you know, helping Ukraine, right? Because that, that's the thing that's on fire right now for him. That's the thing that's embarrassing in him is that Ukraine is still fighting back, you know, and Russia is supposedly one of the most powerful countries in the world and yet can't defeat Ukraine. Right. And so he's trying to put out this fire. All those people,

all those people, although conservative, had recently criticized Donald Trump heavily and said that many of them said they wouldn't vote for him because he had tied back into the conversation Brad and I had earlier. He had not been hard enough on abortion. It's a fascinating story. I agree with you. I don't know what to make of Vladimir Putin endorsing Kamleris. I think that Vladimir Putin is just, I think he is an FSB, KGB agent, interested in keeping everyone guessing and divided on what his ultimate ends are. I really enjoyed this, Brad. I enjoyed the back and forth. I appreciate you doing it with me today. Yeah. My pleasure. I hope we do it again. That's Brad Howard, uh, president and founder of, uh, the Corcoran Street Group and a former

chief of staff to U.S. Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy here on the Wilcane show. All right. A new reporting on the origin story of Tim Walts. Is it fabricated or exaggerated in the same way many have talked about his service on deployment in war or his D.D. We've got fresh reporting with Gabe Kaminsky of the Washington Examiner next on the Will Cain show. 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 specksavers.cavers.ca to book your next eye exam. Iexams provided by independent

optometrists. Tim Walt's origin story. Also Stolen Valor, it's the Will Cain show streaming live at foxnews.com. Fox News, YouTube, Fox News, Facebook. Where, by the way, here's what you're saying right now in the Willisha on Facebook. Peggy Fink says, there's more to being a president. than just abortion. It's more about keeping America safe. Really smart, Peggy. Absolutely. We spent a weight. George W. Bush wanted to be the education president. He became the 9-11 president and the war president after that. Presidency is defined by external threats. That's a fact. That's the nature of the job. It's not as much setting domestic policy. And that should be, therefore, the primary filter through which we select a president.

Jeanette DeNaro says on Facebook Trump has a past record of doing great things for our country Harris failed at the border and failed as VP totally incompetent I happen to agree Janet Joe Martinez says Of course Will is covering Trump He's a card carrying soapbox maga foxificent

I am covering him Joe Because he's one of the final two people running for president Over on YouTube Ken Decker says Will Kane you're a beast Love the show Thank you, Ken. Trailer guy on YouTube says,

come on, dude, she needs to do more sit-down interviews. That is expected out of every candidate. Totally agree. I didn't like Brad's answer on. We're on 21st century campaign. Videos on TikTok. Okay, man, like we don't need 15-second AI creations to select a president. We need a little bit of back and forth to see if we can get to authenticity.

Sasha and Savisha say, invite him back after the election to talk about his loss. We'll see. Yeah. We'll see. Talking about Brad. I'm not ready to make a prediction for election day. Gabe Kaminsky is an investigative reporter for the Washington Examiner. He has a new article up talking about Tim Walts, vice presidential candidate's origin story. The story goes, Gabe. Great to see you, by the way. Glad to have you on the Will Kane show. The story goes. He was inspired to run for office when he went to a George, W. Bush Republican National Convention and was rejected at the door because he had a John Carey sticker on his wallet. Is the story true? So the story is a little bit more nuanced than that, but yes, in fact, we found the Washington Examiner that his alleged political origin story contains significant holes. And I can kind of walk you through those. Essentially, he claims that in 2004, him and he was a high school teacher in Minnesota. He says that two of

him and two of his students went to a 2004 George Bush rally as kind of a civics lesson. And in line at that rally in Mancota, Minnesota, one of quote unquote his students had a John Kerry sticker on his wallet, and therefore they were kind of in his telling harassed by George Bush's security team, and they were all three of them kicked out of the rally. That's Tim Walts's telling of that story. The actual telling of that story. All right, really quick, before you get to the actual telling, okay, not the convention, a rally, not Waltz,

but one of the two students with him has the John Kerry sticker. But in his telling, to your point, they're harassed, and he's inspired to run for president. Then what really happened? Right. Yeah, he says this is kind of his political origin moment that prompted his, you know, miraculous, like political inspiration or whatever, which is also, I'll explain how that's not exactly true.

So what actually happened, what we reported is that there's, the first thing is this. The two teenagers that Tim Walls arrived with are not even his students. So he was trying to frame this as, okay, these are two of my students. I was their guardian. We went to this rally. They were actually just two teenagers. In fact, they were two Democratic activists. One of them was in college at the time.

The other one went to a completely different high school. The second thing that's extremely notable is that Tim Walts did get into that rally. We learned Tim Walts was not kicked out of the rally. The two students were rejected, but Tim Walts did get into that rally. The third thing that is extremely notable is that it was not random that they, it is true that one of the students, Matt Claver, had a John Kerry sticker on his wallet. It is also true that it was not exactly random why there was hostility in line at that George Bush rally because days earlier, While all those students were waiting in line to get tickets for the George Bush rally, they were heard by local reportedly making unfavorable comments about Bush,

and it led Bush's security team due to kind of a clash days earlier that was reported in the local press to deny them actual tickets to the event. And in fact, Secret Service talked to- The clash was big enough it was reported in the local press. It was big enough, and it was the local press. And that's actually because one of the students called the local press to make that actually happened. But Secret Service interviewed, was aware of the situation. They did end up giving them tickets to the event. The fourth thing I want to highlight is that Tim Walts claims that this

was the first moment that he became politically motivated, that it was, he had never really thought about being involved in politics before his alleged student, not his student, was kicked out of this rally. That is also false because days earlier, Tim Walts, we have, a picture and the picture is also online. You can, you know, listeners can find this picture. There's a picture online of Tim Walls protesting holding a sign that says enduring, enduring freedom veterans for John Kerry. And moreover, that's a title that refers to individuals who served in Afghanistan, something Tim Walls never did. So he was politically involved. He never served in Afghanistan. Those are two flubs on that last one as well.

so that's so it's fascinating and you know you guys have done you've done a good job uh investigative reporting here what's the takeaway in the end i mean you know it's important but it also could be for someone watching us and going you know details details you know he says it's his origin story it's his origin story so what's the takeaway i mean for me gave it is inseparable from sort of like you know i've always said like if somebody says hey will you should watch Love is Blind UK. I'm like, okay. But maybe if the third or fourth person tells me that in a row, I'm like, maybe this show's good. Maybe I should watch it. It's like, okay, details that are exaggerated or fabricated continue to mount. Like, it's not this story necessarily. It's this story

plus the military service story, plus the DUI story in Nebraska. It just starts mounting to you're like, this guy is a, is a fabrication. No, that's exactly right. This is a, in a long line of examples that the Washington Examiner and various other outlets have found since Tim Walls became the vice presidential nominee in which he's embellishing his past. You mentioned a couple. I would also highlight that we had unearthed that Tim Walls had a long time relationship

with a Muslim cleric named Assad Zeman who shared a pro-Hitler movie on social media. who has shared other anti-Semitic content online, such as a Hamas press release and other examples. And Tim Walz's campaign completely denied it, said he is no relationship. And then we found a video in which the imam calls Tim Walz his master teacher, quote unquote master teacher. So, yeah, there's various examples of the VP nominee embellishing his past. He said his wife received IVF treatment. She actually received a slightly different treatment. He said he received various teacher of the year awards in Minnesota, as the Daily Wire reported, that is inaccurate. So this is part of a trend. People might look at the political origin story and say, okay, yeah,

there's various details wrong, but I would look at it as part of a broader story. And when impressed on that by CNN, I mean, I did find his answer. You know, Danabash, you know, I have a lot of criticisms for that interview. I actually thought she was better with Tim Walts and she was with Kamala Harris. And she pressed Waltz on his military. service. And she said, but you definitely, I believe she said, but you definitely said, you carried weapons in war. And his answer was, I'm not good at grammar, you know. Actually, that's one of the ones where I think she gave her, gave him a multiple choice. Like, did you misspeak? So that's not a good question. But he didn't even take the misspeak option. He created his own new option, which was,

I'm not really good at grammar, which I don't know what that means about. It's insane. I mean, I'm not sure how that explains you suggesting you were in Afghanistan, but that was his answer. Right. I mean, that's a completely ridiculous answer. I'm not good at grammar. Then why are you running to be the vice president of the United States? I don't really, I don't know if it's a grammar issue. I feel like it's obviously a statistically here, there is a mounting, you know, situation of him fabricating elements of his past. So maybe it's a, maybe it's also a grammar issue. Maybe it's a multi-fold problem, but. All right, well, it's up at the Washington Examiner. You can read the details of this investigation into his political origin story. It's written by Gabe Kaminsky. He's doing great work over there. I hope we can have you on both on the Will Kane Show and on the Fox News Channel,

more, Gabe. Let's stay in touch. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. All right. All right.

That's going to do it for us today. Football tonight. Pro football starts tonight. Texas, Michigan, Saturday. So go over to Spotify and get the Canaan Sports Friday edition tomorrow of the Will Cane Show, and we're going to break it all down with Andrew Perloff, formerly of the Dan Patrick Show. That'll be tomorrow, Canaan Sports, the Will Kane Show. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app.

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 Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.