Will Cain Country - Former President Trump Threatened With Jail Again?! PLUS, Who Is Really Funding These Campus Protests?

Episode Date: May 6, 2024

Story #1: It is the end of the first period in the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York, so where do we stand today? Fox News Legal Editor & Attorney, Kerri Kupec Urbahn joins Will to break it all down. Story #2: Let’s name some names as college graduations across the country are being interrupted or canceled. Who is really behind these student protests? Who is giving them the money? The parallels, and even the names, harken back to 1968. Story #3: Authenticity is the currency, so Will revisits and reacts to his conversation with pop culture savant and YouTuber, ‘Nerdrotic.’   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

Apparently we're live here on the Will Cain show today, on a day of authenticity, a day of technical troubles. One, it is the end of the first period, because all of my mind is on hockey. It's the end of the first period in the Trump trial in New York. So where do we stand today? Who? Let's name some names. as Columbia's graduation is interrupted, Michigan's graduation is interrupted, who is behind the student protest, who's giving them the money, the parallels, and even in the names, parking back to 1968. And three, authenticity, as exhibited by our technical difficulties today, is the currency.

And Sidney Sweeney has a couple of assets. Let's revisit and react to our conversation, our very popular, episode with YouTube's NerdRotic. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand, wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or Fox News podcast, or you can subscribe on YouTube. I assume because I don't know what's going on right now. I don't know what's happening. This is it.

is real, I guess. I'm not convinced that my audio works. I'm not sure that I can hear anything. So I don't know. I don't know what we're doing here. I don't know. We're flying by the seat of our pants. We may be doing a show. Maybe not. Who knows? Let's see. I'm told that we are streaming

live, which is news to me. Some 10, 15 minutes late. And I'm not convinced I'm going to be able to hear anything, including my guests here, today on the Will Kane show. But she's been waiting patiently through technical difficulty. So let's see if it's going to work. Let's start with story number one. Perry Koupec Erbond is a Fox News legal editor. She does a great job of covering everything legal,

including the Donald Trump trials in New York for Fox News. I was with her on Fox and Franza the weekend. I was super impressed with all of her legal analysis. Wanted to get her on the show. And I can see you, Carrie. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to hear you. I can hear you. Oh, it's a miracle of some technology, yeah, that we got you here today on the Will Kay Show. Thanks to the audience for being patient. Thank you for Carrie for being patient. So I was joking. I'm consumed as often am with sports and I'm consumed with hockey right now. So, you know, there's only three periods in hockey. I was thinking, well, we're not halfway into the Donald Trump trial in New York, but we're kind of a third maybe. So I think what I need to do, I think what many of us need to do is

sort of just take a moment now, almost like the studio show between the first period and the second period and say, where are we? Like, how is this going? The prosecution is still putting on witnesses. There's still many of the heavy hitters left to go, Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. But as you stand today, how do you think the prosecution has done in its case against Donald Trump? Well, they haven't proved that he's done anything illegal yet, which is the whole point being in court. The former president is on the first to stand in a criminal trial. And you'd think that if a state or the federal government was going to bring a case against the leader of the free world and possibly the next one again, that they'd have an airtight, rock solid case. And they

have the opposite of that. We've heard a lot about catch and kill schemes, which is when a media company buys the rights to a story, doesn't publish it, not illegal. We've heard a lot about compensation for a nondisclosure agreement. Also perfectly legal, not a problem. People may think it's sleazy, but it happens all the time and there's nothing illegal about it. And we've heard a lot about his desire to suppress bad stories about himself, which again, not illegal and we're in the court. So it's unclear where they're going, Will, other than I think they're continuing to look for a crime as they go, which of course is the opposite of how the justice system should be operating in America. So the the crux of what of having to prove a crime here will be they have to

prove a felony because the misdemeanors have run their statute of limitations, right? In order to prove that it's a felony, they're going to have to prove it would seem, Carrie, that his intent, as you said in suppressing stories, not a crime, but his intent was to subvert an election, right? And how do they do that? Like, how do they prove, even if they prove that, you know, he made payments to stormy dan or to to to michael cohen to facilitate them to stormy daniels um how do they prove that that was done in furtherance of an election well right and that's the problem i think on its face with the new york state law that's at issue here and the law says something like uh it is you know unlaw so for somebody to promote a candidate by unlawful means is a crime but the question

is promote a candidate what does that look like exactly and as far as unlawful means it's very vague on its face. So effectively, a prosecutor could write into the law what they wanted to be as they go along. Now, I will say this, while the misdemeanors have run on the 34 counts of falsifying the business records, they still have to establish that, though. I mean, they can't have one without the other. And so the reason that matters and the reason I'm drawing our attention back to that is because these payments to Stormy Daniels were classified in Donald Trump's personal ledger book by his accountant as a legal expense or a retainer. and the reality is that compensation given for someone signing a nondisclosure agreement

could be characterized as a legal expense. In fact, I thought it was very interesting that last week, the lawyer for Karen McDougal and Storm McDaniels was on the stand. His name was Keith Davidson, and he refused to call the payments to his client, then clients, Stormy Daniels, as hush money payments. He said, well, no, it was consideration, which is a fancy legal term for something that you get in exchange for a contract, you abide by a promise. So he's calling a consideration. Donald Trump's bookkeeper called it, you know, a legal expense. And I guess the state would like

him to have said reimbursement to Michael Cohen for Stormy Daniels, but it's really all one and the same thing. So they have to establish that even before they get to this underlying, you know, concealing of a crime, which is a felony, which again remains unclear exactly what that was. All right. So, but Carrie, so you're an attorney and I mean, I went to law school, which makes me just dangerous enough to be stupid on this. But so in the normal course of business, and I'm just curious on this, if you were going to make a non-disclosure agreement, would the client make that agreement directly with the subject and then therefore make the payment directly to the subject, or would they do

that facilitated through their lawyers and then have the expense, umbrella it as legal expense? Because that's what Donald Trump did, the second, right? it was all funneled to the attorney as a legal expense. Would that be a normal course of business? Yeah, it would be. And in fact, to your question, which is a great one, the lawyers have, or Keith Davidson, again, the lawyer from McDaniels and Karen McDougal testified that he worked directly with

Michael Cohen. And I thought this was a very interesting point of his testimony. He said, again, I think this is important, he wasn't even sure, he wasn't sure, rather, that Cohen even had the authority to be making this payment to him to Stormy Daniels, that it was just done between the two of them. Keith Davidson never had any interaction with Donald Trump himself. And again, that's important because Donald Trump is the one currently on trial, not Michael Cohen. And then whether Cohen even had the authority to do this or he was just taking care of stuff for Donald Trump as his quote fixer is unclear.

So, but when you say normal course of business, we would see other attorneys conducting in other business this way. Between each other. Of course. Lawyers negotiating a contract between Of course. That would be the normal way of doing things. And then making the payments directly themselves, I'm saying. And then billing the client under legal expense. You know, it really depends on how one classifies a retainer. So this, and this is part, it goes to the heart of the state's case. So if a retainer, a retainer, if you pay someone a retainer, that can include a lot of expenses.

And, you know, it depends on how much the client wants those expenses itemized within the retainer. So if Michael Cohen was tasked with fixing problems and he decided that he was going to go all in and that included in his mind to pay off Stormy Daniels because he thought that would hurt his boss, Donald Trump. He could have done that without consulting with Trump. It would be surprising, frankly, if he hadn't consulted with Donald Trump because that's a lot of money. And that obviously is a point of contention between the state and prosecution right now. I'm sorry, the prosecution and the defense. And that came up with Hope Hicks's testimony on. Friday where she said it was hard to believe that Michael Cohen would have done this out of the goodness of his heart, given that he wasn't a charitable character. And Donald Trump was likely to have known. But even then, even if Donald Trump knew and worked it out with Cohen, who then paid Stormy Daniels, it's not illegal. Right. And I'm focused on the misdemeanors, like you said, because first you build the misdemeanor, then you build the felon. They have to go hand in him. And the misdemeanor charges 34 counts of fraudulent business transactions, right? They should

have been classified as whatever, NDAs, instead, and in public, we're all saying hush money, but this is the prosecution, but this is the prosecution's argument, right? They should have been classified as NDAs. You classified them as attorney's fees, retainer, so that you could hide that you made these NDAs. And it would seem to me if the defense could say, this is done often, you know, this, the way that these business records were, were, um, were, um, were, calculated, not calculated, but transacted and recorded, the way they were recorded is often done. And if it's often done, then it's not a fraudulent business transaction. And the other thing they would have to prove, again, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has to prove that Trump had actual knowledge of how these payments were even classified. And again, that's putting aside the fact whether the legal expense classification is even legally problematic, but they still would have to prove that he knew. And that's also unclear, given the fact that my understanding of the case thus far is that the person who labeled them as legal expenses was somebody at Trump Tower. I think she may have been an accounts payable supervisor or someone who is lower in the chain, so to speak. And whether Donald Trump even knew what she wrote in the book is unclear. And maybe Michael Cohen's going to testify that she did. but again, then it comes down to Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump.

And so what we're talking about is whether or not they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these were fraudulent business transactions. Then there's the next step, well, even if they are, even if they were capable of proving these misdemeanors, he's guilty of these misdemeanors, in order for it to be a conviction at the end of this trial, they would also then have to prove the felony side of this, right? which is that it was fraudulent business transactions to influence an election. Is that what the implication is? To see it well, it's to conceal another crime.

It's even broader than what you're saying. And it appears that the other crime is related to this New York state law that they have cited, which makes it a misdemeanor, by the way, not even a felony, but once you combine the misdemeanor plus the misdemeanor, you get the felony for purposes of what they're doing here, that it is to influence an election, to promote a candidate, I quote, unlawful means is a crime. So that's what they seem to be honing in on. But again, what are the unlawful means unclear? And number two, if it's a federal campaign violation,

which would make sense, given that he was running for federal office, the president of the United States, they don't have jurisdiction over that. They don't. It's a state court. And secondly, the Department of Justice declined to bring that kind of campaign violation against Donald Trump when they had the chance. So they don't have jurisdictions to bring it, to bring it. The Department of Justice declined to bring it, who had the proper jurisdiction. which means we're only left with this vague New York state law, which is unlawful means, you know, influencing election. What are those unlawful means?

The state has not yet proved that case. Well, wouldn't the unlawful means be the misdemeanor fraudulent business transactions? So that's what they're saying is the unlawful means of influencing election, right? I mean, but in what sense it's, if it's classified as a legal expense, the NDA itself is not illegal. It's, you know, the fact, think about it, that what they're doing is they're looking, like, it's like they're looking through the books, the codes in New York, and looking for something they can find where they can match Trump's behavior with this very vague statute when the thing itself, which is the contract and the NDA, is not inherently illegal. And it is a

legal document, thus a legal expense. And why I'm, for those watching maybe, like, okay, you're, you're getting caught up in the, all the charges, but this is what it's all about because then every witness that takes the stand carry has value in so much as, I mean, this is how it should work. It may just work that all the witnesses are there to try to influence how the jurors feel about Donald Trump, but that I can't analyze as well, you know, assuming that the jurors are listening to testimony and how their testimony proves the charges. I'm just trying to take what's happened so far and what is expected to happen as far as what Hope Hicks had to say,

what David Pecker had to say, what Michael Cohen would have to say in terms of proving, A, that these were fraudulent business transaction, these NDAs were recorded fraudulently, and B, that they were unlawful in influencing an election. So I'm trying to anticipate, like, when's the big moment that If you and I are sitting here, not at the end of the first period, but we're sitting here at the end of three periods, did the testimony add up to the charges? I don't know that we're ever going to see it, although the state is determined to have that moment. I do think it's bad for them when every single witness thus far has had only negative things to say about Michael Cohen, who is their star witness. Michael Cohen, of course, who has lied in court, lied to the media, lied to Congress. I mean, if I'm the prosecution, I'm not feeling so great that the path that has been paved for Michael Cohen is all bad, whereas actually a number of these witnesses have had good things to say about Donald Trump.

And, you know, some of the bombshell, you know, I've seen some of this reporting on a bombshell testimony bad for Donald Trump. And I'm thinking, what bombshell testimony? Are we sitting in the same courtroom? If bombshell testimony is Hope Hicks testifying on Friday that the Access Hollywood story was bad for his campaign, I mean, Everybody knew that. You don't have to, you know, be a publicist or go to law school to know that that was going to be damaging to his campaign. And she's his press secretary. Of course it was. And she had to deal with it. Or the fact even that Donald Trump may have known what it, you know, the payment to Cohen, that he knew what Cohen was doing again, even if he did. And I'm surprised to be on that the defense isn't owning this more. I don't know why as a matter of strategy. The defense just hasn't said, yeah, Trump knew. This is what he did. And there's no. there's no legal problem. It's, it's perfectly fine. And, and I think we've had this conversation. I know I've said this. Like, if you did that, if you said, yeah, Trump knew and he did this. And by the way, he's done it a lot. Right. He's made NDAs about stories that are not favorable to him. It would almost inoculate him from the idea that he did it to, to unlawfully interfere in election.

Right. And what, again, is unlawfully interfering? I mean, you know, conspiracy to influence an election is also called running for office at, you know, but it is, right? And so it's like at what point where's like, who's drawing this line, this legal line and what is it exactly? You can't just say, well, he did it unlawfully and then hope it sticks. Well, you have to prove what he did illegally. And I don't think that, you know, they've done that yet. And every, every politician, to your point, like, every politician's done this, right? Made stories go away, um, probably for consideration and then not scream from the mountaintop. Here's what I did. I mean, I think didn't Hillary Clinton have an on-the-nose situation like this where she, I think it was through Mark

Elias. I don't. Yes. But she was thinking about it. Well, they've made stories go away. Right. What she did was, and this is how she got away with it, was that she had her lawyers, see, handle the dirty work. Then the lawyers got immunity and were able to talk about what happens. and but because they were the ones who did it, it wasn't, you know, she wasn't charged. She wasn't part of that. And that's the same. And so, you know, one thing that has just been surprising to me in this trial is how determined the state seems to be to equate dirty with illegal in the minds of jurors.

You know, when I was at the Department of Justice, people would get frustrated with Bill Barr. That's who I worked for for not prosecuting certain fan favorites. It's on the right, by the way. This was coming from the right. We took a lot of incoming on the right on this kind of stuff. And, you know, I would constantly be defending our decisions in the court of public opinion. And I would be having conversations with people saying, just because something is dirty doesn't make it illegal. And I think that's what we're seeing again here in New York.

But we're in a court of law. Elims need to be proved. And the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's what I'm focused on, like, because maybe because I went to law school, maybe because I just, I like the law. It's almost like math. Not that I like math, but here are the set of elements. Right.

Here is the proof. It should add up together to an equation for a juror that should add up. The equation should be, does it prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? So looking forward really quickly, you'll get the headliners soon, maybe this week, right? Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen. In your mind, Carrie, what could they say that would be a bombshell in terms of proving the elements against Donald Trump? Well, I think what Michael Cohen is going to say, because clearly this is what the state is

building up towards, is that, you know, he and Donald Trump had this elaborate conspiracy together where they were going to influence the election in this illegal way by paying this off and not reporting it as, again, this is where it gets, I think, very strange and murky if this is what the state is trying to do as like a campaign contribution to himself, which doesn't really make sense considering it's his personal attorney. He can pay out of it from his personal funds, no problem there. I think that's what he's going to do. But here's the thing that it's confusing as well. You can't conspire with yourself. So why hasn't anyone else been charged with conspiracy if that is part of the state's plan? Because in their opening arguments,

they've talked a lot about, they use the word conspiracy in this very scary way. And I I thought, again, that's obscuring the issue to the jurors because no one else has been charged with that. And conspiracy in it of itself is not legally problematic unless you tie on some illegal conduct to that. And I'm still not clear what the illegal conduct here is. All right. Will we see Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen this week? We don't know. We don't know until they walk in there.

We've not been provided with that information in advance. So it's possible, but we'll have to say. Well, last question. Well, all of this add up, Carrie, like, you know, again, in a way, it's not negativity. It's idealism. Like, the law is logic. That's what I like about it, not math. It's logic.

And logic is often A plus B equals C, you know. Will it be that way, Carrie, at the end? Or is this whole thing a design to make? make Donald Trump look bad. I'm not even talking about outside the courtroom, inside the courtroom, make him look bad two jurors that will decide this emotionally.

I like him or I don't like him, guilty or innocent. Look, I think that's always the name of the game in these kinds of trials, but I am very interested to know what the lawyers on that jury are thinking. Those two lawyers. Yes, yeah, because they know better than anyone.

Got to have a crime, got to have elements. There's a standard beyond a reasonable doubt. And even the fact that both David Pecker, who was the publisher of the National Enquirer and Hope Hicks, his former Coms director and press secretary, testified that Donald Trump was upset about the story having, the Stormy Daniels story having an impact on Melania and his family. And that was stressful to him, that their opinion mattered to him. That also undercuts the state's theme, which is he did this purely for the election. Well, what if both are true? What if he did it for the election and he was also upset about the impact it would have on his family. Doesn't that

cast doubt on beyond a reasonable doubt? He only did this to influence the election, right? And so these are the kinds of things I think, I would hope at least the jurors are considering as the state, I think, again, remains determined to conflate dirty with illegal in their minds. Well, I know you've been down there. I know you've been in the courtroom. You probably got to get back. So first of all, thank you for doing this today. Thanks for being patient through the mess that was the start of this show today. Your feedback is awesome on this whole story, Carrie. Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right. It was Carrie Kupec, Irvon, Fox News, legal editor and an attorney. All right, let's take a breather. What is going on? I'm going to see, I'm going to throw another, can you guys get on the air? Can two days? I'm here.

Yeah. What's going on? What is going on with this show today? We had some technical issues. We're working through it. We're live. You know, people are watching and they're on the chat and they like the conversation. Four months. We've been doing this show and today's the first day that we just step on a landmine and the whole thing blows up.

You know, it's a very Monday type show. You know, it's, it happens once in a while. It's all technical stuff. And, you know, I don't want to get into the technical meeting on the weekend. Someone was here on the weekend because things were touched. That's what I want, James. Someone's touching the stuff. Well, we come in here and there's the camera that is on us was covered with a piece of paper. so somebody messed with the studio over the weekend you guys show up late uh i'm just joking i i jumped on five minutes ahead of time and that's when we realized there's a problem and you need to figure out oh look oh my gosh your camera did you take the piece of paper off the camera i did now now we're not covered by the piece of paper so it's interesting you know we're doing our best and uh we're

working here we got no lights on but you know i don't know what's happening there we need names of who messed who sabotaged the Will Kane Show studio over the weekend. It's probably conspiracy, Patrick. Patrick, where are you? No. Tinfoil, Pac. Can you play video today? I could play video. I could put up graphics. I could do all the things. All right. Like, you can see us right now, right? Yeah, I can see you. Okay. In the pursuit of authenticity and leaning into, I told the people of Fox and Friends this one time. I said, stop trying to produce perfect television. Perfect television is boring. Well, we definitely tested that today here on the Will Cane show.

But you just got to, like, just be real. As we're going to talk about in a minute, our guests from last week, nerd-wrotic, hugely popular on YouTube, said authenticity is the currency. So here's the deal. We're being real. So a lot of people have questioned whether I was real on Fox and Friends. This was like two months ago when I did a diner in Texas, and this went down. Watch this.

NBC just reported that Michelle Obama has said she will not run for president. Thank God. Yes. Ainsley said, I would love the reaction from a woman in the crowd. I wouldn't vote for a woman. And especially, you know, Nikki Haley, I'm just going to say this. She's probably menopausal. We don't need that.

She said, how about we vote for people, regardless of their gender, just the right person for the job for America? Okay. So that went viral because, like, no, Will, that's not what she said. She said, we don't need someone post menopausal. She didn't say this touchy-feely thing you said about regardless of their gender. Here's the deal. So I'm going to admit to you this.

That was a curveball. Okay. The menopause thing was a curveball. I didn't see it coming when I've got a mic in her face. And I want to say, doing this, like when you're talking to people real and live in the moment, Alexis McAdams has been doing an awesome job on Fox. She's a reporter. She's been in the middle of these protests at Columbia, other places,

and just very naturally walking through the course. crowd, interacting with Jesse Waters, interacting with the camera, and talking to people, many of whom are hostile and will not talk to her, and just being real. She's doing such a great job. And so that's what's happening in moments like that. And I wasn't lying. And people like, oh, the Fox News. Before we went on camera, I was talking to this lady, right?

And she was saying to me, we should be voting on people regardless of gender. Who cares if Nikki's a female and Trump's a male? She was saying the things that I said. When the camera came on, I put the microphone on her face, she had a point she wanted to make about menopause. And by the way, she said herself, I'm post-minopause. Trust me, I know. We don't want someone who is.

She was kind of talking about herself and being funny. But I'll admit, it was a curveball when she said that. And I was like, well, I don't really have much on menopause. So here's what she had to say before we went on camera. I could have been more smooth and said that and told the audience exactly this happened before we went on camera, but I wasn't just spinning what she had to say and making stuff up. But that's what you get when you're being real. You get that in a show that starts 15 minutes late and is a total mess. But you will also get something you won't get anywhere else,

which I'm going to name names. They canceled Columbia's graduation. This stuff has been in the plan for months. If you wonder whether or not this is going to look like 1968, whether or not the Democratic National Convention is going to be protested. And I don't say this kind of of stuff. I don't throw this term around. Pro Hamas. I've got the goods of why it's pro Hamas and who's behind it and who's funding this entire uprising next on the Will Cane show. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes

flavored iced coffee and delivery. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every single. Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. All right, coming up with authenticity is currency, then let's authentically go through the comments of our interview last week with NerdRotic of YouTube fame. I made some mistakes, but we also got some awesome feedback here on the Will Canes. and show streaming live on YouTube and Fox News.com, the Fox News Facebook page. Subscribe at Apple,

Spotify, or right now, right here. I promise it'll be unique by subscribing on YouTube. Over the weekend, University of Michigan saw commencement graduation, university-wide graduation, interrupted by protesters, anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protesters that stood for the entirety of that graduation. were not ushered out. They were not kicked out. No, instead, what has done is these protesters have been accommodated. And Columbia University has canceled their university-wide commencement, knowing that they too would be subject to these types of protests. And it has led so many people in my life personally and out there in social, who's behind this stuff? Like, this is organized. This is not springing up overnight. The cops in New York, the NY

This is highly organized. Flyers, funding. And I've had people say to me, well, who's behind it? So let's dive into it. Let's talk about exactly what's happening in these protests. In a Wall Street Journal report, these protests have been in the making for months, months, through largely the national students for justice in Palestine. It has about 300 chapters across the country. It's about two decades old, this organization.

And starting some months ago, S-J-P, in the case of Columbia, a few other organizations like Samadun, Semadun, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right, S-A-M-I-D-O-U-N, Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, it's based out of Canada, started organizing teach-ins for the student leaders in Colombia. Now, the reason I tell you that is to know this. These were a two-hour session with a Samadun coordinator, Charlotte Cates. She encouraged students to, quote, build an international popular cradle of resistance. This is a recording that's posted here on YouTube. Now, listen to this quote from Charlotte Cates. There is nothing wrong with being a member of Hamas, being a leader of Hamas, being a fighter in Hamas. these are the people that are on the front lines defending Palestine.

Now, I had, you know, like I was talking about with Carrie Kubok-Uk-Urbond, I'd like to add up the elements. I don't like to run to the most extreme characterization as always possible. And I have not been someone who said these protests are pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, perhaps. This shows you that the organization behind these protests is specifically teaching them, preaching them, a message that is not just, anti-Israel, not just about the policies regarding Gaza, but that is pro-Hamas, a terrorist network that conducted the October 7th horrific slaughters. Pro-Hamas, in their own words. Still, how did this get organized? Well, the same Wall Street Journal report says the people behind the organization included former Black Panthers from the 1968 protesters, the 1960s protesters in 70s.

The students themselves participated in the BLM protests, so many of the same ones had experience of this just a few years ago. And they were helped funded Students Justice for Palestine by an organization called Westpac, Westchester-based nonprofit, led by a guy named Howard Horowitz, Jewish, by the way, Jewish Justice for Peace, or Jewish Voices for Peace. It's another organization. It's fascinating that many of the organizations helping fund these protests, are actually Jewish.

I don't know what that says when you see a pro-Hamas, clearly anti-Semitic message, part of what you are funding. But the fact that Black Panthers are involved, former Black Panthers, and these organizations have been organizing for months on campus,

it brings the mind the parallels to 1968. Now, a lot of people have talked about this, and Pete Higgseth and I did this off the wall on Fox Infriends this weekend. I was just listen to this. In 1968, Lyndon Baines Johnson was running for re-election as the Democratic nominee for president. He was the sitting president in the United States. His approval rating stood at 36%. In 2024, Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee for president. He is the sitting president, and his approval rating sits at 38%. In 1968, RFK entered, Robert F. Kennedy entered the race on the Democratic side to run against Joe Biden. In 2004, R. RFK Jr. is running against Joe Biden. In 1968, students started protesting across campus in America, largely centered around the war in Vietnam.

In 2024, students across the country and college campuses protesting against the war in Israel, against Gaza, against Hamas. In 68, students chanted, hey, hey, ho, ho, LBJ has got to go. In 24, they chant, genocide. Joe. In fact, there was a huge display at one of these universities on top of an American flag of Joe Biden's face underneath it said genocide Joe. In 68, the protests were largely at Columbia, or notably at Columbia, and took over physically occupied Hamilton Hall in 24, at Columbia, physically occupying Hamilton Hall. In 68, the protest spilled over to

the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In 2024, the Democratic National Convention is once again in Chicago. And preparations are being made for inevitable protest, including at this point, hermitting them some four miles away from the convention. In 68, ultimately, LBJ dropped out Hubert Humphrey, his vice president, ran for president, lost to Richard Nixon. And speculation is constantly centered around. If poll numbers remain like this for Joe Biden, does he drop out? And if the historical parallels maintain, that would be Kamala Harris running for president. But I promised you names. So Westpac, students for justice in Palestine, who is funding these organizations? Well, new reporting shows that one of the major

funders for this group is the Tides Foundation, the Tides Foundation, at one time run by Bill and Melinda Gates. Funded by George Soros. Funded by the Pritzker family. You know Soros. You know Gates. Pritzker family. Hyatt Hotels Fortune. Governor of Illinois. J.B. Pritzker. The Pritzker family helping fund these organizations. By the way, also the Rockefeller Brothers are another funder of students for Justice in Palestine. Who are the Rockefeller Brothers? That's a fund. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is five third-generation Rockefeller Brothers, John Nelson, Lawrence, Winthrop. It's like out of trading places.

And David, it is distinct from the Rockefeller Foundation. It's the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, along with the Tides Foundation, funding much of this. Now, here's what's fascinating. Those same names, those same foundations, those same families, funding the Democratic Party,

funding Joe Biden. Joe Biden's same funders are funding an uprising that is largely going to hurt and could upend Joe Biden. There are the names. There are the people behind the funding and organization of what you see happening across America on college campuses. And you could soon see if the parallels hold in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention. All right.

hugely successful Will Kane show last week with NerdRotic. We talked a lot about pop culture. He gave me some recommendations on TV shows I should watch and I started one over the weekend and I am very pleased but we got a lot of feedback online about that interview. So let's go through some of it

next on the Will Kane show. 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. and follow now at Foxtruecrime.com.

I welcome back to The Will Kane Show. We're going to run through some of the feedback you gave us last week regarding our interview with NerdRodic. The Will Kane Show is streaming live, if we're lucky and everything works out. On YouTube, on Fox News.com, and on the Fox News Facebook page, but always on demand, Apple, Spotify,

or by subscribing on YouTube. Real quick, I just got done with all this funding and organization behind the campus protest. You've got to hear Maxine Waters on MSNBC. Just listen to this clip for one moment. Watch. This is a man who we better be careful about, and I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to ask the Justice Department, and I'm going to ask the president to tell us what they're going to do to protect this country against violence if he loses.

I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that he's connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere. and targeting, you know, what communities they're going to attack. Right-wing organizations Donald Trump is connected to training up in the hills for an attack. That's Congresswoman Maxine Waters on MSNBC. Now, I'm going to tell you, I'm not plugged in with the groups training in the hills. So maybe I don't know anything about that. But this is, she, this is what they're running with. This is what they're saying.

This is what they're alleging, accusing Americans of while we lay out the evidence of the training. of the training and funding of the up the the unrest right now on college campuses the pro-hamas anti-Semitic unrest across college campuses the nerve always is the case it's always the case that they are guilty of the sins that they accuse others of guilt always is the case um all right big successful interview last week with nerd rodic you can find them on youtube over a million subscribers who reviews pop culture, pop culture, because we had a lot of feedback regarding that interview. Comment section was lit up, and I want to go through some of it with you guys. First, let's start right here. Arcane 5-260 says, Will Kane is one of the decent ones so good that

he had Gary, nerd-wrotic Gary Beaker, on regardless of the reviews gaming line. Then Griever Platt says, Gary reviewing gaming when he's not busy trying to open doors for three hours in games. he's talking about something like Minecraft or any other video game, I'm sure, where you can't open a door. And then Jeremiah Hernandez says, LMAO, every time Will mentions Gary as a gamer, did Gary tell him he isn't off air? So I did say that. I set Gary up as a gaming expert, and the comments were littered with this, okay? I'm tempted to say he's more of a gaming expert than I am. But then everybody in the comments are like, well, Will rattled off, TechMobile, Madden, NHL, FIFA, Call of Duty,

and GoldenEye that he had played in his life, which puts him above Gary. And so, you know what? I don't know what Nerdorotics fan base calls themselves. Oh, I did see it in the comments. I can't remember what they call themselves. Whatever you call yourselves. Yeah, I got that wrong.

I got that wrong. Gary, not a gaming expert, but a pop culture expert. Hey, on that note, I asked Gary to give me three shows that I should watch. We're talking about everything's gone, whoa, corporate boardrooms, not just taken over by DEI, but DEI messaging is what's most important. And he gave me three, he gave me House of Dragons to The Gentleman on Netflix and Shogun. Well, I've seen The Gentleman on Netflix. Pretty good.

I'll be all in on House of Dragons too because I liked House of Dragons one. But this weekend, because he said that, I started Shogun. It's on FX. And so far, I love it. Now, immediately I remembered one of my best buddies has told me before I have to read James. Clevel's Shogun says one of the best books ever and I never did and I love historical fiction I love James McMurtry Lonesome Dove I like James Missioner Hawaii Centennial but it's never did Clavel and it's a it's a thing because it's like 1500 pages and so you're like am I going to

read 1500 pages but I mean if you ask somebody of that who has read read Shogun they'd be like no doubt about it 1500 pages you got to read it well I'm too episodes into Shogun on FX, and I love it. It makes me want to go back and read the book. I just love, you know, this is about British, you know, trade war with Portugal and then the way it breaks through into Japan and the power struggles in Japan. It's awesome. Let's take a look at this. I can't do this guy's name. I'm not going to say it out loud. Gary coined authenticity his currency, then goes on Fox and treats it almost like F&T. That's Gary's show, Friday night tights, I think. Gary is the chillest big deal, and I'm happy for him almost six years watching

him grind. Gen X skeptic says, I'm absolutely rolling. Will is half smiling while looking at his producer as nerd-orotic is calling out fat, ugly lesbians on national TV. Holy crap, this is awesome. L-O-L-L-L. Well, I wasn't half-smiling, Gen X, skeptic. I was laughing, and I don't have a producer with me. I'm in a room by myself. I've got a return feed over here that I look. every once in a while and see the guest. So, for better or worse, you should know something about this show. There are no powers to be, or they don't weigh in that often. So what I can say or what guests can say, so far, no notes, no slaps on the wrist.

I know this is Fox, but this is also not Fox. Welcome to the Will Kane Show. Let's go to this. E3OP says the look on Will's face when Gary said fat ugly lesbians was priceless Jay Buck says the interviewer that's me was great he let Gary talk without interrupting and ask some good questions

thank you I'm the new Howard Stern genuinely curious listen thank you so much the movie Hangout says Will Kane is based he knows what's going on good for him having Gary on somebody needs to be the new Howard Stern good interviews because he isn't that anymore not after that interview with Joe Biden it's been that way for a while

he's sold out and gone soft and long since let's take a look tastier back in the 80 says all that people are looking for is authenticity he nailed it right there and then look at this David

Hickman Hickman says that is also why Trump has his appeal he is authentically Trump I think that's exactly right I mean he is who he is wears a suit into every situation he's in.

Pretty much acts the same. I met him off camera before, by the way. Same. I mean, love him or hate him. He's Donald Trump. Lauren Taylor says, Fantastic segment with Gary. I really enjoyed the commonality

of what's happening in nerd culture and what's happening in the sports world. As a sports and geek nut, I can attest that both guys are exactly right in their assessments in their respective realms. ESPN is a shadow of its former self at this point. most entertainment franchises have been dismantled by quote the message independent studios both sports and comics and games are desperately desired by fans almost all the gaming journalist sites need to

go away that's a really good way to put it the message above all else the message above creativity the message above talent the message above the fan the message above entertainment whether or not it's gaming, pop culture, movies, television shows, music or sports. The message has subjugated all of us. They're not trying to entertain us. They're trying to lecture us because they don't appreciate our business, the fan. They actually hate the fan. And then finally, yeah, we'll lean into this, fine. Yeah. A proud American said, Gary said, don't mess with gamers. They'll weaponize their autism. Somebody says, that needs to be on an F&T shirt. Zanakimus says, I can't wait for all the new viewers to witness the amazing professionalism we've come to know over the years, every FNT. And then

culture class says, that was the greatest thing I've ever seen. Gary didn't hold back at all, and Will didn't make him pull back either. Absolute perfection. It was, you know, I haven't held anybody back. Not the Rock when he wants to talk about politics. Not Tony Robbins. Not Dave Portnoy. Not Stephen A. Smith. Not David Sachs when he wants to debate the war in Ukraine or the rebuttal with Rebecca

Heinrichs. No. All I want this to do is be alive. Alive. In real. Kind of like, as people point out, the appeal behind Sidney Sweeney. Last one. The comment that I made.

Sydney Sweeney and her fame and her stardom, she definitely has her assets. Ha ha, brilliant. Sydney Sweeney definitely has her assets. All right, that's going to do it for us today on a mess of a show, but a real show, the Will Cain Show. Make sure you hit subscribe, Apple, Spotify, YouTube,

and maybe, just maybe, if we're lucky, I'll see you again next time. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.fox forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts.