Will Cain Country - How would Senator Rand Paul fix America?

Episode Date: February 1, 2024

Story #1: What’s the one thing Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) would do if he was President? Plus, are we as a country setting up for a ‘Black Swan’ event? Story #2: No charges will be filed around the gay porn video shot in a Senate hearing chamber. Why are these types of actions, like the cocaine in the White House and leaked Supreme Court case, being ignored? Story #3: Mark Zuckerberg is forced to apologize in Congress to the victims of abuse on Facebook. A conversation with Trung Phan, builder of the Bearly.AI app and business writer for Workweek. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, what's the first thing he would do? The one thing he would do if he were president with Senator Randpole. Two, no charges in the gay porn video shot in a Senate hearing chamber. 3. Mark Zuckerberg is forced to apologize inside of Congress to the victims of abuse on his platform Facebook. That with futurist and entrepreneur, along with today's biggest tech stories, TrongFail. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel every day at 12 o'clock Eastern Time

and available on demand in video Will Kane Show on YouTube go hit subscribe you'll get exclusive interviews panels, monologues, anytime you want and if you prefer listening to this show in audio format subscribe wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple Spotify or at Fox News podcast

joining the ranks of unsolved mysteries now will be the mysterious unavailable charges for two men who shot pornography in the Senate hearing chambers. You'll be forgiven if that escaped your memory or maybe even escaped your immediate attention in the moment. But just a few months ago, two Senate staffers filmed themselves having sex,

graphically having sex beneath the seal of the United States Senate. But that has resulted in nothing when it comes to the FBI. Joining the ranks, by the way, of who brought cocaine into the White House? Who placed a pipe bomb around the Capitol on January 6th? and who leaked the Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs? Great unsolved mysteries while the FBI's historically high resources are devoted to January 6th. That's all coming up in just a moment here on the Will Cancel, along with the fact that Cowboys defensive coordinator Dan Quinn has been hired as the head coach of the Washington commanders, leaving the job in Dallas wide open for defensive coordinator to Bill Belichick. But first, story number one.

He is the United States Senator from Kentucky. He is independent. He is interesting. And he is Senator Rand Paul here on the Will Kane show. Senator Paul, great to have you on the show. I have a lot of things I'm interested in talking to you about. But I am curious right off the top, what you may think about the fact that this has now joined the ranks of unproscutable crimes, this pornography shot in your hearing chambers. It's stunning to see 1,100 charges when it comes to January 6th and zero charges for what I would think would amount to at a minimum indecent exposure.

Yeah, disgusting and just appalling that nothing's being done about it, but it's par for the course. And it's actually bigger than just the individual crime. It's the idea that this Department of Justice looks at individuals and who they are and who they are supportive of and what their philosophy is, what the shade of their ideology is. is to determine whether or not to prosecute. I think this is incredibly damaging to our country. I know loosely, if you watch CNN, they're worried about the demise of the democracy. Well, I think I'm worried about the demise of equal justice under the law if people are being prosecuted according to what their beliefs are or what ideology or where they are on the spectrum

political beliefs. Because it appears as if you are sympathetic to Biden, sympathetic to Democrats, these individuals doing this disgusting act in the Senate were, you know, workers for a Democrat senator. So it appears as if they look the other way. But what that's going to lead to ultimately is a society where the belief is that you will be persecuted, as I believe Donald Trump is being persecuted for who he is, rather than what the accusations are. But I think this is very, very troubling and I think will lead to strife in our country.

If it continues, there will eventually be people that will not. not accept the ruling of courts, will not really accept judicial decisions because they think they're basically based on your ideology, not on justice. I'm just curious on a personal level as well. Look, Senator, you know, there's a lot of people that consider the nation's capital almost sacred. They place it in sort of our public gathering spaces that should never be defiled. We've heard this when it came to Bill Clinton in the White House. We heard it in regards to January 6th. You know, you don't hear it as much. as you would like when it comes to cocaine in the White House or this pornography in the Senate.

I personally happen to believe that there are more sacrosanct public spaces. I think small town, USA, Main Street, Town Square is a more accurate representation of the patriotism of America. But what I believe is beside the point, I'm just curious on a personal level what you think about the things that are happening within the nation's capital. Well, the thing is, is that I think without the grounding of being where I'm from, from a small town, Bowling Green, Kentucky, without actually going home and being grounded and being around the folks that I know and going to the grocery store, I think if I were up here all the time, you would lose a sense of touch with right and wrong. And I think there are people who do succumb to that.

People used to refer to it as Potomac Fever. They got up here and they lost sense of who they were or where they came from. So, no, I think that the things that are happening that have been normal, normalized, both in Washington and in some of our larger cities aren't normalized at home and aren't thought to be. There really is still a sense of right and wrong. You go to your church and you meet with the people in your community and there is and they are worried about the loss of the sense of right and wrong, but it still exists and it exists in small town America across America. But yeah, I think if I were only here, it's easily to become jaded and

to see just the side of society that really has no sense of virtue. Yesterday here on the Will Kane show, I had Congressman Chip Roy, and my first question to the Congressman was, hey, what issue do you think is the most important issue in America that no one is talking about? One of the things I really like about you, whether or not I agree every step of the way, is you seem to approach everything from a fairly independent streak. Whatever it is you think is important isn't necessarily what's right down the main alley of Washington, D.C.'s focus and priorities. So I kind of want to ask you that same question.

Like, what do you think is the most important issue no one's talking about? But you've also at times had aspirations for higher office. So if you actually had the power, you know, if you were president, what is the issue that you would address on day one? I think the biggest threat to our country is the destruction of the currency, which goes hand in hand with debt. And I think both parties have been terrible at this. And I've been fairly ecumenical with my criticism that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the bankrupting of our country. But it's not just the bankrupting of the country, it's the acceleration of the accumulation

of debt. We accumulated about a trillion dollars with the debt in the last three months. We have never, ever accumulated so much debt. About a third of the debt is bought by the Federal Reserve. When they do, they basically buy treasury bills, but they buy it with money that's created. So the inflation, and many partisan Republicans call it Biden inflation. Sure, Biden deserves a lot of credit or blame for the inflation, but really $7.5 trillion worth of debt were accumulated under the Trump administration.

The acquiescence to the lockdowns, the idea that we would send checks to people, all of that was creating new money, and it's bid up the stock market, but my concern is not for a gradual destruction of the dollar. My concern is that we could have a cataclysmic destruction of the dollar. People talk about black swan events. These are events that if you look at the stock market in the last hundred. 150 years, there's like seven days on the stock market that are like 80 to 90 percent of the loss in the stock market happened in seven different days. When you have catastrophic events,

then you worry about the dissolution of society. You worry about the breakdown of society when there's a cataclysmic event. And the cataclysmic event would be the loss of the value of the dollar, not over months or years, but over the period of days, where all of a sudden people lose trust and say, you know, foreigners lose. lose trust. They quit buying it. Private entities quit buying it because they look and say it's unsustainable. People are already saying this, but it hasn't reached that pitch such that it is a cataclysmic fleeing of the dollar. But I worry that that will come. And I think that there is a way to fix it in a gradual manner, but the way has to include looking at all spending. So we have people,

even on the Republican side, who are saying, well, we're just going to leave entitlements off the table. Well, that's two-thirds of spending. And then they say, well, we've got to increase military, and that's another half of the remaining third. So then what they're left with looking at is one-sixth of government, about 14 to 16 percent of government. By golly, we're going to be fiscally conservative on 14 percent of the government. If people are serious, they have to be honest and brave enough to talk about all of spending, and that would mean entitlement spending as well. I met with the ambassador from Sweden recently.

Do you know that their age of retirement is based to a long time? longevity index, and that if there's a downturn in the economy, they pay less in Social Security, and that they don't actually allocate the money each year. It is what it is. You know, and they've done it a phenomenal job. They're actually more conservative in Sweden than we are in the United States with regard to their retirement funds. Of course, that would be a political death kiss for you, you know, were you to ever again run for president. I mean, that's something that's being, that Nikki Haley, she's gone back and forth on. She's kind of, she has talked about raising the retirement age. But, you know, I think she is, to be fair to her, talked about phasing in it

over time so the current recipients wouldn't have their age raised, but the younger pay-ins would have their age raised. But everyone talks about it being an absolutely political death kiss to talk about reforming in title. I talked about it in 2009 and have made it through two terms and now into a third term. And I said, we had to raise the age. I said we have to means test social security. So you can say it, if you're honest with people, I look at people and say this. I don't want to take your Social Security. If you only have $700 a month and that's what you live on, that is tough. That is all you have. You have no pension and you're retired. Nobody wants to take that, including me. But I talked about 12 years ago, starting at age 55 and under, we would

gradually raise it a month or two a year. And if we'd have done that over the last 12 years, we would actually be in a position. So you have to do it. But I'm just tired of Republicans. It used to be always the Democrats blaming Republicans for talking about reforming Social Security. Now it's Republicans attacking other Republicans on it. And frankly, the problem is bigger than partisan politics. And I want somebody to emerge from the Republican Party and say, by golly, we're going to spend what comes in. We're going to balance our budgets. We're going to be strong again. And that really we don't become stronger just increasing the military budget. We become stronger by actually having a balanced budget. So we actually have the money on hand to pay for what's

necessary for our defense. You managed to answer my follow-up question in the course of your answer, which was I wanted you to paint for me a picture of how the monetary crisis, the debt crisis, actually, how it plays out in reality. And the Black Swan event that you described, I think, is absolutely fascinating. So I'm going to instead ask you about this, playing still on your independent streak. I think it's a fair characterization to say you seem to be cut, not just ideologically, but I think also, I think, and you and I think we may have met once in person, I'm not sure,

but I think even personality-wise from a different cloth than the rest of Washington, D.C. So I'm just kind of curious, outside the realm of politics, kind of who you are. Like, what do you do, Senator? Like, what is your hobby? What is your, what's different about you? What is your diet? Do you work out? Are you, where are you independent, not just in your ideology?

Yeah. I think, you know, people, it's funny, people talk about nature versus nurture. have people become who they are. And I tell people in my case, it was probably both nature and nurture. I was born in, you know, probably within independent streak from my mother and father's families from an early age. But I also was a reader from a very young age, you know, reading books, lots of books, you know, dozens and dozens of books, probably starting in the first, second, and third grade. But then I've always been a reader. And for me, reading and understanding, you know, I've read Marx, I've read Mises, I've read Hayek, I've read all sides,

of every issue in order to try to understand what is best for, you know, economic prosperity for the country. But I guess I don't take things at face value, just sort of this is what you have to do or this is what you have to do to be elected. I think that there is an objective right and wrong. I think that we can make those and should make those decisions. As far as who as I am as a person, I think, you know, other things, I'm very involved in exercise every day.

I like to, you know, I'm always, I always have to do something. to get rid of the extra energy from all of the mess of Washington. So escaping that probably through exercises an important. You golf? You fish? What do you do besides read marks and mites? And contrary to what a lot of golfers are, I walk 18 holes. And people who, it's amazing.

I mean, golfers who have in America have never walked 18 holes. And so I walk in the last three years, I think I've walked 1,500 miles playing golf. because I have a little odometer on my cart, and I've walked 1,500 miles playing golf. Maybe that means I'm playing too much golf, but I am getting some exercise out of it. I know that we have limited time together, so I want to hit two other things with you really quickly. And I like as well to establish some independence and some fairness. I have spent the last two days criticizing Representative Ilan Omar for her Somalia first priorities that she revealed in a recent speech. There are a lot of people who've said, well, you know, Congress.

Byron Mast wears an IDF uniform on the floor of the Congress. And there's a lot of people that are accused of placing Israeli interest, for example, above American interests. I'm just curious, like, what is your position on, and I think you and I've talked about in the past, but this idea that we have allegiances, we have alliances, we have where we come from in our background, and it seems to be at a real tension with this idea. Well, our first prism should always be what serves America first. Yeah, I think without question, the only oath I take is to the Constitution and to our country. It isn't to another country. That doesn't mean we don't have allies, though, in sympathy for different allies. I got criticized once for going after

Yelan Omar by saying she needed to go back to Somalia. And I didn't mean that go back there permanently. I meant to go back there to see the failed system. Somalia is sort of the definition of failed government, sort of the same way Haiti probably is, failed government for long periods of time, tribal rivalries, but also the failure of collectivism, of socialism. And, and And unfortunately, she came here not like many immigrants. Most immigrants I meet, you know, our town's full of immigrants, people who came here looking for prosperity and freedom and the American way, they valued, they're dying to get into our country.

Unfortunately, somehow she got here and some immigrants have gotten here with the notion that they want to bring sort of a new way to America, that America was a bad place to begin with and needed to be transformed, instead of acknowledging really we were the beacon of why that's why people are dying to get into our country. So I don't think she fully appreciates the American way. But by that, I mean something very specific, the ideas of freedom, volunteerism, and capitalism versus the ideas of coercion and socialism. And she needs to understand that those ideas in our country have been in our old country have been an absolute failure. Yeah. And I think to expand that, it's not, it's not xenophobic. It's not, it's not

racist. It's not, it's not betraying our allies even to say, okay, but how does this relationship or how does this action serve America first? The last question, and this is tied to it, you came out pretty strongly. Never Nikki, I think, was your movement or slogan that you co-signed on. You know, what is it about Nikki Haley that so offends you as a potential president? I think it was important for people to see who the people she travels with, who are the ideas that she travels with, and her response to different world events. So her response recently, I think, has been very aggressive with the attack on the base in Jordan. Her response has been like, you know, Lindsey Graham or John Cornyn, let's bomb Iran, basically. That's bomb Tehran. And I think people who respond in our sort of a reactionary way are missing sort of the real question. To me, the real question isn't what you do in response. Sure, there will be some

response. But the real question is, how could we have prevented this from happening in the first place? And to my mind, there really isn't a full-throated discussion here of what are the value of having 300 soldiers in a base in Northern Jordan? What are the value of having 50 soldiers at five different locations throughout Syria? To me, it's sort of not going with enough soldiers to win a war, or fight a battle even very well, but going with just enough to be a target. And so right now, if Iran wanted to show they were mad about what's happening in Gaza and mad about us supporting Israel, we didn't have all these little tiny bases scattered everywhere. They'd have nobody to shoot at. In fact, they know it. If they go kill three Jordanian

soldiers, not to diminish those Jordanians, but to the world and to the view and to Iran, it's not a big deal. They want to kill Americans. And so we scatter Americans all. all throughout there, and there's not really a debate of that. I see Nikki Haley as someone who's for the status quo, but also part of the Dick Cheney wing of the party. And it's interesting, the Dick Cheney wing of the party, Nikki Haley was endorsed recently by Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley's been endorsed by Bill Crystal. These are the people who are the forever war crowd, have our troops everywhere around the world

and we're going to Americanize the world. It's an unrealistic worldview. It bankrupts our country and involves us in so many wars. that's who I see Nikki Haley associated with. So I'll let you go after this. You've got the work to do as United States Senator. You talked about that black swan event when it comes to our currency and our economy. I'm curious to build off what you just said, we have these attacks across our bases,

American soldiers being attacked in the Middle East. You have this, I don't know, growing conflict with the Houthi rebels in Yemen. How does this in your mind play out? Does this mustastasize into a black swan event that draws us into a regional war? or is this a death by 1,000 cuts, a constant thing we put up with over the length of our presence in the Middle East? I think one of the important things, and Graham Allison has written about this in the Thucydides trap, is the idea that when you have an adversary or an enemy, it's important not to corner

them so much that there is no exit ramp where they act in an irrational way. Iran has the potential being trapped into an irrational box, so does Russia such that a lashing out could have something, a black-slawn event, like a nuclear attack, which then it ultimately lose. And so you have to hope that there's still rational minds enough in Iran and Russia to know that they would be destroyed in a nuclear war, but so would the world be destroyed. So I think those are important things in trying to know exactly what would lead things. But I would say that I look at the hoodies different than I look at whether we should

have bases and all these things. International shipping should be protected in his self-defense. And whereas I am worried about people who want to be. bomb Tehran actually would be 10 times more aggressive with a hooty missile launches. So from the very beginning, but I would also ask Congress for permission. And actually, me being one who doesn't like war, I would have voted for overwhelming permission for the president to respond to the hooties. And I would respond tenfold over to every one of those missile launches. We have the ability to strike at the missile launch site. I would have strike immediately at every missile site,

and I'd do them 10 times over. And I would say, you will not attack our international shipping. I think that's justified, but you also have a stronger position if you ask Congress, you're supposed to constitutionally. And if they would come, even people like me who doubt so many military endeavors would vote to protect our shipping, and I would be even much more aggressive than Biden has been at defending our shipping, the hooties should know that they cannot and will not be allowed to attack. But that is also different than bombing Tehran. And so I think the people saying bombed Tehran are not very thoughtful and not understanding

what that would lead to. But I don't know that there would be a. a response, that the hoodies are responsible, are capable, nor would Iran choose to respond if we obliterated the hoodies. Because the hooties started this. You know, I've been for getting out of their war for 10 years. I've been an advocate for neutrality in the war and for getting the Saudis out of Yemen. And yet, I'm one that says you don't tolerate people blowing up your cargo ships. How principled, how quaint, how refreshing to hear congressional permission for military action, in the Congressional Declaration of War.

Who could have thought of it, just our founders? Senator Ram Paul, thank you so much for your time today. It's been an enjoyable conversation. Thank you. All right. One of the things that Senator Paul said there I found fascinating is the trap of forcing a world stage actor, be it Iran or Russia, into a box where they are forced to irrational action. The rebuttal to that, what you will hear from those who want a more robust response in Eastern Europe

in Ukraine or in the Middle East is that Iran is an irrational actor, that Vladimir Putin and Russia are irrational actors. To me, that prism is always this. Rationality is based upon one solid foundation. Do you hope to survive? Existentially as an individual or as an empire, as a country, as a nation state. Do you hope to survive? 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. until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery.

It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. This is different than the calculation of, say,

an al-Qaeda, who is suicidal ideology on its very face. But I would have to think that Senator Paul is on the right track that Vladimir Putin or Russia, or even the Iranian mullahs, want to continue to exist. Exist as individuals, exist as a nation state. And if that is the case, there is a rational foundation to our interactions. Ultimately, the threat of extinction will force them to a logical conclusion. Unless you force them, as you described, into a box where irrational action is the only course for their existence. fascinating conversation there with Senator Rand Paul. Why is it an unsolved mystery? Why can we not

find who brought cocaine to the White House? Why can we not find who leaked the Supreme Court opinion of Dobbs? Why are there no charges for two men having sex and filming themselves in a Senate hearing chamber? That's coming up next on the Will Cain Show. No charges for two men filming gay pornography in a Senate hearing chamber. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at foxnews.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel. Also check us out on demand whenever you like. That interview with Senator Ram Paul will go up in exclusivity at Will Kane show on YouTube. And of course, always available on podcast, Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast.

I read from a statement from the Department of Justice, the United States Capitol police. For now, we are closing the investigation into facts and circumstances surrounding a sex video that was recorded inside the Hart Senate office building on the morning of Wednesday, December 13th. After consulting with federal and local prosecutors, as well as doing a comprehensive investigation and review of possible charges, it was determined that, despite a likely violation of congressional policy, there's currently no evidence that a crime was committed. Although the hearing room was not open to the public at the time, the congressional staff involved had access to the room. The two people of interest were not cooperative, nor were the

elements of any possible crime met. The congressional staffer who has since resigned from his job exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to talk to us. Our investigators are willing to review new evidence should any come to light. The United States Capitol Police. I don't know what evidence is necessary beyond the pornographic video of two men having sex on the desks where United States Senators conduct hearings. The video pans to the seal of the United States Senate and then to the act. The point of the act wasn't the two men were overcome by romance. It was to defile, to defile the prestige, the sanctity, if you will, the purpose of that body, of that institution.

of the United States Senate. That was the point. That was the purpose. As to what crime that amounts to, I don't know, indecent exposure. There has got to be a crime. And it's got to be worthy of a charge. But instead, this incident, this moment, joins the unsolved mysteries and unprosecuted crimes under this Department of Justice. Somehow, in one of the world's most secure locations, the United States White House, there's not enough video surveillance. There's not enough security to figure out who brought Coke into the White House. That's what we're led to believe. That somehow we can't, man, Keystone cops just can't crack down.

We just can't figure it out. Inspector Clousseau, not on staff. Don't know who snort and blow in the White House. And now, Perry Mason can't look into the thousands of pages. By the way, the federal criminal code is so large that it cannot be quantified. They literally have congressional committees, presumed to be held in hearings where there's not gay sex being taking place, presumed. They have committees designed to trying to figure out the federal criminal code. Like literally, how big is the federal criminal code?

What's in it? What laws have we passed? What have we criminalized? And somewhere in those not thousands of pages, but thousands of volumes of criminal code, there's nothing. There's nothing in there about sex in a Senate hearing chamber and filming it and distributing it. There's nothing in those thousands of volumes of the federal criminal code. But hey, man, we can only do what we can only do. There's only so much time to devote to figuring out who's snort and blow in the White House or who's having sex in a Senate hearing chamber or who's leaking the Supreme Court.

opinion of Dobbs that knocks down Roe v. Wade, or who placed a pipe bomb around the Capitol on January 6th? These things are hard, you know, and there's only so much time and expertise to devote. When, when you currently have the largest investigation in the history of the FBI taking place now as we speak, January 6th. This is the largest devotion of federal resources to any singular investigation. Nope. It's not the mob. It's not the mafia, the original task of the creation of the FBI. Nope. It's not Islamic extremism, terrorism post-9-11. It's January 6th that has resulted in over 1,100 criminal charges. One of my favorite television series, it remains in the top five, is

the wire. There was a scene in the wire where, the Baltimore Police Department investigating drug trafficking in Baltimore sought the help of the federal government, sought the help of the FBI. And there was a scene where two cars parked. And then the FBI in one car, and the local cops and another car talking about what resources could the FBI contribute to getting a wiretap up on a pretty big criminal drug dealing enterprise in Baltimore. And although fictional, the FBI agent in the scene says, oh, man, we don't have anything to offer. If it's not related to Islamic terrorism, we don't have the resources. We don't have the time and we don't have the devotion. Revealing in that moment, what was somewhat of a critical statement from writer and showrunner David Simon, the priorities, the singular priorities at that time of the FBI.

That was his estimation. that was a critical statement on that. But what it showed, the point that I'm making, what's interesting is, it shows that attention and priorities are a zero-sum game. What you robbed from Peter, you can't give to Paul. What attention and priority you give to one thing, you deprive from another. And if all of your attention in the wire is devoted to Islamic extremism, you don't have it to combating drug trafficking in America.

And if you are devoting all of your resources, historic proportions of your resources, to a riot on Capitol Hill on January 6, where undoubtedly there were some bad actors, but let's be real about the extent of the investigation and the severity of the criminals it is wrapping up and what they did or what their motivations may have been as compared to robbing Peter of the resources it could go to Paul

to stop, say, child sex trafficking, kidnapping, or just spitballing off the top of my head, who's doing blow in the White House? or whether or not there's a criminal violation of filming gay pornography in a Senate hearing chamber. There might be something rotten in the state of Denmark. There might be some misplaced priorities. There might be some things that go overlooked intentionally while other things are ramped up to the height of attention and priority. It might just be that our Department of Justice isn't looking for justice.

Justice. Mark Zuckerberg is forced to stand up and apologize to people who've found harm on Facebook. California, always the canary in the coal mine, is looking to regulate the speed of your car as we all adopt smarter computerized cars. And Apple now has augmented reality. All of that coming up in just a moment with an entrepreneur, a futurist, substack rider. ex-influencer, trunk fan. That's next on the Will Kane show. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gatty podcast.

I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Cowboys defensive coordinator Dan Quinn has been hired as the new head, head coach of the Washington Commanders, leaving the position, a defensive coordinator for the Dallas Cowboys, vacant. I don't care what you have to do. I don't care what egos need to be set aside.

I don't care what kind of tension it creates within the building. Jerry Jones, go get Bill Belichick. Bill Belichick, defensive coordinator for the Dallas Cowboys. It's the Will Kane show streaming live at foxnews.com and on Fox News YouTube channel on demand, on YouTube at Will Kane Show, hit subscribe or subscribe to our podcast at Apple or Spotify. Mark Zuckerberg, in an incredible moment yesterday, was forced by Senator Josh Hawley to stand up during a hearing and turn to the victims of harassment and abuse on Facebook and make an apology. It's a fascinating moment even at the most surface level when it comes to public

relations. What a no-win situation for Mark Zuckerberg. Let's discuss that and many of the things going on in the world of entrepreneurship and tech with Trung Fan. He is the writer at a substack called Sat Post. Go subscribe. He's also built the AI app, barely.a.i. He is a business writer at Workweek, and you can follow him on X at Trung T. Fan. And he's been here before on the Will Ken show. What's up, Trong? Thanks for having me, Will. I'm with you. a hat today because I couldn't match your hair. So I saw your hair briefly. I'm like, I got to put on a hat. I'm not going to be able to play in the game. You're always welcome with compliments

here on the Will Kane show. Hey, what did you think about this moment? I mean, there's the substance of it all in the hearing, but you're one of the first things that occurred to me, Trung, is like, as Mark Zuckerberg stood up and turned around and the cameras just surrounded him. Like, what a PR loss for Mark Zuckerberg. But had he not done it as well? But had he not done it as well if he had just declined to apologize? What a loss for Mark Zuckerberg had he chosen that path. I don't know that there was anything he could do to win. Yeah, I think those setups in general, these congressional hearings, especially when they're framed with these yes, no questions, there really is a kind of lose-lose situation. And I think you've seen over the last

couple of years when I remember distinctly when Jeff Bezos stepped down, like one of the jokes on Twitter, was at the time was he just doesn't want to deal with these congressional hearings anymore. So Andy Jassy is now the CEO of Amazon, for example. And then a decade ago, about a decade ago, Larry Page and Sergey Brin left Google, Sundarperchized and you CEO. And a bit of that is like the CEO is the hot seat. And a lot of these guys are so rich already. They're like, do we want to deal with this hot seat?

Whereas Zuckerberg, still a founder, one of the still founder CEOs of these large companies. And for a while, it was Cheryl Sandberg, the former CEO, who left the CEO and now stepped down his chair on the board. So Zuck is back in the hot seat, right? And it was a no-win situation. He said, and the whole premise of the hearing was just difficult because of the subject matter. But they had to answer questions, and that's what it came down to. I want to believe that Mark Zuckerberg is not tolerant of the kind of stuff that he had to apologize for. You know, and he said that to the extent that he could apologize, that it could be heard.

He said something like, this is why we're working on this stuff. But I guess it's just really hard to look at not just meta, not just Facebook, but all of these social media platforms and say, well, you, you, you're, you tolerate it. It's happening on your platform. At the same time, you're cracking down on so many other kinds of speech that you take as a real priority. It's a little bit like what I talked about a minute ago in terms of priorities when it comes to the Department of Justice. It's like, you know, if there are, we all know the topics that right now I could get in trouble for on any one of those platforms. When I say in trouble, I'd be flagged, I'd be demonetized, I'd be censored. And they're pretty good at coming after you for talking about things that they don't want you talking about.

But they can't crack down on the stuff that they had to talk about in a hearing yesterday in Congress. I think to your point, there's this perception where certain speech is being like, he said, crackdown on. And then the most important subject matter for any family or an individual, you know, underage children being trafficked or being put in these situations. I think necessarily, I don't know if the percentage wise, like, like Zuck himself didn't talk about the percentages, right? I think Ted Cruz called him out for not knowing the exact numbers of cases that were done. But to Meadows credit, they spent about $4,5 billion a year on trust and safety, which is, but,

multiples more than the rest of the industry. And granted, I'd be curious how much of that budget is devoted to that censorship regime that we just referenced, though, versus the things he had to account for yesterday in Congress. Well, the way I kind of look at it from 50,000 foot level is if you're onboarding humanity onto the internet, which is effectively what Matt has done, they have 300 billion monthly users, that's half of humanity. No, that's a third of humanity about and basically three quarters of internet users, you're going to get all of that, right, like everything that's involved with humanity, which is the good, the bad, and the truly awful. And I just don't know if there's a true

comparison point. Like, what are we comparing them to? Like, Facebook is essentially a one-of-one, right? There's no one else that are overlooking, even the Chinese government doesn't look at more than a billion. Point two people. India is the largest population in the world. That's 1.4 billion. They have a very sophisticated text act, but even they're about half the size of Facebook and who knows what's happening in the Indian population, right? There's none of this to excuse Facebook or Zuckerberg's seeming inability to capture a lot of this really bad stuff. But I think the large, the 50,000 foot is like, we're talking, you've onboarded half of humanity onto this platform. I don't know how difficult, I mean, it's clearly a difficult challenge. I just don't know what the comparison is, if you know what I'm saying.

What are we comparing it to, which is often something that needs to be done? Well, here's a, okay, this isn't a direct comparison, but this is something that is somewhat related. Transitioning stories, California is often the canary and the coal mine on regulation and laws, trying out new things to create their utopia that forces everybody to move out of the state. But one of the things they're talking about now is all the cars are getting smart cars, you know, AI increasingly integrated into cars, whatever it may be. And what it is going to open the door for is the ability for the government to regulate speed, essentially. And here's what's interesting about this to me, Trunk. Look, I'm inherently libertarian, conservative by nature. I don't want more laws. But you know what I have trouble with? I have trouble with formulating the argument against this development.

In other words, okay, speeding is against the law. That's a democratically elected thing, right? we've decided but it's kind of unenforceable outside of isolated cops out there with radar guns or um now they have i got a i got a ticket in spain last year which i got through the mail i didn't know i got a ticket um it must have been through video technology or something like that somewhere i got one from italy radar they really they need the budgets back up so they're hitting up all the tourists now that's what's seriously seriously i that's exactly what's happened but um i mean i guess theoretically the way they get to implement this technology is you know whatever you're driving a tesler or any other car now where they can monitor your speed actively um they could issue a ticket

the minute you go 60 and a 55 you could be receiving a ticket but if i'm supposed to be obeying the law i'm like instinctually i hate this trunk instinctually i hate it but i'm having trouble saying why should it not be the case i know there are times you should be able to speed emergencies or whatever it may be and that would be an more extreme measure if they actually stopped you from speeding instead of issuing you a ticket. But I'm kind of having trouble accessing my libertarian argument against this wall.

So let me help you cross the chasm. All right? So in this world, we're assuming where everything's monitored on your car. What you mentioned, if they stop you speeding, well, that's the most dangerous thing in the world. So let's hope they don't do that, right?

If you're going to slam a car down without the driver's knowledge, it's going 80, 70 or 80, that's not good. But let me give you, let me give you a carrot for the stick you proposed because I know you're having difficulty wrapping your head around this you're like you know as a libertarian I hate the idea that they can do this but you know there's a benefit then the benefit that people have been talking about for years is if you can monitor a driver's basically day-to-day safety record they can get a discount on insurance right

so that's basically the carrot to the stick you're proposing the carrot is hey you're going to get a financial benefit here we're going to reduce your premiums for not being in the roads I don't know I was a lot to say that, but I don't know if there's live. It's too late now. But I don't know if that carrot is enough to balance out the stick you mentioned. So let me throw that to you. What do you think about that? Well, I think you're still manipulating behavior. I mean, that's the whole like a nudge philosophy. They're going to use all these other aspects. What I don't like about that is it's turning the private sector into an enforcement mechanism for laws. I don't like that. I don't want the insurance company being in bed with the government to manipulate my behavior. I don't want the credit card company. monitoring my credit score and coordinating with the government on my allowances through regulation. So, you know, the carrot stick thing isn't actually that persuasive to me. It's more about should I monitoring me to ensure that I do not break the law. On one hand, I shouldn't be breaking the law. On the other hand, I don't want you monitoring me. No, I agree with you. That 24-7,

like, anytime you're on the road, it is super dystopian. But I think, You kind of bought up the reality here is the technology is moving at such a pace. And let's just say, let's just grant that level five self-driving does happen. And for anybody that can do napkin math, I think it was 50,000 Americans a year in car crashes die. And if the safety record for self-driving is 5,000, so that you're talking about 90% drop in car fatalities, is that trade-off? Let me ask you, is that worth it to you? for this basically non-stop surveillance of vehicles. So these are the trade-offs you have to make,

and I think that world is coming. So I mean, I'm just straight-up. What would you say to that? Well, I would say that if that is a compelling enough stat, if that stat bears out and it's compelling enough, it should be incentive enough for the individual drivers to make those choices to reduce their likelihood of fatality. But I'm not sure, not only am I not sure, I am I sure.

I don't want regulated force taking away of independence. If I want to drive myself and I don't want to self-drive, I want the ability to do that. And you leave it to the individual. And I understand that there's two sides of a car wreck, and you could compromise someone else's ability as well. But I'd leave it up to the market. Honestly, that's what I would do. I'd leave that up to the market for people. And trust if your technology is good enough, people will make the safer decision most of the time.

Right. So there is a world where you, as long as it's the market deciding that world, The market could walk us into a world of more civilians, though, right? That's the situation. But you're more comfortable with that happening than a top-down mandate. Understood. And the truth is, Trong, if these two things go in tension, if there is a car that reduces the likelihood of wrecks, to your point, then the necessity for speed limit laws goes away.

So in other words, if my self-driving car can drive incredibly fast and safe at the same time, if it can do 100 and be safe, well, now we're talking about. solving of something without regulation yeah that's right there you go then so technology actually can't help the case you're making so I think you just squared your own circle yeah let's talk about let's talk about this augmented reality with Apple I'm not a first adopter trunk I think you might be I mean you certainly you think about the future you think about technology and you think about business and like I already have one friend who's a big first adopter and he's like this is going to be great you know you wear this thing and now I don't have to

at my phone screen and it all kind of is there in front of my eyes and it's embedded within my reality of what I see. On the other hand, by the way, Tim Cook's not apparently not using them. So I don't know what kind of endorsement that is of augmented reality. Well, so it just actually came out this morning because I actually tweeted yesterday. It's been seven months that they announced a Vision Pro and we haven't seen Tim Cook wear the Vision Pro headset. This morning, they basically saved it as a PR standpoint. He did a cover story for Vanity Fair. He's only covered Vanity Fair with the Vision Pro goggles on. So first time. Yeah, so they played it well. Listen, Apple is the marketing machine. They're like, let's just

save the loud. People are asking, people were wondering, because I remember in June last year, everybody noticed immediately. Tim Cook's not wearing these things, right? Because if you remember when Sergey Brin, a decade ago, Google's co-founder was wearing the Google Glass in the New York subway, people were calling them a glass hole. So, Tim Cook, like, I'm not going to be called the glasshole. Like, I'm not letting that happen. I'm not going to let the meme cycle get me. So they basically stretched out seven months.

Everybody in tech was wondering, when is Tim Cook going to put this on? Because if you remember Steve Jobs, what was Steve Jobs famous for in his keynotes? This dude is pulling things out of the fifth pocket in his jeans. He's holding up the eye. Like, these iconic photos, right? He's setting up these situations. Yeah, but Trung, isn't it true that Steve Jobs didn't want his kids to have an iPhone? Isn't it true like Mark Zuckerberg doesn't want his kids on social media?

And then that's what makes it noteworthy that Tim Cook doesn't put on augmented reality. It's like, why is this all good for us, but not for you and your family? No, I think Tim Cook didn't put it on because he's worried that if he would look like it, he just wouldn't look good in it. I'm being the full of, I think he's worried about the meme of like the bad product. But to your larger point, let me actually address that, right? Of technologists, not letting their kids have technology. So I'll address I'm saying, it's true.

There are a lot of technologists that don't do that. Mark Zuckerberg is one of them. Steve Jobs says he didn't want his child using, like he said, the iPad until a certain age. I feel the same way. I let my kid use an iPad to watch a YouTube online play games, and I keep them to like 30 minutes or less a day. And, well, my funny thing about that is when I wasn't a parent, I would go into restaurants and be the judge's person ever. Like, I'd see a parent giving their crying kid a phone and be like, I'd never do that. Then as soon as you have a kid, you just have a nice meal.

And the kids cry It's like, yo, just take this phone. Let me have my meal, dude. And so I get the tension, right? So if you're being honest, no one's a perfect parent around that. But the addictive qualities is the problem. It's everything you meant. That's the real problem.

And it goes back to the congressional hearing you brought with social, which we didn't even touch on. There should be an age limit on social media. Children should not be on social media. It's like the cigarette comparison that I think either Cruz or Holly was making, it's 100% true. I mean, there's not the only ones making it. Lots of people from all sides of the spectrum are making the cigarette comparison. But I think in 50 years, we're going to look back and be like, wow, I can't believe we just let people on social media. You know, the prefrontal cortexes aren't even developed until 25. That's the executive decision-making aspect of your brain. And you're 15 years old and you're being compared to other people. You're seeing what, you know, people are presenting the best forms of their life. Everything is comparison. You're getting to negative five. online where the feedback loop is so much quicker than an argument you'd have free internet but you'd have an argument free internet somebody would say something nasty to you you'd have all day to

stew about it but then you wouldn't see the person again for another week and then you don't care anymore but now on social you get sucked into these these uh these beefs these online fights that are just taking over your mind and ruining your psychology right so I think uh the large point is yes social media to answer to just your point about the technology but The other aspect of it that you kind of mentioned, if I can talk about the business side, would that be cool? Yeah. Yeah. So I think the business aspect, if you're going to look at it for 50,000 foot business aspect for Apple, you have to think about what Apple is.

Apple is either the most or second most valuable company in the world, depending on the day, them and Microsoft are swapping. They wrote three trillion-dollar companies. From their perspective, the iPhone is the greatest consumer product ever. They've sold two billion of them. It's made over two trillion dollars. and now they're like, we need to find this next cycle, right? So from their perspective, they just need to find something that basically moves the needle for them. So, like, if you've ever noticed how the Apple podcast player has sucked for 15 years,

it's because even if they made the best podcast player in the world, it would not move the revenue needle. They just don't care. And, but ARVR could help them. You know, it's interesting. Companies go through, and you know this, companies go through essentially two main phases. That's the startup entrepreneurial phase and then the managerial phase. And I don't know anything about Tim Cook that well, but it's clear like Steve Jobs was the

entrepreneurial phase. And it's, by the way, two big different personality types. The entrepreneurial startup guy is not the best guy to manage you going forward often. But, you know, I'm reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Elon Musk. And I don't know that Isaacson points this out, but people have pointed out, is great of an entrepreneur, as he was, Steve Jobs, he kind of did one thing. I mean, a couple of products, one main product, but he did one thing. And most entrepreneurs really kind of do one thing.

There's this story right now about, you know, an attempt to cap the pay on Elon Musk. And I don't even know the legal grounding for that. But one thing we can say about Elon Musk, and I had a friend that they say, no, he's the greatest entrepreneur of all time. Because he's literally, he's done it at least, what, two to four times. I mean, depending on whatever we contribute to PayPal, to whatever we contribute to X, but undoubtedly SpaceX and Tesla, you know, this, and then not exactly like little tweak-type products, vastly different products that he is pioneered, and now we're trying to sit out here and say, no, he's not worth whatever the pay package is. It is too much, according to the powers that be.

Oh, I agree with you. And I think the line from the Walter Isaacson book is, Walter talked to Larry Elson, the CEO and founder of Oracle. So Larry Elson is very good friends with Steve Jobs. And he's very good friends with Elon Musk. So if you wanted somebody to be able to compare those two entrepreneurs, Larry Elson said

for him the biggest difference with Elon and Steve was like to your point, Steve Jobs is more of the designer, thinker creative. Elon's on the factory floors. Elon is on the Tesla factory floor making sure they can get model

three ramped up, right? And it's Elon's understanding. That's what, that's a Tim Cook angle. You brought up that Tim Cook is more of the manager. Well, Tim Cook is known for being a supply chain master. So Elon's like basically almost a combination of this creative side and also the nuts and both side, which is what Steve Jobs and Tim Cook were. But specifically about talking about the pay package, I'll tell you the crazy thing about that. The guy that brought the case owned nine shares of Tesla. And so the guy bringing the case against Elon, oh, nine shares.

And at the time in 2018, when this was brought to the Tesla shareholders, 80% of them voted yes. And the legal grounds for it that the judge made was essentially that the shareholders did not know, and I think this is a little bit unfair to the shareholders because they probably did know, but the judge is saying they didn't know that Elon was so close with the board. I mean, his brother was a board member. For them not to know that,

it seems a little bit absurd, right? And that's how they're doing it to call back. I think it's crazy because if you read any of the articles in 2018, so Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times business, one of the leading business voices from New York Times. He, in 2018, I think he wrote an article, I literally said, this pay package and the conversation plan,

it's so insane as in these milestones sounds so unachievable that this is the most ridiculous pay package. People were literally laughing and they thought it was a PR stunt to make it. And Elon did, right?

I think at the time that Tesla was a $70 billion company and essentially said if he can get it at $650 billion over by 2030, it unlocks all these trances of the pay package. 90% of the business media

thought it was impossible. People were laughing. So for a person with nine shares to be able to claw back what 80% of the shareholders agreed with that time. I mean, by Delaware law, it's possible, but I think it's absurd. Yeah, you said it well, but no one thought he would be able to do what he would do. So I thought that the pay package was an impossible reach, a shoot for the stars, and they did it. And by the way, that's the way you should reward an entrepreneur,

shoot for the stars, create the impossible, achieve the impossible, and reap the reward. And by the way, when I was talking about how many different things he's done, I forgot about his first company, which I can't remember the name of it, that he sold for, you know, zip two. Zip two. And then by the way, the solar. He's also involved in solar stuff. So, I mean, he's all over the map on different businesses that he's created. Last thing with Trong Fan. Something I found fascinating was an article up on foxnews.com a few days ago, talking about the future of urban environments, a future of big cities. And talking about by 2100, they would lose 20% of their population.

And they would move, largely it suggests, to the suburbs. During COVID, we saw a lot of move to rural areas. And the argument now is people have made this like suburbs, what were bright and shiny and new, maybe in the 90s and 2000s, have turned into their second, third generation turnover for the home. And they're getting rougher. They're getting rougher neighborhoods, right? And that's how it is, for example, in France, in Paris.

Like, the suburbs are the slums, and people live with wealth in Paris. It's weird to figure out what's going to happen in America. Like, do the suburbs, like Paris, turn into the slums? But there's also not this big movement for people to move necessarily into an urban environment. So I'm curious what you think, like, how do we live here over the next several generations? I like that you toss me a nice softball, easy, low-hanging, free question at the end there. Well, the best I can draw is my personal anecdotes, and I am hearing a lot more of my friends

that have made a permanent move out, and particularly around my age group where you're first having those first or second child. I think this is, I don't think there is one answer. To suburbs? Or rural? Suburbs, or ex-verbs. Like, they want a bigger house, right?

And to your point, some of these properties are a bit older. I mean, remember the growth in the suburbs in America, right? It was tied to post-war economic boom with cars. That was basically the growth of the suburbs tied directly to the expansion of car ownership. So I think that, I mean, there's a bit of an arbitrage play for people that want bigger homes, right? Like you said, there's a bit more rundown outside. But I mean, nature it kind of ties back actually to the vision pro in a sense is we're gone so techie that people just want nature to want more space. And I don't know if it's a permanent thing,

but I definitely see here, let me answer with this. I think. there will be certain cities that will have the Paris model and we can guess what they are it's the top cities in America right people will want to do the Paris thing in New York's in the Bostons and L.A.s of America

but maybe the second or third tier cities will actually not get that treatment and people would rather live on the suburbs of a Cleveland for example or of a well it would be a good second or third tier city in your eyes where people would know what I think

I would drop down another tier I think the most popular cities of American future are, and I've often said, I think this is the perfect-sized city, are the 200 to 300,000-person city. So it's Waco, Texas, Lubbock, Texas, Knoxville, Tennessee, where nothing's a big commute. You got everything you need in that kind of city, including most of the time, at least a regional airport, but you don't have the blight that you often have in huge urban environments. I think that's the sweet spot. Now, the trick is, as people find sweet spots, then it gets to be too big.

It's too sweet. I think that it's too sweet. So I think that 200 to 300,000 person city is sort of the future, you know, not utopia, but bright light for city living. No, I like that. That's a great answer. And so the bifurcation then, the top will never go away. In New York, people are always, if you're young, 20, ambitious, you're always going to want

to go to New York. to your, as you get older, as you realize you're never going to own a home in New York, you're going to want to move to Knoxville, Tennessee, to your point. Yeah. All right, Trung fan, sat post, subscribe to his substack, check him out on X. Trung T-Fan, he's also got his AI app, barely, b-e-r-l-y-l-I. Trung, always great to talk to you, man. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Thank you, guys. All right, bud. We'll see you. All right, so it's been roughly one hour since this. show began, and I haven't checked yet, has Jerry Jones yet hired Bill Belichick as defensive coordinator of the Cowboys? No breaking news yet, but I expect it momentarily. That's not reporting. That is extreme wishful thinking. How does this man not have a head coaching job in the NFL?

Maybe he'll be defensive coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys. That's going to do it for me right here on the Will Cain Show. We'll see you again tomorrow. A sports exclusive episode of the Will Cain Show with former Florida State and NFL quarterback Danny Cannell. I'll see you next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News Podcast Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members, You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon Music app. It is time to take the quiz.

It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.