Will Cain Country - Kamala is the A.I. candidate | PLUS, where does race factor in with Harris?

Episode Date: August 15, 2024

Story #1: Vice President Harris is an A.I. Candidate propped up by the media and bots. The problem is, is it working? Story #2: How will race factor into the election, and who is the real power behind the Democratic party? A conversation with Adam B. Coleman, the author of 'Black Victim To Black Victor.' Story #3: New evidence shows that President Nixon was not aware of the Watergate break in? Was he forced out of office by larger powers? If we knew what we knew now, would he have never resigned? A conversation with Geoff Shepard, Author of ‘The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate And The Plot To Remove The President’ and former deputy to the Nixon administration’s Special White House Counsel. 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

One, Kamala Harris is an AI-generated candidate supported by media bots in the comments section. And it's working. Two, a story that I'm absolutely fascinated by that blows my mind. Raygun, an Australian breakdancer breaks break dancing. It's dead. The only real question is, is it a case of manslaughter or murder? Is it just bad breakdancing or was breakdancing murdered by Raygun? Three, if we knew then what we know today, brand new evidence,

then we never would have experienced the resignation of Richard Nixon. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand. Drop down into the text link underneath this live stream, a little button, and you can hit subscribe on YouTube. Jump into the comments section, be reminded on a daily basis every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern Time to join the Will King show live on YouTube. Or if you prefer to listen on your own time at your own leisure, head on over to Spotify. or Apple and hit subscribe. If you're driving around in Las Vegas, Nevada on KXNT, welcome to the Wilkane Show. You've joined the latest terrestrial radio market to be a part of our community here.

Again, on the Wilcane Show. Speaking of entertainment, I'm broadcasting to you live today from Fox News headquarters in New York City. And guess what little piece of entertainment I will get to take in this weekend. If I haven't told you fellas in the Willisha already, I'm going to see a concert. I took a day off. And I had to buy these tickets well in advance. Now, this concert is in Dallas. I will be flying back from New York City. Can we guess? I want you to guess. And I want you to guess, what concert would you kind of place right now, number one on your wish list, and let me see if I nailed it with where I'll be on Saturday night in AT&T in Dallas. Zach Bryan?

It's Zach Ryan. It's Zach Ryan. Yes, right. Yeah. Let's go. Got it. I'm going to see Zach Ryan. Heck yeah.

Which, by the way, means I've been doing my homework. You know, going to see a concert, I feel like if you want to ring the most out of it, when I was 20, 24, roughly, I did a semester of studying law in Europe. I went to London, and I studied law. And it was a boondoggle. All it meant was my buddies and I got to travel Europe. And I remember specifically, I took a trip. I think I did this trip by myself, because even in my 20s, I wanted to do a little traveling on my own. I didn't want to always be with a bunch of buddies. And I went to Venice, Italy. And I was recently. at the time, a book called The Agony and the Ecstasy, and it's about the life of Michelangelo. And it was really fascinating, and I can't remember the name of the author. His last name might be Stone. But he also wrote one about Vincent Van Gogh. And reading about the life of Michelangelo made everything in Venice so much richer.

Like I understood everything I was taking in. stopped in Florence. So, for example, I got to see the statue of David. And to understand how he picked marble, why he picked certain pieces of marble, what he did, how he spent time on it, it made everything richer. So I've been doing my homework for Zach Bryant. And as much as I like him, and I'm a big fan, I cannot pretend to know every song, much less every lyric. And it's really fun to sing along at a concert. The last thing you want to do is go to a concert and have an artist play his new music. Yeah.

He's got a new album. I know. You want to hear the stuff you know. And so I've been spending some time listening to his new album. And there's some good ones. I like it. It grows on you so slowly. Everything with Zach Bryan grows on you so slowly.

At first you're like, eh, next. It's a little country emo. It's barely, honestly, if I'm being real, sometimes, it's barely country. It isn't really. It's more like folk, like luminaires, mumford. and Sun's type. Pink Skies. Yeah.

Especially the new album. The new album is especially, it doesn't feel like it's out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It feels like it's out of Brooklyn, New York. Yeah. I still like it. And so you can look up his set list. So I've been listening.

And by the way, just to show my open-mindedness that I don't cancel people, I'm actually excited about the opener as well. And this guy probably doesn't even want me in the audience. He is so far left that he is rejected. my consumerism. He does not want my dollar. Unfortunately for him, this dollar is primarily going to Zach Bryant. But I like this guy, even if he doesn't like me, Jason Isbell. He's my favorite artist, like top three of all time. I'm a fan. I love him. I think, obviously, not of his

points of view where at one point during COVID, he said he doesn't want anybody to come to his concert that's not vaccinated. Like he was, Jason Isbell was ready to join the East German Stasi. He was ready. Tell me where to go, boss. I'm ready to sign up. And I mean, I'm really turned off by not just his points of view,

but by his rejection of anybody else's point of view, but I'm turned on by his music. And Outfit is one of my favorite songs. Like, you want to hear a good song, listen to Outfit by Jason Isbell. It's advice that his father gave him. when he said he wanted to go into music about how to live your life, which included things like, you know, what is it?

Don't compare yourself to Jesus. Don't ever, what is it? Don't ever be ashamed of your family. It's always call home on your sister's birthday, and don't ever call what you're wearing an outfit. It's just awesome advice that his dad gives to him when he says that he wants to go into music, outfit by Jason Isbell. So that's where I'll be on Saturday night.

I spent this morning, by the way, hosting Fox and Friends, filling in for Brian Kilmead. Steve Ducey was out. And it was revealed during Fox and Friends, I'm blacker than Lawrence Jones. So just put that on my resume. I'm going to tell you how that went down. I was telling Lawrence's story about fades, the story I told you guys about my son getting a fade, about Lawrence and I were laughing about stereotypes. He said, to know some white people stuff, getting bit eaten by sharks is a white people thing.

You know how that came up? He asked me about swimming in the Hudson and the New York Navy SEAL swim. And all he wanted to ask about was the fish. He's like, can you see the fish? Do you feel the fish? He didn't say sharks even. He said fish. And I'm like, no, man, I didn't see any fish. I'm like, why is that your concern? Like, things living in the water. He goes, can I be real with you? Black people don't go into other animals' habitats. We don't do that. That's white people's stuff. He's like climbing mountains, going into the woods, swimming in the ocean. Like you guys go out into the ocean and they get all surprised about sharks.

They're surprised like, what are you doing out here? It's where I live. We don't get caught surprised in other people's habitats. And so we started laughing about stereotypes. And I told him about my trip to the fade shop to get my son of fade. And I knew what a burst fade was. He did not. He knows.

He thought it was a drop fade. I said, let me tell you something, Lawrence. I know my fades. And I had to teach him a little bit, you know, about black culture, even though I'm wearing today the whitest shoes in America. Looks like he's going to a Riley Green concert. Oh, man. I didn't even notice those.

Yeah. I'm wearing the white people zombie killing shoes. Like the widest shoes. You might need to show the audience on TV that. I'm wearing some of those, you know, this brand right here? Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's like...

You joined the masses, bro. I did. What do your kids think of those? They liked them. Wow. And they actually got some. They said, I'm really on trend with these. On clouds.

Yep, they're nice. But these are not the on clouds with the big, you know, circles and loops at the bottom. These are the Roger Federer version. The Nike wannabes almost. Yeah. These are, these are, I like them. They're good. But these are white people's shoes.

You're a dad wearing those. This is like swimming out in the... ocean. Got to get the white new balances and never get a new one for 20 years. Our guest coming up today is Adam Coleman. I'm going to ask Adam, do you catch a brother in On Clouds? He's laughing. We see him.

He's laughing right now. So we'll get to him soon. All right, we're going to get to Adam Coleman a little bit later on the show. We had a fascinating conversation a few months ago about race and politics. And I want to ask Adam about one of my most fascinating stories that's just absolutely I'm obsessed with right now. and that is the Australian breakdan breaking breakdancing at the Olympics. But first, I want to get into the AI candidate, Kamala Harris, with story number one. Kamala Harris is an artificial intelligence candidate.

You're tempted to say that she would be a cheap fake, stealing Donald Trump's no tax on tips. But in fact, she's a deep fake. She is AI. Nothing about the candidacy of Kamala Harris is real. Every image you see of Kamala Harris right now is a still photo. Cover of Time Magazine, the cover of essence, beautiful profile shots, soaring images, staring off into the distance. You're covered up in still images.

And in still images, Kamala Harris has a stately demeanor, an appealing smile. The problem is, once you hit play, Kamala's charisma plays out. She is not charming when off the cuff. She is not charming when off script. She is an embarrassment when not on the teleprompter. And that charming smile turns into the liability of a laugh. The AI generacy of her candidacy has turned her laugh, which is a liability, into an asset as being described as joy.

But that's fake. It's phony. Like the laugh. It's not real. Her policies are not real. She's anti-fraking. She's pro-fraking. She's suddenly regenerated out of nowhere to be someone who yesterday wanted to sick the IRS on poor waiters and waitresses.

And today regurgitates no tax on tips. It's as though she was born three weeks ago. Nothing existed before. No history, no record. She's trying to divorce herself from three and a half years of leadership by saying she'd take on inflation. day one. And we're supposed to ignore that for three and a half years, it has been the Biden-Harris administration, as reminded, as we are reminded by White House press secretary, Corrine John Pierre. When did you guys learn that Vice President Harris wants to distance herself from

Bidenomics? Why do you think that? Axios is now reporting that she is hoping to distance herself from President Biden's unpopularity on the economy. Can you blame her? Do you know this is the Biden Harris administration? Are you aware that this is the Biden Harris administration? And she is indeed the vice president. But if the president's policies on the economy were working or if they were popular, wouldn't he still need a candidate? You literally just had the chair of the CEA here who laid out a pretty, pretty robust point by point about the economy. Is Kamala Harris aware that it's the Biden-Harris administration? The new AI candidate born three and a half weeks ago is totally distanced herself from the policies of the Biden administration.

And now we are left with the Harris candidacy. No policies, no interviews, no questions. And it's working. People think it's real, in part because the media is a bot inside the comment section, leaving us posts like Kamala 2024. Nothing is real, but everything is working. Current national polling suggests Kamala Harris is up. She's up six points in the polymarket betting market. She is up in swing states where it's also having a down ballot effect.

Democratic candidates from Arizona to Michigan to Pennsylvania to Georgia are winning over Republican candidates. This is not good for anyone who wants. wants reality, anyone who doesn't want the new AI-generated Kamala Harris. This is not good for anyone that supports Donald Trump. Now, is this a rejection of Donald Trump, or is this an embrace of Kamala Harris? There's been man on the street videos. Rachel Campos Duffy spoke to someone, I believe it was in Wisconsin last week where she said that literally inflation has hurt her family budget. She's concerned about her job. Her life is worse off. Who are you going to vote for? Oh, Kamala Harris.

Why? She better represents me. That suggests that identity politics has shoved a voter into the embrace of Kamala Harris. But there are others, enthusiasm going from 40% to 80% on the Democratic side that I think reflects. You simply have a living, breathing candidate. And it's all somebody needed to be anti-Trump. You would hope that's what would be needed by the American people is a real candidate. not artificial intelligence.

All right, let's get into race and breakdancing and the Australian breakdancer known as Raygun with Adam Coleman coming up here on the Wilcane show. 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.combe forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding out. If I can change, and you can change, and we can change, and we can change, I'm telling my producer, two days, Dan, he's going to have to change because he's hanging on to millennial hipster styles from five years ago, and he's going to wake up tomorrow, and he's going to be 44 still wearing his hipster looks from 20. 2017, and you're going to be just like a Gen Xer who's, I don't know, stuck in 1997, trust me, because I am that Gen Xer. You have to change. But what I want to, why I bring this up, is young establishment, James started waving at me when I go, if I can change, and you can change, and we can change. What did you think I'm referencing right there, James? What did you think

that was a reference to? Oh, I have no idea. I thought you thought that was Obama and you're waving. No, oh, no. And Obama's more like, he does more of like a close, stand and this with this but no I was if I can change and you can change yes we can't Rocky Ford God

Rocky Ford it was on the tip of my tongue he beats Drago he's in the Soviet Union he's talking to the crowd if he dies he dies that's pretty good that's pretty good

he solves the Cold War and a post match speech with Drago Reagan has nothing on Rocky. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always On Demand. Hit subscribe, Apple or Spotify. Joining us now is the author of a substack called Speaking Wrong at the right time and also a book you need to check out. Black victim to Black Victor. It's Adam B. Coleman here on the Will Cain show.

What's up, Adam? I'm doing well. Thanks for having me back on. Everybody said you might have been laughing about the white guy's shoes. Are On Cloud's white guy shoes, Adam? Wait, say that one more time? Are on clouds white people stuff? Are those white people shoes? By the way, there's a, have you ever seen the viral video of the black guy on the airplane where he takes it out and all the white people are wearing on clouds? And he's like, they're on some stuff here we don't know about.

We didn't get the memo here about these zombie fighting on clouds. So am I wearing the ultimate white guy shoe at him? You know what's funny? I'm not huge into shoes. So I'm not even too familiar with them. So I lose in this arena. I think they're Scandinavian, which definitely makes them white. I'm not sure where they're from.

The answer is yes. But I think they're from Scandinavia. Adam's here on the show. So let me start with this, Adam. You're into breakdancing? Are you like a breakdancing historian? Do you breakdance? Why are you my breakdancing expert?

And you are most definitely my breakdancing expert. But why, Adam? I've been a fan of different types of street dance. for well over a decade I've just I've watched the content I'm a consumer of it just in the same way you know for many years I was consumer of basketball football all that types of stuff I'm consumer of break dancing popping hip-hop dance things like that watching competition videos recaps and things like that so when you watch enough of it you can tell like who's good the technical ability of people how difficult certain

tricks are how easy they are things of that nature so you know you know, in this political realm, I'm probably the only person who actively watches breakdancing. I think your bona fides have been established. I think you are an expert in break dancing. Now let's fill the audience in on why this is important. Breakdancing was a sport at the 2024 Paris Olympics. The validity of that statement that I just gave you or whether or not you should embrace break dancing as an Olympic sport is a side debate for the moment. But it was a sport. last month in Paris. At the breakdancing competition, an Australian dancer who goes by the name Ray Gunn, she's roughly a 30-something-year-old woman, first name Rachel, and I think was her last

name, what is her last name, Adam? Is it Gunn? Is it Rachel Gunn? Okay, Rachel Gunn, who goes by Reagan. She comes out in an Australian-themed uniform, which not all the break dancers did. They wore their own attire. She seemed in the competition very proud to be from Australia. She was sort of flashing the green and gold and pointing at her Australia on her jersey. And she proceeded to go out and give what every other commentator is describing as a horrific performance. She was awarded zero points, I think, in three different matches.

And she did some goofy, goofy junk. She was like mimicking a kangaroo at one point. it looked like she was on the ground spinning around like Homer Simpson in an episode of the Simpsons. It was some goofy stuff being put out there by Raygun. And what has been left is everyone asking the question, was she serious? Is she, was she trying to win? Was she trying to get points?

Because she's also an academic. And she has a PhD in things, and I'll let you step in here to help clarify any facts But in things like, I believe, some focus on indigenous cultures, Australian colonialism, and the role of breakdancing and subversive culture. And so there is a theory going around. She did this to actually break the mainstreaming of break dancing. I think the simplest answer is true. She's just not that good. And I say this as someone who I've seen a couple of videos of her performances outside of the Olympics.

And she's not very good. And when I say not very good, I think what ends up happening is people are familiar with break dancing when men dance, but they're not familiar with break dancing when women dance. So it's unfair to measure the women by the men's standards. The men are much stronger. They have much more upper body strength. do way more crazier tricks and things of that nature. So people have to accept that the women are not going to be capable as the men and break dancing simply because of, you know, physical

strength. So from a female perspective, she's not very good. Right. You know, if I'm to compare, she, watching her dance outside of the Olympics, just watching other videos of her dance, she looks amateurish. Like, she doesn't look like she's a beginner. Like, You can tell she's been doing this for a little bit, but she looks like she hasn't gone very far outside of that. Whereas her counterpart that she's competing up against, especially for the qualifier that led for her to go to the Olympics, anybody who doesn't even follow breakdancing can watch that

and scratch their head as to why they thought Rachel won that qualifier. Because the other girl, her name is Molly, should have definitely gone through. Molly was more than capable, more skilled in half her age. Well, what's the answer to that, Adam? I've seen people say you're talking about not necessarily her performance at the Olympics, but her qualifier to come out and represent Australia. And I've seen people speculating somehow the whole process was rigged to help Raygun get into the Olympics.

You know, so there are a lot of rumors that were going around saying that she was part of the organization that created all this other stuff. And the organization, so there's a lot of problems in the first place, even breakdancing coming into the Olympics. The first thing was that they wanted to gain a younger audience. And ballroom dancing was trying to get a bid to be part of the Olympics. They skipped over ballroom dancing, but the organization that was advocating for it, they tasked them with finding the best breakdancers in the world. So it would be like finding a football coach to find the best basketball players in the country. Like it doesn't make any sense, but that's what they're.

they ended up doing. So they ended up going to local organizations, because they don't know anything about breakdancing, to run these qualifiers and things of that nature. Now, I would imagine the breakdancing scene in Australia is very small, so she may know everybody that's there. But she's not part of the organization, and her husband's not part of the organization that ran the qualifiers. And I doubt that her husband was a judge. I didn't watch the video to watch to see if her husband was one of the judges. And it's kind of hard to tell because of the camera angles. But I think that's more rumors and people trying to create some greater conspiracy at hand. Okay. The reason people are coming up with conspiracies, the reason I'm talking about it

with you today, the reason that I'm interested in the story is the why. How and the why? How could this have happened? How could this sort of ridiculous performance take place at the highest levels, the Olympics, of any given pursuit. And I just want to read something to you here. This is by a woman named Hannah Borelli, and she's the editor of On the Woman Q podcast. This, what I'm about to read to you, by the way, I saw from a couple of different outlets, a couple of different authors on Twitter, not just one, but I thought this was fairly representative of a point of view, and I want to run it by you. So this author, Hannah Borelli, says, I looked into this. I thought maybe I should feel sorry for her, because a lot of people are,

she's getting a lot of criticism, Ray Gunn. So Hannah Borelli says, I thought I should feel sorry for her. Athletes can choke and it's a cruel world to make fun of someone. Alternatively, I thought maybe she was led up the garden path, told she was a good breakdancer when she wasn't, and I can't imagine anything more humiliating than realizing you're not on the world stage. Turns out, though, Rachel Gunn has a PhD in cultural studies

with a specialty in gender politics of movement and break dance. She's written about how including breakdance in the Olympics changes it from a practice within a subculture into a hegemonic one that incorporates dance into what she sees as the Australian Settler Colonials Project. I'm 100% certain what she's doing here, writes Hannah Brelie. She's wearing the Australia uniform, bragging about representing Australia when the whole thing is in fact to have a disastrous effect. on the sport of breakdancing. She's saying this author that Raygun went out to embarrass Australia as a colonial settler project to embarrass breakdancing as a mainstream sport so that it can remain sort of indigenous subculture and smaller.

And the back end of this entire enterprise will be, because she's an academic, for Rachel Gunn to write some big paper. that gets her famous within small academic circles about what this all exposed in terms of the Olympics? I don't know. To me, I can, I understand why the person is saying that, but it'd be different if she didn't dance for years and then she just popped up on the scene

and won some qualifier with this objective. I do think that she actually enjoys breakdancing. It sounds like she is part of this. scene. It sounds like this is something she's been doing for a number of years. Granted, she's still not very good at it, but she always gets some sort of time to compete because there aren't a lot of women who are competing in Australia at these different competitions. So I do think that she has a passion for it, which makes it weird to think that she wants to somehow destroy it. Now, I don't put anything past leftists, but I struggle to come to

conclusion. I appreciate your point of view. First of all, let me say this. Like, sticking with the Olympics, I've told my audience, I think that we all too often force American culture wars onto stories that may be tangentially related, but are not good evidence of whatever it is we're fighting about in American culture. I think the Algerian boxer story was turned into a proxy for the American transgender athletes in sports culture war. That doesn't mean I think that that particular boxer should have been boxing against women, I don't think she should have been. I think the presence of the XY chromosome and the heightened testosterone levels meant that that boxer probably should not have been allowed to compete against XX women

in the sport. But I don't think it's a placeholder or a continuation of the conversation we've had in America about whether or not gender identity allows men to compete in women's sports. I think that was forced. And maybe I'm forcing, and I want to be real with myself, in the audience. Maybe because I've been attracted to that argument that I just read to you, I'm forcing this idea that woke culture's absurdity was revealed in this absurd performance at the Olympics. Maybe not. You know, the truth is most conspiracies aren't real. The easiest explanation is always incompetence. It always is. And maybe what we saw with Rachel Gunn was incompetence. It's just hard, just like with the Secret Service, right? It's just

It's hard to understand that there was, it's hard to accept there's that much incompetence that led to President Trump being shot. You know, it makes people lean towards, there can't be that much incompetence. There must be something more at play. And this, and Reagan's performance is so incompetent. It makes you go, ah, there's got to be something more at play. But I appreciate that our instinct should always be human beings are less capable of pulling off grand conspiracies and more probably victims of huge incompetence.

Yes, absolutely. And I'll say this. I've seen a bunch of battles. There are battles where I'm like, oh, this person definitely won and that they don't. And it's so because it's all very subjective. So there quite possibly could be somebody who's a judge who is seeing something in Rachel's performance in that qualifier that I was watching that I didn't see. Maybe they're judging harshly on the flip that the other person was doing and how they landed where I'm not.

I'm just saying that this person is doing a flip and Rachel is just standing on the ground. So I think that it's all subjective, you know, this entire process as far as judging goes. Now, the one thing I will say is, and I think of Rachel that had admitted this, that she knew that she couldn't outperform everybody else. So she didn't expect to win. She knew that she didn't have the skill level as, you know, girls who were 10 plus years younger than her. So she wanted to be more creative. That was her explanation. The problem with trying to do something like that as far as being creative or I would use the word unorthodox is that if you don't back it up with skill, it just looks goofy.

And that's exactly what happened. Like the kangaroo. She looked goofier at the Olympics than she did at her qualifier. And I think that that was a mistake if the goal was to try and do the best that you possibly could. She thought she could be out-create the person that she's dancing it up against. But even the creative stuff that she was doing was still kind of goofy. All right. Thus ends the saga of Ray Gunn at the Olympics.

But we have Adam Coleman here. Again, the author of Black Victim to Black Victor. And check him out on the Substack at Speaking Wrong at the Right Time here on the Will Kane show. Hey, Adam, what role do you think Kamala Harris's race will play in the election for president? What role will her thing? Will she play? I think that Kamala's likely to do the Joe Biden move from four years ago, speak very little and make it about Trump. So I think her role is not going to be in the position of being challenged. She might do some, a more. more campaigning than Joe Biden did four years ago, but I don't think she's going to make this about her. And if I was her, I probably wouldn't either. Yeah, I know what you mean by that. I mean, if you work for Kamala Harris right now,

you're high-fiving. Don't change the thing. You're doing a good job. If you work for a media organization, hang your head in shame because a political candidacy is playing you exactly into their hands. Of course, that's only if you are not in. on the play. But I want to go back to race, Adam. You know I've had some fascinating conversations on race. What I mean when I say, what role will her race play? I mean it in this effect. There was at least polling suggesting that a good percentage of the black vote was moving towards Donald Trump before we saw Joe Biden bow out of the race. Do you think the black vote gravitates back, though, now toward Kamala Harris? And by the way, if you're

answer is yes let me just go ahead and ask the follow-up why is it is it because she's not joe biden or is it because she's black so and my apologies i misunderstood what you meant by race before so i think that the the black americans i've spoken with and i wrote a piece about this the reason why they were shaky on joe biden was for a couple of reasons it was his age um and it had to deal with his lack of follow-through with certain things that they did want. And this is coming from Democratic voters, traditional Democrat voting black Americans. So when you have that, that put him on shaky ground. And I think it was trending in the direction. This is prior to the debate of Donald Trump possibly pulling this off and actually making some headway. But I think there's

a lot of excitement revolving around Kamala. Yes, partly because of her race. And some people want to be the first, be part of the first this and the first that, just like I voted for Obama, who's the first black president. So there is some excitement about that. But I do think that there's an excitement about having someone who's younger in the eyes of having 70-year-olds as your option to vote to be the president. But I don't think her race is as significant as the media makes it out to be. I think this is much more in reaction to her age. and actually probably more so to her being a woman than actually her being black. Yeah, I wonder, is there an enthusiasm?

Right now the debate for me is enthusiasm versus rejection. I'm not even sure yet about an enthusiasm for Kamala versus a renewed rejection of Trump. What I mean by that, there are certain people who will look to reject Trump and Biden just happened to trend over the trend line of not a good rejection. and the fact that she's breathing and active gives her the ability for them to reembrace their rejection of Trump versus true enthusiasm for her, for whatever reason. And that's why I asked you about her race. Could that generate enthusiasm?

Maybe it says you point out because she's a woman. I don't think the fact that she's Indian American does a lot, generates a ton of enthusiasm among much of a voter base. beyond perhaps Indian Americans. Not as a negative or a positive, just not an effect on how people turn out to vote. But I'm still just wondering if it's not just, it's all because she's just not Joe Biden. That's it.

It's all she had to be. And if she's not Joe Biden, it could have been anybody. It could have been anybody that replaced him, and they would have seen the same bounce against Donald Trump. Yeah, I truly believe that. You know, she, I remember four years ago when she was running, she was one of the least popular Democrats who were running. And what's so funny about politics is that everything is so short term.

No one has a long-term memory to remember how she was basically out, I believe, before any of the primaries that kicked off, got, she was seen as one of the most unfavorable vice presidents, not very popular overall. And then suddenly they won her on Time Magazine, and she's the greatest thing that has ever happened to this country. She is probably one of the most untested people in federal government. You know, she quite literally skipped the line. And this actually, if I can bring up this one point, this goes to all these people who say the vice president ticket and all this other stuff is really, really important. And, oh, they got this person as a vice president. I'm definitely going, she was on the ticket with Joe. Biden and Joe Biden was waffling. She switches positions. All of a sudden, it takes off,

which means that people weren't voting for Kamala Harris on the Joe Biden ticket. They're voting for Joe Biden. All she did was switch positions. If the VP position was so important, then why all of a sudden is this enthusiasm? And it's because it's not. The VP position is only important to people like us who follow politics. But I've yet to meet someone who was a regular job who pays attention to politics who's like, yeah, well, I'm just waiting to see who the VP is. Like, they don't care. They're voting for the president. Who's the president going to be? I'm always fascinated by those man on the street interviews. I actually wonder if you asked the American public to name the two vice presidential candidates. I don't know that you would hit. And I'm not

even laughing at the American public. At some point, there's a healthy distraction from politics. I mean, I do think you should have an informed voter base. But 50%, if I walked out on the streets of New York right now and I said, name Kamala Harris's running mate, I wouldn't get 50%. I don't think I'd get it with Trump either. I don't, is anybody disagree with me? I mean, like, right, guys over there in this.

I agree. I don't think you would go to do that. Yeah, I don't think you get it 50%. Adam? No, 25% max. Yeah, I mean, and I think you could even I don't know if it does get worse than that but I don't think you get 25% people

to name one Supreme Court justice not one, name one Supreme Court justice. 8% 8% 8? Yeah, you'd put the overrunder at 8%. 15. 15 says Adam. I'll go to 15.

Yeah, it's pretty fascinating. I'm not going to get into who the House majority speaker is or Senate majority leader, which, by the way, we'll end with this question. Who do you think the most powerful person in the Democratic Party is, Adam? I have an answer for this. I have a firm answer of who I've decided is the most powerful person for Democrats. Who do you think it is? Do you mean holding office or not holding office? I'll give you either. Holding office or not holding office?

Barack Obama. You think it's Barack Obama? I think Barack Obama. I can tell you why. I think before you tell me why, I'll give you my name and I'll tell you why. I think it's Nancy Pelosi. You go ahead. You make the case for Barack Obama.

I think we saw once, first, we know that he was behind Joe Biden going, leaving his post as far as trying to run it. for office. We know he did not get the vote of confidence. Matter of fact, I believe he said, Joe has to go. So we know that once that happened, everything went forward and he eventually left. And then it was Kamala may be the person. And Barack Obama's words were, I'm sure the process will find the best possible candidate. They waited about a week and saw all the enthusiasm, you know, the Karen's for Kamala conference call and all this other stuff happened, and they saw that it is possible for her to win.

And then suddenly, Barack Obama says, I am sure Kamala is going to be the person who is going to lead this party forward. So everything shifts. And there is this element of waiting for Barack Obama to give his blessing moving forward. And once Barack Obama says something, I could just tell the tide had changed as far as, yes, we are sure. Now there's no question when it comes to the convention that she's going to be the person. But until Barack Obama said that, people weren't 100%. I disagree. I think that Barack Obama came through that process looking like a follower, not a leader. I think it was fairly obvious

he was out on Joe Biden for quite some time. I don't know that he was ever in on Joe Biden, ever. He declined to endorse Joe Biden in 2020 until he became the Democratic nominee. He wouldn't get behind Joe Biden when it was Biden versus Clinton in 2016. And despite his lack of support for Joe Biden, it didn't force Joe Biden out of the race. Now, we would have a chicken or egg argument on whether or not Obama's lack of support of Joe Biden ultimately motivated Nancy Pelosi. But it was Pelosi that ultimately said to him, you can go the easy way or the hard way. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was her convincing him, you're going to destroy the Democratic Party. you're going to have us lose all of these races.

But even more than that, her threats on what that meant for what she would do, what the hard way was. And I know she's no longer the speaker. I know she's no longer the leader of the party formally. But she clearly wields the power behind the scenes that forced Joe Biden out of the race. And she was among the first to embrace Kamala, which to me is a sign of leadership. And Obama waiting that week until it became clear it would be Kamala. point at which Obama jumps in, it's clear. It's going to be Kamala. And I don't think, I guess the reason I ask you that question is I think a lot of people believe, like you, that it is Barack

Obama. And obviously, I don't think he's powerless. But I don't think we've fully appreciated the power for a long time now in Washington, D.C., decades of Nancy Pelosi. Yeah. But I would also, I would also argue that it is likely that Barack Obama has, the ear of donors, more so than Nancy Pelosi does. And once we started seeing donors, big donors, celebrities, especially voicing these particular efforts to have Joe go, I don't think they did that completely in isolation. I think there is a little bit of everyone, it was agreeing along with following along Barack Obama behind the scenes.

Well, great point about the relationship between the donors and Barack Obama. And you can get more of those great points by going over to Substack. It's speaking wrong at the right time. He's Adam B. Coleman. I know these has also been in the New York Post at times, but you can check him there out at atadam B.com. And check out his book, Black Victim to Black Victor as well. We always love having you, Adam, on the Will Cain Show.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. if we knew today if we knew in the 1970s what we know today we never would have seen the resignation

of Richard Nixon next on the Will Cain Show it is time to take the quiz 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 the quiz dot fox then come back here to see how you did

thank you for taking the quiz From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me, Kennedy. Make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. The Nixon Conspiracy, Watergate, and the plot to remove the present.

That's a brand new book by Jeff Shepard. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Foxxon. News YouTube channel, Terrestrial Radio, coast to coast, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, and now Las Vegas. If you're listening on Terrestrial Radio, go over to Spotify and Apple, hit subscribe to the Will Cain Show, and you can listen whenever and however you like. Jeff Shepard is the author of that new book, The Nixon Conspiracy, Watergate, and the plot to remove the president. He's the former deputy to the Nixon administration's special White House Council, and he's here with us now on the Will Cain Show. Jeff, great to have you.

Well, thank you, Will. It's good to be invited. on your show. So what is it if we had known in the 1970s that we now know today has been revealed that would have meant we never would have seen the resignation of Richard Nixon? Well, as you know, Richard Nixon resigned 50 years ago last week. The only president so far to have resigned from office. And he gave up a landslide reelection in 1972. At the time, I thought he should have resigned. I've been on his staff for five. years. But what I've discovered in just the past 10 years, documents, secret documents, secret meetings, secret memos that show a conspiracy to drive Nixon from office. Now, we have a popular

term today associated with former President Trump called lawfare, the improper use of the criminal law to destroy your political opponent. Well, lawfare didn't start with President Trump. It started with Watergate. And what I've done, you might say I'm a sore loser, I've gone back and done a lot of research and I've uncovered a lot of documents, internal prosecutorial documents that show there were secret meetings with the judges, there were secret meetings with Democrats on the hill, there was a totally improper suppression of helpful evidence, and hugely partisan indictments where somehow only Republicans got indicted, and Democrats didn't. So what we have is an actual paper trail.

Now, today, you've got suspicions. Trump is under attack in four or five different places, Florida and Georgia and New York in Washington, D.C. And you suspect there might be coordination. You know, there are glimmerings. But what I've shown in Watergate is, you know, this paper trail from the people involved, from the special prosecutors that I've uncovered that document the effort to remove Nixon.

Well, explain to me the effort to remove Nixon. The story as a casual observer or even a casual understanding of history might lead one to believe that Richard Nixon had knowledge of the plot to break into the Watergate hotel, get documents when it came to the Democratic Party, and this led to his downfall, the ultimate forced resignation of Richard Nixon. Is that not the right story? That's what you've been taught, but that's not what happened. There is no evidence today whatsoever that Nixon knew about the break in advance. There was no accusation at the time. The accusation was that he was involved in the cover-up trying to prevent other people from getting hurt. That's not true either.

But even through today, no witness has ever come forward to say Nixon knew about the plan break-in in advance. Other people did, and they were pretty senior people. So there really was a break-in. They were caught red-handed. There really was a cover-up, but the cover-up wasn't really known to Nixon. At the moment of the break-in, neither Nixon nor his top two aides, Bob Holderman and John Ehrlichman, had any inkling that there was a break-in plan. But I'll tell you, who did know, the CIA knew. They prepared the charts, big, huge charts that were used to describe the plan to John Mitchell when he was Attorney General. It's really peculiar, what happened, Will, and it's a complex story. But there was an individual tasked with preparing a

campaign intelligence plan. That was the president's lawyer, John Dean. And he hired another individual, Gordon Liddy, to concoct the plan. And Gordon got carried away. He presented a plan that was just absolutely off the chart. Proposals for mugging, bugging, kidnapping, and prostitial. And he gets over to the re-election committee, left the White House staff, went over to the re-election committee, shows up saying, I've been promised at least a half million, maybe a million dollars for a campaign intelligence plan. Now, those words sound innocent, but they're not. That's the spy operation.

Every campaign has one. Today, they call it opposition research. you want to know everything about your opponent. Good, bad, political positions, money, schedule, dirt, if you can find it. Okay? Well, the guy that unfortunately got hired to do that went way beyond legality. And then he shows up saying, I've been promised all this money. And the acting head of the re-election committee says, well, nobody here has the authority

to commit a million dollars. That's a lot of money. The only man that can commit that hasn't come yet, is the attorney general. He hasn't left the AG's office to come to the reelection committee. Let's go over, tell him about your plan, get his budgetary approval. So there were two meetings in Attorney General John Mitchell's office where Gordon Liddy, the plan's author, presented his plan. Now, the plan was not approved in either of those two meetings, but when the burglars were caught

red-handed in the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972, the people who'd been at those meetings were very worried about their own risk of prosecution. So John Dean, the president's lawyer, orchestrated a cover-up. And we thought, those of us on the White House staff, thought he was protecting White House interests because he told us, not me, but he told the senior people, right after the break-in, that nobody on the White House staff knew in advance, which was true. except when he went to protect the White House interests, he decided to also protect the re-election committee's interests, which was much harder because they were guilty, and he had advanced knowledge. So during his cover-up, he infected other people on the White House staff by breaking laws in trying to prevent learning who had done the dirty deed. Then the cover-up collapses, and it should have collapsed, Will. And he switches sides.

He goes to the prosecutors and says, look, there was a cover-up. I know there was a cover-up because I was running it. But these guys who are more senior than me, the ones you really want to get, they were involved too. Now, it's my word against theirs, but you can only get to them through me. And even then the prosecutors, the original career prosecutors, they wouldn't give John Dean immunity. They said, you're too involved. You did too much. And you're not being very forthcoming about your own role. So they refused to give John Dean immunity. But his Democrat-connected lawyer, his defense lawyer, went to the hill for the newly elected Senate Irvin Committee and convinced them. they could have a key witness against Nixon and his top people if they'd give him immunity,

which they did. So the Irvin Committee, which is the only televised part of Watergate, has got an interest in portraying John Dean as an innocent whistleblower. But he wasn't. There was a recent oral history that came to light by the FBI. They had lead FBI agent throughout Watergate. and they asked him about the cover-up and he said, look, 95% of the cover-up actions were taken by John Dean. He's the one I credit with. And the FBI referred to him as the master manipulator

of Watergate. So one, Nixon never knew. Two, the CIA and others did know, but what brought Nixon down, what brought him down at the end was this secret cabal. of representatives from all three branches of government. What your listeners have to do is picture a triangle. Each of those angles is one of the branches, executive, judicial, legislative. For the executive branch, there were the special prosecution force, two special prosecutors and up to 60 lawyers who are going after Nixon. They were meeting secretly with the judges. There's three judges involved down at the other angle on the triangle. Judge John Sirica, who presided over the Watergate trials, Judge Gerhard Giselle, who presided over the other important trials, the

plumbers trials, and the circuit court chief judge, David Baselon, who in a secret meeting with the prosecutor, was convinced how to stack the deck on appeals. So the erratic rulings at the trial wouldn't be overturned. And both of those groups, both the executive and the judicial, were meeting in secret with Hillstaff, Democrat Hillstaff, running. Why? Why all of this to remove Nixon? Well, one, Nixon was hated from the time he was first elected to Congress in 1946 because he took down Alger Hiss, who was a former communist, but a darling of the liberal left. Two, hard to believe that in that era, in the 50s and 60s, Californiaans were considered outsiders. And Nixon, when he finally got elected, President, when he came into office in 1969, he was opposed by every institution in the nation's capital.

He was opposed by the Eastern liberal establishment. And third, if you look at the control of the Congress and the control of the executive branch, from 1932, a long time ago, well, in the middle of the Depression, when Roosevelt gets elected and 75% of the Congress goes Democrat, they had controlled the White House and the Congress except under Eisenhower and under Nixon. Right. And Eisenhower was a, he was a military general. I mean, he could have run in either party.

His vice president was the guy. So Democrats could control. conclude if they got rid of Nixon the man, it'd go back to a sea of blue, back to the proper control of the Congress, back to the control of the executive branch. Well, I hear you laying out the case about law fair, comparing it to what we're experiencing today with President Trump. You've got the case laid out. I can hear you here in the Nixon conspiracy, Watergate and the plot to remove the president. As you pointed out, it's an anniversary of Nixon's resignation, and you've got to book out now where people will go check out the case about why he should never have been removed as

president it's jeff shepherd here on the will cane show jeff we appreciate your time i encourage everybody check out the book the nixon conspiracy thank you well good to be with you thank you for having me on all right thank you so much all right tomorrow on the can on sports sports exclusive edition of the will cane show we're going to dive into a brand new biography about erin rogers uh what was his relationship like with brett farv why did he claim to be immunized what's he doing with ayahuasca? Get into the deep dive when it comes to Aaron Rogers with the author of a brand new book, Ian Connor,

tomorrow on The Will Kane Show. I'll see you next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy 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.