Will Cain Country - Michael Cohen Testifies Against Former President Donald Trump!

Episode Date: May 13, 2024

Story #1: To breakdown the testimony of Michael Cohen in the trial of former President Donald Trump, Will has assembled a panel of some of the best attorneys he knows: Business Trial Lawyer at Call & Jensen Dave Sugden and Criminal Trial Lawyer at The Shapiro Law Firm Todd Shapiro. Story #2: What’s old is new again; the demands at Columbia University of the students who have taken over Hamilton Hall will read like something out of a protest movement from the 1960s or of someone who’s ready to turn over Western Civilization. Story #3: Will break down Outkick’s Mount Rushmore of television sitcoms. What is your top 4?   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show!   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, happening now. The trial of Donald Trump. I've assembled a panel of attorneys. The best that I have assembled.

I know to break down the testimony of Michael Cohen. Two, what's old is new again. The demands at Columbia University of the students who have taken over Hamilton Hall will read to you like a protest movement from the 1960s. It will read to you like someone who's ready to turn over Western civilization, like someone who's ready to ungentrify Harlem. You have to hear the demand letter from Hamilton Hall. And three, the Mount Rushmore of television sitcoms. It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand, wherever you get your audio entertainment.

Just hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify, and you can listen to the Will Kane Show when you're sitting on an airplane, when you're driving your car, when you're walking on the treadmill. And if you prefer to hang out with this and not just watch me talk, but get into the debate right now in the comments section. Hit subscribe on YouTube. You can join the community. It's a growing community, and it's not a one-way conversation. This is one where you participate. Drop into the comments, participate by subscribing to the Will Kane show.

The Mount Rushmore of sitcoms, will it include all in the family? MASH has to include Seinfeld. What about the CBS sitcoms that seem to make everybody happy, like two and a half men, the Big Bang theory? What makes the Mount Rushmore of sitcoms? A debate broke out on Outkick over the weekend, so we thought we'd break down the top four sitcoms of all time. And you want to stick around to hear the demand letter from the kids at Hamilton Hall. I'll tell you, if everything it is old is new again, if time just repeats itself, and there are some theories to that fact, that generations are cyclical, that there's four terms, to a civilization, you know, that weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men,

strong men lead to prosperous times, which creates yet again weak men. It makes you wonder where we are in the turning to hear the students of 2024 sound so exactly similar to the students of 1968. It's not just about Gaza and Israel. It truly is about capitalism. And in the end, it's anti-American because it is anti-Western civilization. Just hear it, in their own words from Hamilton Hall. But it's happening right now. Michael Cohen is on the stand in the case against Donald Trump. How's it going?

What can we expect? Why are we hearing from Michael Cohen? Let's break all that down now live for you with story number one. He is a trial attorney at call. He was a Pepperdine baseball player. I've known him for over 25 years. He's developed a unique niche in the law where he is in trial literally, I don't know, somewhere just short of a dozen times a year, meaning his expertise in understanding how to argue to a jury. He's one of my good friends, and he now lives, not in California, but in Dallas, Texas, and he is Dave sucked in.

What's up, Dave? Hey, well, how's it going? Good. And you have not, Dave, yet, because I am a failure as a friend, met one of my other lifelong friends who I've known for 25 some odd years. But he's been my buddy since law school at the University of Texas. He's one of the best criminal defense attorneys I know. He's from the Shapiro law firm. I know more about him than I should ever share with anyone on this program. It is Todd Shapiro as well on The Wheel Cane Show. What's up, Todd? Hey, Will. Thanks for having me again. yeah I'm really happy that you're here both of you I'm glad you both are very serious and buttoned down to take on this very serious issue this morning it's good to see you both in your professional environment here's where I want to start I do believe this and I want to say this to the audience these two guys are not just my friends but they're some of the best attorneys I know so when we were going to talk about addressing live and analyze the testimony of Michael Cohen in the case against Donald Trump I thought I want to go to two people who I know who I know know know what they're talking about talking about. So, Todd, let me start with you. I just want to start with an open-ended question. What do you make so far? We're half a day into Michael Cohen into a case that's gone on now, I believe, in its third week against Donald Trump. What do you think about the testimony of Michael

Cohen? Well, I find it to be remarkable from a number of different angles. Well, I mean, the first thought that popped into my mind as my role as an attorney over the last 25 years, when I have clients come to me with information. It's governed by what's called the attorney-client privilege, which you're well aware of, which means all our conversations, things that my clients tell me, I cannot divulge. I mean, I have an obligation to remain confident. Those matters remain confidential. And the idea that in this most public of spectacle, this most public at trials, that the former

president's closest confidant who he had no doubt, undoubtedly, an attorney-client relationship with and confidentiality is now taking the witness stand to testify those things that we hold sacred as attorneys. I still haven't received an adequate and satisfactory answer, Todd. You and I text over the weekend on why there's not some protection for Donald Trump under the attorney-client privilege. I do have some answers to that perhaps this morning, but I find it odd. It's not a bigger part of the story. What about you, Dave? What's your initial reaction to the testimony of Michael Cohen? Well, I think first and foremost is that he's ostensibly a key witness in the case because he's the one who essentially is going to be the person with firsthand knowledge of what Donald Trump is alleged to have done.

And yet we're in, what, the third week? And I think what's going on is he's going to be a terrible witness. He's going to be awful. And so I think the prosecutors are sort of burying him at the end and sort of trying to get as much evidence as they can out first and then hopefully make. this key witness a footnote to the case. I thought about you, Dave, when I thought about two weeks of witness testimony to some extent that had to have bored the jury. You know, you and I talk so much.

And, Todd, Dave's, you know, Dave is, you know, outside of honestly what you do, Todd, and that is criminal law, in the civil world, I can't think of anybody who probably does more in the courtroom than Dave. And so you give a lot of analysis to Dave of like, you know, performance and persuasion and the way you present something to the jury, understanding that they are emotional beings. They're not justice robots. And you have to think a lot about that and how you approach the jury. And I thought about you, Dave, when I saw like witness after witness before you got to Stormy Daniels, before you got to Michael Cohen. And I wondered if you're not, as prosecutors,

just boring the jury to the point of almost checking out of the trial. I did wonder about that performance, Dave. Yeah, I think that's true. And I think that the prosecutors probably prefer boredom over what could happen with Stormy and Michael Cohen. In other words, they've both had varying versions of what they're going to testify to at trial. Michael Cohen is a, you know, ex-con. He's committed perjury multiple times. He's got varying versions of this story. And so I think the prosecutor probably thought, let's make an opening statement that sort of splashy, and then let's sort of be adults in the room for at least as long as we can until we have to call Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. But the problem is when you put these

cases on, you're telling your story through witnesses, and it's going to turn on the credibility of these witnesses, and Stormy Daniels and Cohen, they are not credible. I mean, Cohen seems allergic to the truth. Right. So it's going to be hard for the prosecutors to sort of keep this inertia and then deal with Michael Cohen. Todd, the best I could tell, and like I said, I texted you over the weekend, I don't know why not more has been made of the attorney-client privilege. This morning during live rolling coverage on Fox, I did see John Spillbore, who's a criminal defense attorney, bring it up as well.

She said what you said. I can't believe there's not more being made of the attorney-client privilege. Best I can tell, Todd, like, you know, there's a fraud and crime exception to the attorney-client privilege and you know that's at the heart of this case there the prosecutors are alleging fraud in crime you know literally those are what their their allegations are and why we're here today so i guess to some extent that just opens the door and michael cohen willingly then you know and that's part of the thing todd you know it is the is the client's privilege but how do you enforce it through suit which he tried to do in 2018 and then he dropped it talking about trump

dropped it against Cohen. But, I mean, if Cohen wants to do it, what else can you do to stop Cohen from talking? I think in the context of the trial, you're absolutely right. You know, could there be some sort of a legal objection made by Trump's team that any of the matters that Cohen's trying to get into are governed by attorney-client privilege? But that's not really a law, and it's not rule of evidence. And so I don't think that would dictate whether or not the jury gets a chance to hear The other aspect of this that occurred to me is, you know, Michael Cohen is no longer a licensed attorney anywhere. He's been disbarred. He's a convicted felon.

He went to the penitentiary. Those those responsibilities of a practicing attorney, a licensed attorney, breaking that attorney-client privilege could certainly result in sanctions from the state bar. Could result in suspension, disbarment. But heck, he's already been disbarred. So what can they, it's almost like what can they do to me now? I mean, if I go ahead and divulge the information that I have, even if it was privileged at the time, I'm not a lawyer anymore. So what are they going to do to me? So I want to ask you, Todd. I'm going to follow up on something Dave said when he was talking about the credibility of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

And I try to be self-aware. You know, if I'm talking on Fox, if I'm listening to Fox, there is a lot of conversation about the credibility of these two people, that Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and perjurer. But if I were to tune in to say CNN, and I'm trying to be self-aware and see all sides of this, I'm sure something they would be saying, and they are saying, is yeah, but Michael Cohen lied for Donald Trump, and now, oh, he's seen the light, and he's telling the truth. And so he's telling the truth against Donald Trump. Is there anything to that? Like, okay, my lies in the past have been, you know, for the man who's now standing on trial. But now it's almost lending me credibility to say, say, hey, I'm telling you I lied in the past, and here's the truth about Trump. No, I don't think so. And the reason why is, and I've gone through this many times with witnesses that have changed their version or their story over the course of an investigation, and then want to get on the witness stand and say something different. When your story changes and you say, I was telling the truth then or I was lying then

and now I'm telling the truth now, that never resonates. It just doesn't. I mean, it makes you look like a liar, makes you look dishonest, it makes you look untrust, and at the end of the day, not a credible witness. And so how they put any stock into somebody that says, I know I said these things in the past, but I was lying then, listen to me now. I'm telling the truth. I promise you, I'm telling the truth.

I mean, that just seems to ring hollow in my opinion. I mean, do you agree, Dave? I mean, I think, you know, instinctually, we all agree. I mean, they write cliche books about this and advice books about this. Like, one lie burns something that's very hard to build, and that's a reputation. That's over a lifetime, much less over the span of a few weeks in a jury box, right? But I think my only thing, Todd, to what you said, and I'm going to put this to Dave, though, is I feel like that's true what you said. And I'm sure it's true throughout your career.

And everyone watching, I'm sure it's true through your life. If somebody lies to you, it's very hard for you to reestablish or grant them trust. But I almost feel like in life, and I'm now wondering in a courtroom if there's an exception for Donald Trump. Like everything, and Dave, this is something you know something, everything's emotional. And so if Cohen is in there saying something that those jurors want to hear, which is, I knew I hated Donald Trump. If we're assuming the vast majority of them are liberal and they're probably pretty anti-Trump, they're going to listen to Cohen and go, see, now he's telling the truth because he's on my side. I just wonder if there's not exception for Trump. Yeah, I think there is some intuitive appeal to that narrative.

In other words, I anticipate the lawyer that's going to elicit the testimony on direct, try to build that narrative. In other words, okay, you lied yesterday. Why did you do that? And he'll say I was being loyal to Trump. I felt pressure from the boss, et cetera, et cetera. But here I am now telling the truth. And there is some intuitive appeal to that story where the person is now coming clean, saying I'm a different person now.

But Cohen's unique. In other words, he wrote a book called Disloyal. So in his book, when he's talking about coming clean, he doesn't exactly create a narrative that is going to be consistent with his testimony. In other words, when he talks about himself being the quarterback of all of these payments. In other words, he has version number one, which is nothing happened. Version number two, something happened, but I was the genius behind it. Now it's version number three. Trump knew it all. And so there is intuitive appeal of the person that's coming clean explaining

why they were dishonest yesterday, but Cohen's a unique witness. So to your point, Dave, about version number three, Trump knew it all. Here's what's happened this morning so far. Michael Cohen on direct, his attorneys or the prosecutors for Donald Trump, calling him as their witness, have elicited today information essentially about not yet Stormy Daniels, but Karen McDougal. Dougal was a playboy model. Her story was bought by American media, the publisher of the National Inquirer. The allegation is that Trump, who is buddies with David Pecker, the CEO of the National

Enquirer, ran what's called a catch and kill scheme. The catch and kill scheme is you hear there is some story about you that's bad out there. You buy the rights to the story. You never published the story so that the story goes away. And Cohen has testified this morning that Trump had to know everything. He had to know, that's his currency, he said. You work for Trump. He has an open-door policy. You have to walk in.

You have to give him information. So Cohen works with the National Enquirer to get this story to make payments. And his allegation, Todd, this morning, is Trump knew it all. That's the way it worked. I know we're building this probably, you know, stepping stone by stepping stone. But let's be clear, that's not a crime. Even if everything Cohen said is true, everything I just described does not add up to a crime. Well, I'm with you 100%.

Does it seem seedy, unseemly, something we don't want from our leaders and their legal team? Yes, I mean, I can understand that aspect to it. But no, I mean, that entire scenario you just laid out is there's no. no laws against what's going on there. I mean, that is an acceptable practice, maybe not a desired one, but it doesn't seem like there's any criminal behavior associated with it. I agree with you. Right.

And to be clear, to the audience now, like, and I know they've heard this over several weeks, but it's almost like, you know, hammer meeting nail at this moment. Whether or not Trump participated even willingly, knowingly, and used his own money to execute non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, catch and kill would be a much more. salacious way to, you know, hush money as well, would be a much more salacious way to describe it. A very dry and corporate way to describe it would be a non-disclosure agreement, an NDA. Whether or not Trump executed NDAs, in order for it to become a crime, this will be

hard for you, Todd, I think. Can you tell me what has to be established? Like, because in order to do that, you're going to have to also know the crime that's alleged by Alvin Bragg. I don't, I mean, you clearly do. So go ahead and tell you. me. No, I'm saying that he hasn't made it clear, is the problem. I'm saying he has to, in order for

this to be a crime that has not run its statute of limitations, he has to approve that Trump not executed in DAs, but that he falsely recorded it in his company's bookkeeping. But that still wouldn't be enough. He'd have to show then that that was in service of

I don't know, running for president. This is where it's hard to define the crime. like campaign finance. My point is, and this is why I put that to you because it's impossible to answer these questions, all we're doing so far is establishing something that is not a crime. Now, again, it could be a stepping stone. And maybe the prosecutors are leading going up to this big hammer, meat, nail moment where he's got audio or he's got proof that Trump said,

record it under legal expenses, even though I'm doing it to influence a potential presidential campaign. I think that's the leap, at least I have a difficult time with from a legal analysis standpoint is all these activities, the hush money, the payoffs, the India, whatever you want to call them, how do you then bridge that over to, I'm using that to influence a presidential election? I think that's the missing piece to me that, okay, even if we believe all that stuff took place, now tell me how that becomes, that goes from, you know, a moral issue. and leaps over into a criminal issue by discussing how it connects to the presidential election. I think that's a very big disconnect, for me at least. It's establishing intent, right? So we're going to have to get inside Donald Trump's mind at some point. And Cohen's going to have to be, to your point, Dave, a credible person to tell us about the mindset of Donald Trump, Dave.

Yes. And what's interesting is, you know, after the McDougal piece ends, we then have the Stormy Daniels. because both McDougall and Stormy Daniels were represented by the same lawyer. I'm Keith Davidson. And what Cohen's going to testify, too, if it's consistent with the book, is that with Stormy Daniels, it wasn't a catch and kill. And what Cohen says is that the National Enquirer ultimately wasn't paid. And so the money had to come directly from Trump.

And so in Cohen's book, he kind of chronicles himself being the quarterback of this. And so what Cohen does is take out a home equity, wire the money to a company Cohen set up, and then that company paid Daniels. And then after Trump gets elected president, Cohen sends a legal invoice to Trump, and then explains that the CFO and operator decided to pay Cohen back. And that's Cohen's version of what happened. But if Cohen's the quarterback, Dave, if Cohen, and he previously said that he was, now he's testifying that Trump is always the quarterback of this entire deal, right? But if you establish that Cohen is the quarterback, is that game set match?

For Trump? Yeah, like, I mean, I don't know that that would be game set match, right? You could establish that Cohen's the quarterback, but Trump still understood and had full knowledge this was happening from A to Z, meaning the payments were being made, and they would be recording incorrectly if his motivation, and then we get to the crime part of someone with Todd, if his motivation was to further his campaign. Like, is it important if Trump is or is not the quarterback? I think it's a fact. I mean, again, I'm not a criminal defense attorney, but I imagine that it has to, the mens rea,

showing the intent of what is going on. And so what they'll have to establish is that Trump sort of understood what was happening as opposed to saying, guys, take care of it and figure out the details. Okay, all right. So then I'm going to play this for you, Todd. Okay, so what you're saying, Dave, is it's not just going to, if it is just vague in Trump's mind, I've got this issue, you're dealing with it, take care of it. It absolves Trump of mens rea, of the intent, of the knowledge of a crime.

So, Todd, if you, A, I'm going to ask you if you agree with that, but listen real quick to this, Do you see if you think this is any kind of compelling evidence? Here's B, here's audio from what happened today. It is a phone call recording that Cohen took when talking with Trump and it was introduced as evidence. I think this goes away quickly. I think it's probably better through the Charleston thing, just this time. Yeah. In two weeks it's fine.

I think right now it's better. You know? Okay, honey. You take care of yourself. Thanks, Pam. Yep, I'm proud of you. So I'm up, Mike. Great Paul, by the way.

Great Paul. Making progress. Big time. And you guys are good guy. Hello, Pastor Scott. Can't believe he? No, Pastor Scott. What's happening?

Oh, no. Can we use him anymore? Oh, yeah, 100, no, you're talking about Mark Burns. He, we've told him to... I don't mean that. Mark Burns, can we use him anymore? No. No.

Richard Leffrabb just called. He just said, we had a chance. He had an idea for you. Okay. Okay. So we got served from the New York Times. served from the New York Times. I told you this. We're regarding to unseal the divorce papers with Yvana.

We're fighting it. Casowitz is going to... Never be able to get that. Never. Casowitz doesn't ever be able to be able to have to be able. Pause it right there. Here's what's happened in this call so far. Michael Cohen's walked in with an iPhone. He's standing in front of Trump. He's testified this morning that Trump was unaware that this was being recorded.

Back to the attorney-client privilege, Todd. I just, this is crazy. Cohen is recording this conversation. Trump's on the phone. Go ahead. It just cuts right at the heart of why at that point in time in his life where he was devoted to Donald Trump, he was his personal attorney, there was no sign of turbulence or trouble in the water. Why is he rolling tape at that point? Why is he recording his conversation?

I couldn't imagine. His answer to that is he says he's doing it for. David Pecker at the National Enquirer. He's saying, he has said David Pecker wanted proof that Trump was going to pay him for killing that story. And so he's recording it to show Pecker, here's a commitment from Trump to pay. He's also saying Trump was unaware of that. So, I mean, it's just seedy either way. Even if that's your motivation, you would think, you know, hey, I'm letting David know this is happening. But when the recording starts, Trump is on the phone with somebody he describes as honey, right? I don't know. Ivanka, I don't know, Melania, who knows? And then he hangs

like, goes, what's up? And Cohen says, oh, some polls out, great polls, nice job. And then he says, he says, there's a New York Times potential story coming out that's going to unseal the divorce records of you and Ivana. And Trump's like, that's ridiculous, you know, like how are you going to get into that? Now, we'll pick it up, should come the part about where Cohen starts saying something to Trump about David Pecker and the National Enquirer and Karen McDougal. Listen.

They don't have a legitimate purpose. And you have a woman that doesn't want in my senior? Correct. So, yes. And it's all, for about two, three weeks now. All you have to do is to lay it for. Even after that, it's not going to ever be opened.

There's no, there's no purpose for it. I told you about Charleston. I need to open up a company for the transfer. of all of that info regarding our friend David, so that I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up and I've spoken to Alan Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with funding.

Yes. And it's all the stuff. All the stuff because, you know, you never know where that company, you never know what he's going to be. Correct. So I'm all over that. And I spoke to Alan about it. When it comes time for the financing,

which will be... What do you have to pay you? No, no, no, no, no, no. I got... No, no, no, no. Hey, no, how are you? Okay, so Todd, I'll put that to you. What happened at the very end is the key,

and it seems to be an evidentiary key. This morning, he says, I need to set up a company for our friend David. He's testifying today, that's David Pecker at the National Enquirer. And then he says, as to the financing, and Trump goes, what financing? And he goes, well, we got to pay him something. And Trump says something about cash, where then Cohen goes, no, no, no, no, don't worry, don't worry. I got that. Don't worry.

I got it. That seems a little key. I want to put that to both of you. But, like, you know, Cohen's kind of saying, I'm going to take care of this. And then you'll get legal services spill later, which exactly what happened, you know, instead of like, I don't know. How do you see that evidence right there, that call, Todd? I just don't see where any of those discussions violate the law. I just don't really understand it.

I mean, they're doing things that seemingly are protected. You've got to pay somebody they want a service. You're going to pay them, whatever you want to call it. There's no connection to protecting Trump as it pertains to his presidential election campaign in that call. That seems like a normal conversation between an attorney. attorney and his client discussing legal matters that do not cross over to me into the criminal realm. That's the best I can say it. What do you think, Dave? Yeah, I tend to agree. And I think that the David isn't David Pecker in that call. I think it's David Denison. Really? Because in the

agreement between Stormy Daniels and either Cohen, Trump, whatever, they used pseudonyms. And so it was between like a, like a Peggy Peterson and a David Denison. And so when they, so when they talk about setting up this company, that's not the catch and kill. So they're talking about the Stormy Daniels deal. And so what Cohen is telling him is we have to set up this company for our friend David. I think that's what he's referring to there. But again, it doesn't necessarily show Trump's knowledge of what is going on. It may be seedy, maybe dirty, but in terms of it being a crime, I don't see it. So that's where, that's where, I hate to get stuck in the mud because I feel like we've

been here for two weeks, but that's where we are. What's happening with Cohen today, what happened last week with Stormy Daniels, is confirmation of something seedy or dirty. Unfortunately, for everyone watching and listening, it's also fairly common. Now, it's not common that everybody you know out there is having affairs and signing NDAs to cover them up. But probably way more celebrities than you realize are doing something like that. And the hard thing to separate is, seedy and dirty, and this is where I feel like we're stuck in, it's kind of like perfect symbolism, stuck in the mud is not illegal. And for this to

be a case about the law, at some point, we're going to have to cross this bridge into evidence that shows not seediness and dirtiness, but that shows illegality. And Dave, I'll go to you, like, what do you think we're half a day in? To what will probably be at least two or three days of direct would be my guess with Michael Cohen, what can he offer us before this is over that's going to cross that bridge from seedy and dirty to illegal? It's a good question. It's a good question.

I think that the idea is sort of the cover up of the cover up of the, the payments, ultimately. In other words, they set up this company, Michael Cohen takes a home equity line of credit out, pays the company, the company pays Stormy Daniels, and then after, I think it's after the election, he sends invoices to be reimbursed, and they're characterized as legal expenses. And I suppose that is where the alleged fraud is, or to the extent that campaign money was used to pay legal expenses. They're saying, hey, that's a big no-no, because you're using campaign money to pay this hush money payment. I think, I imagine that's where it is. But in terms of going back to, I know, I don't think that is. Yeah, the ultimate

payment. I don't, I don't. Go ahead. No, go ahead. I was, I don't think it's about, I mean, it's hard. You're not off-based to say it's about campaign finance. Like, did you use campaign funds? Because if Alvin Bragg leaves the ultimate crime kind of this elusive carrot at the end of a stick that you're chasing, it's hard to know. And this is what Trump's complaint has been. What am I defending myself against, right? What is the allegation of the crime beyond the bookkeeping crime, which has run its statute of limitations?

They have to prove that. But then they have to prove this other crime on top of it. to make it, and it's just hard, because it's ill-defined, it's undefined, and I don't know how you cross that bridge. The prosecutor has to cross the bridge. I can't believe Todd the defendant doesn't have to have more knowledge of like, what are you charging me with? Like, what is the, you mean, we're halfway into a trial? What is the specific allegation of gets me, the told the statute of limitations, and gets me sitting here today? he know they know what the allegations are you know the indictments are right there in front of

them so they know the wording specifically of what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be found guilty of any of these offenses that's up to the again it's to you can take that back to any criminal case it's up to the prosecution they've got the sole burden of proof they've done the accusing they must do the proving meaning they have brought the charges they went to the grand jury they got indictments they worded those the way they wanted them with the evidence they believe they have now it's time to prove it in a court of law and that's the beauty of our system is an accusation alone is not enough you've got to be able to prove it when the chips are down and it's time to take it in front of a jury no oh man that's the idea of the system i'm not sure

it's always the execution of the system uh last thing todd i'm going to ask you about this um there's two lawyers on that jury we're sitting here today talking about attorney client privilege we're sitting here today talking about making the leap from dirty and unseemly into illegality. What do you think about the existence of those two lawyers? Like, is that good or bad for the defense for Donald Trump? Well, I mean, I guess it depends upon what kind of lawyers they are, be, you know, what's their experience in the criminal world? Are they practicing attorneys? So it's kind of hard just to throw a blanket over and say, oh, because their attorneys, that's going to,

work for him versus against him in my opinion i would hope again you'd say in a perfect world or an ideal situation that these lawyers would hold the prosecution's feet to the fire that would demand them to prove their burden to prove their their case and they would be able to use a legal analysis a legal mind to say you've never got there you never made it past that that that point you never bridge the gap as we've been talking about cross that bridge over into the criminal world and you would hope that those at least from trump's perspective that those jurors would be strong enough to kind of hold the room once their deliberations begin.

Yeah. Dave, what do you think about those two lawyers? You know, I had breakfast the other day, and I said, I think I like the gamble from the defense. I like the gamble from Trump. I think you were a little more pessimistic about those two lawyers sitting on the jury. Well, I agree with you that it's a gamble. I think that ultimately it becomes almost a trial in front of two.

You know, when I imagine that when deliberations start, there's going to be a lot of deference to the attorneys. And I imagine they'll take leadership positions in that deliberation room. And so then the gamble is that these lawyers will do their very best to look at the evidence through the prism of the actual law. And they'll take the jury's instructions and sort of go element by element and explain to the other jurors what the burden of proof is. And that's the hope is that they will sort of look at the law. look at the evidence, look at the burden of proof, and the gamble is that I'll be finding a reasonable doubt. All right, Kat Canby on YouTube says there is no crime. They're still trying to come up with something.

Mr. Prince Beat says, love from Switzerland. And I do hope for the U.S. you get Trump again. Great show, Kane. And then finally, I kept you guys here for the final comment I wanted to read. El Donado Trumpez says, does Will have any friends with hair? I thought that was coming. I was like, how'd you get two bald guys on? You did.

Two bald lawyers on at the same time. If you didn't know any better, yeah. Oh, it's super hard to find them. Funny. Two 40-something-year-old lawyers without any hair. That was like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't know how I managed to pull it off. All right.

Dave Sugden, Colin Jensen, Todd Shapiro, the Shapiro law firm. Thank you guys for coming on. I've got to get you guys together in person really soon. But I appreciate you guys jumping on the Will Kane show. Appreciate you guys. Awesome. Thanks a lot, Bill. Thank you.

Talk to you soon. All right. Take care. What do you think the percentage of 40-something-year-old dudes are with going with the, you know, as they say, I think as they say in the black community, coming home. Come on home. Come on home. Quit holding on. You know, it's over.

Come on home. What do you think the percentage of 40-something-year-old dudes that have come on home? Just shave it all off. Quit fighting what God wants to happen. Just go bald. I would like to know the percentages. Let's pull that up. Perhaps we can have it before the end of the show today.

But next, I'm going to read for you the demands, and I say it kind of laughing, but also very serious, about the demands of the students who have taken over, in their words, liberated Hamilton Hall at Columbia. You have to see it because then hear it, because then you'll know the, deep motivations that are not just about Israel and Gaza, not just anti-Semitic, but anti-American and anti-Western civilization. You have to hear it directly from the words of the students at Hamilton Hall. Next on the Will Cain Show. 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. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with... James Patterson. Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at foxtruecrime.com.

Who are we? Some of us are students under the threat of expulsion. Others are staff, faculty, alumni, and community members. However, inside Heinz Hall, none of that distinctions matters. To liberate this building, we had to tear down the artificial border between student and non-student. The words of the students who have, quote-unquote, liberated Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and hit subscribe on YouTube, and you can also become a member of our community, participate in the comments, find your way into the Will Cain Show, or subscribe on Apple and Spotify and listen to us whenever you like, when it fits your life. I have the answer. by the way, after two of my friends just joined us to very, very good attorneys, one a friend

from college, one a friend from law school, Dave Suggston, and Todd Shapiro just joined us here on the Will Kane show. Both of them have come on home, have let go of the fight, both of them are bald. I do have the research. One fifth of men will experience significant hair loss by the age of 20, and that percentage grows proportional to age. Now, what is significant hair loss for this time remains undefined. Significant hair loss increases steadily with age. 30% will experience it in their 30s, 40% in their 40s, and so on. So I assume it's almost a little too cute.

50% by your 50s? Let's just do this really quickly. Let's just take a survey. There's four dudes on the Will Kane show. Four. Two a days, young establishment James, tinfoil Pat, and myself. Let's do a quick hair check. Can we do that?

Let's just go around the horn, do a quick hair check. Let's bring in New York and Florida into the show here in Texas. I don't know if we can bring the control room up and bring in the Willisha. I want to see if anyone is suffering from significant hair loss by their age group. This is a well-quafed show. Look what's happening on your digital streaming screen. Dan, how old are you? I'm 36 years old.

I'm still going strong. That's why I'm growing out my hair while I have it. It's a little long right now for me, but I'm still growing it out. So I still have my hair. Dan, have you noticed anything? Have you noticed any thinning, Dan? Anything in the shower coming off in the palms? Not like that.

I just think it's a little thin. Like, on the normal spots, but nothing crazy. Just like in the normal spots. Like I'm not 18 anymore, you know. Yeah. Like Young Estabstabstant James, it's 25. But 20% by age 20s in the 20s, James. I mean, you've got the, you know, same hairdo my sons have, you know, you've got the shag.

What happened with your generation where, like, the forehead became a source of shame? Like, you want your hair shagging over the forehead. That's a very important thing, which, by the way, hair loss is really going to hurt that hairstyle. I think it's a little younger than me because I still do the normal comb over, not quite the, like, the broccoli-type deal on the hair. But I see it with, like, the young 20s dudes with the... you're right you've got a side part going but i've noticed lately i noticed lately you've started to like shag it in the front and let it fall down the forehead so you're still slightly going sideways not that's a good way to put it broccoli the team my sons go full on

shag broccoli but you're starting to toy with it i can see you're headed there that you're leaning into i think it's just the angle you're looking at me from like down here when it's normally straight on. Do you have anything, James? Anything in the temples? Anything in the back? Anything in your palms in the shower? Maybe like an inch here.

Now, maybe like half an inch, but I blame the rusty water in our apartment shower. I have Patrick here on audio if you need them. All right. Ten foot, Pat. We can't see a picture of you right now. Do what?

We losing viewers right now. For the guy sitting off screen, he has magnificent hair. I can't picture Patrick's temples. He's got that alt-right haircut. He's going with the hard part and the high fade, so I can't really picture if he's losing any hair. I'm looking at him right now, and he's not. You looking at him?

It looks good, yeah, yeah. I have a high... Like a little widow's peak maybe going on, but that's pretty natural, I think. But that's it. I mean, I don't, I'm not losing it, and I just, I thought about shaving it because it's just, it's too good. Yeah. Try to, you know.

All right. Well, I mean, I would say we're a lucky set of four guys here. We're defying, we're defying the, um, the odds here with the full set of hair here on the Will Cane show. Um, luckier than perhaps Jerry Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld gave the commencement address at Duke University. And as this is the case at all these universities, so far. far. There was a protest. There was a walkout. I believe we have a clip and we can hear not just some booze, which I think were largely directed at the protesters, but chants

of Jerry, Jerry, Jerry at Duke. Jerry is also serving as our commencement speaker today. Now, it's hard to say from this, from that clip, so as Jerry takes to the podium, I'd say a dozen, maybe a little more students walk out in protest carrying a Palestinian flag. Jerry Seinfeld was received, by the way, with chance of Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, so it wasn't all negative for him if any of it was negative for him if any of it was negative. for him. And he went on to give a speech, they say, a commencement address full of jokes, but three big pieces of life advice. By the way, coming up in just a moment, we're going to find out a signfeld on the Mount Rushmore of sitcoms. Stick around just a moment, and we'll debate what the Mount Rushmore of sitcoms exactly is. But I want to dive into the mindset of those students that are

walking out at Duke, that are disrupting commencement addresses at Michigan, who have held hostage Hamilton Hall at Columbia. The students that have taken over the building of Hamilton Hall Columbia, published in a demand letter, a manifesto, if you will. And it's, it's, I think it's incredibly enlightening. I think it tells you who these kids are. They give you some idea. They say, who are we? Some of us are students under the threat of expulsion. Others are staff, faculty, alumni, and community members. However, inside, they've renamed it Heinz Hall. they're saying in memory of a young Palestinian girl named Hines, they've renamed Hamilton Hall, inside of Hines Hall, none of the distinctions matter. To liberate the building was to tear down the artificial border between student and non-student imposed by classist racist sorting mechanism,

which determines who deserves a place within the ivory tower and who remains locked in the gate outside. Let's stop right there. They're destroying, they're obliterating the distinction between student and non-student. Because it's classist and racist at a private school that cost, what does Columbia cost right now? I mean, I'm 80,000 a year to go to Columbia. Now, I imagine the parents that are paying that bill have a pretty big distinction between student and non-student. There was reports over the weekend, I believe, at Penn, UPIN, where encampments were dispersed, were just torn down. nine out of 33 arrests were students.

The rest were non-students. This is happening over and over. MIT, I believe the number was like 10 out of 30 or 40 that were arrested were actual students at MIT. These campuses are being taken over by paid agitators, by professional protesters, by non-students. And the students themselves are saying, hey man, that's a distinction that doesn't matter. And they sound just like, intentionally, they sound just like the protesters of the 1960s. Let's throw this one up if we can, off campus and into the streets. So what happens next?

The enemy may have dismantled our communes, but we know our struggle has only just begun. Just as the Vietnamese revolutionaries ignited the cycle of student revolt in 68, the Palestinian people inspire us to continue building an insurrectionary energy incubated in the encamp. the student intifada will become a revolutionary force only when it succeeds in integrating itself with the struggles of the surrounding community and expand the popular cradle of resistance beyond the campus and into the streets and they go on what you see on your screen right now and what i find fascinating about this is not only they're blending between students and non-students they're blending between campuses of colleges that don't even relate to each other look cooney cuny uny at city

University of New York also had an encampment. Now they're aligning with them. You know, they're talking about the plight of the students at Cooney that were arrested. He says, um, we reject the hierarchical divisions imposed on us by state and understand the mobilization as part of a unified whole. We insist that Cooney and Columbia are one campus. Again, tell that to the parents that paid for the tuition difference between Cooney and Columbia. They're all the same, but also non-students and students are the same. So how the campus is the same. And they're fighting this revolution battle that is just like the 1960s. They compare themselves, just as the Vietnamese revolutionaries ignited the cycle of student revolt in 68, the Palestinian people inspire us today.

What is old as new again. History repeats itself. It kind of makes you wonder what comes next in the turning, you know? They didn't reinvent protest. They didn't reinvent grievance. They didn't reinvent Marxism. And that's what it is. It's all the same. Yes, there's anti-Semitism. Yes, there's anti-Semitism involved in this stuff. But these students know so little about Gaza. This, when you're interviewed, they talk about capitalism. They talk about colonization. They talk about Western oppressors. I don't know what the New World Order is that they seek. Do they seek sort of the Banana Republics of Africa? Do they seek the chaos of Central America? I don't know what exactly new world order they would seek, but what is clear is,

the biggest civilizational advancement in the history of man, the advent of Western civilization, from the Greeks through the Romans, to the European Enlightenment, to the founding of the United States of America, from the Magna Carta to the Constitution of the United States, is the greatest leap civilizationally for man, where he was granted individual rights that he wasn't just a subject of a king, that had a way to live his life, and he was unleashed. by freedom, freedom as a natural right, and freedom as an economic order. And he unleashed with that the industrial evolution, which virtually eradicated poverty in Western civilization. And all of what I just described to you as historical fact, and all

of what I just described to you is rejected by these students in pursuit of some new world order. In their own words, right there, from Hamilton Hall. Well, speaking of Jerry Seinfeld, Does Seinfeld make the Mount Rushmore of television sitcoms? A friend of ours, Bobby Burak at Outkick, tweeted out his Mount Rushmore. It created quite the online debate. So let's look at his list. And I'll give you mind what truly belongs in the Mount Rushmore of sitcoms. Jump into the comments now and start letting me know while we take a quick break here on the Will Cain show.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trade 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. Michael Cohen testifies in New York against Donald Trump. We'll be all over it this week here on the Will Kane Show with streamlives and Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Check back with us every day.

It's behind closed doors. We're left with, you know, updates coming through. Fox News legal analysts sitting in the courtroom. I'm on an email thread that tells us, you know, by the every five to ten minute period, what's exactly happening in that courtroom. So what we're going to do every day we can this week is we're going to keep up with that. We'll get analysis as we did today from two of my lifelong friends, who are the best attorneys I know, Todd Shapiro of the Shapiro law firm, and Dave Sugden of Call and Jensen, breaking down what we're hearing from the courtroom. We're back here right here tomorrow at 12 o'clock Eastern Time. In fact, if you hit

subscribe on YouTube, Apple, or Spotify. You can set up notifications, and the minute that we go up, you can remember to jump on with us, and then you can also participate in the comments here at The Will Kane Show. One of the comments that got our attention is a friend of ours, Bobby Burack, who writes at Outkick. He, over the weekend, I guess, was taking in a little bit of entertainment because he did text to me and he said, hey, what's your favorite Western of all time? And I'll give you that my answer.

My answer was, well, modern-day Western, it's Hell or High Water. written by Taylor Sheridan. You know, it's set in like 2012 or so. It's great. It's a great modern-day Western. My favorite Western of all time is Lonesome Dove, the six-hour mini-series from the early 1990s. I said, look, it's older, but, you know, it's Robert Duval as Augustus McCray and Tommy Lee Jones as Woodrow Call. I said, there are people where I'm from that literally named their children after the two main characters, Call and Gus. And, you know, that's the one you got to do. Tombstones up there, Unforgivans up there, there's a lot of great westerns. But he must have been taken in, you know, sitcoms as well, because he tweeted out the following.

He said, here's the Mount Rushmore of television sitcoms. He said, The Office, Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons make up the Mount Rushmore of sitcoms. Now, let me tell you, I'm going to give you my Mount Rushmore of sitcoms. I'm going to tell you, first of all, two of Bobby's offerings are just out, out immediately. Let's do the easy thing, which is I just have a hard time bringing cartoons into the discussion. Not that I don't like them. I think South Park might be the greatest, most genius television show of all time. Trey Parker, Mastone write those episodes every week in their current.

It's stunning. It's like what I've talked about with Andrew Schultz and stand-up. Like, how does he do that? I've read before the Seinfeld workshops a joke for a year. And Schultz has taken brand-new current events and turned it into gold in a stand-up act. And Parker and Stone are taking stuff that happens like that day or the day before and writing a full-on script. And, by the way, they're just not groupthink.

They're not right, but they're certainly not left. It's just not. They're not safe. or not group think i don't know i think south park's incredible if i'm ranking for me if i'm ranking those kind of cartoons south park way ahead of family guy i didn't really watch the simpsons i only watched a little bit of king of the hill but for sitcoms themselves if i were making my own personal list it would include curb your enthusiasm uh it might include like all in the family it would definitely include Seinfeld but i don't think i should make

my own personal Mount Rushmore. I think what we're trying to do, and I think what Bobby is trying to do is establish outside of my own taste, like what really belongs up there. And here's who I think belongs up there. I debated a lot, all in the family, Sanford and Son. You know, I caught some Sanford and Son back in the day when I was a kid, because everything was in syndication. You know, the ones that I missed out on, I checked out on sitcoms when I was about, you know, 25, I'm going to say so in the 2000s i got nothing on on you know how i met your mother or the big bang theory or two and a half men i just i don't know i i didn't do that king of queens was in syndication there was a time in my adult life where i you know i didn't have enough money to pay the big

cable package so there's like three channels on so i come home from work and they're in syndication instead of the local news was king of queen so yeah let's have a cocktail and watch king of queens It's not bad, by the way. Kind of liked it, but not on the Mount Rushmore. So here, I think, is the Mount Rushmore of sitcoms. And the way I looked at it is, I'm going to take one per decade, starting with the 1970s. And while I might like, you know, Sanford and Son or all in the family, I think MASH has to go. Isn't MASH count as a sitcom?

I'm going to bring you guys in the Willis show just a minute. I think MASH has to go on Mount Rushmore. From the 80s, I watched the Cosby show, but that's not going to make it. It's Cheers. Cheers was the dominated culture. People talked about what happened on Cheers when it signed off. It was a huge cultural event.

From the 90s, Seinfeld. It's the best ever in my estimation. The best sitcom that ever existed, Seinfeld. And then from the 2000s, so I got 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, for the final place, I am going to put the office. I watched some of the office, and I liked it. I think Michael Scott's a great,

character. I know that it's a remake of something in the UK. I know that Ricky Jervais did it the original way, but they did a great job of making it American. And they did change the way television was running sitcoms with acknowledging the camera, breaking through the wall, quasi-documentary style. I kind of think you have to put the office. All right. They bring in the Wollisha. Two at A's, Young Establishment James, and Tinfoil Pat. There he is, with a glorious head of That's glorious for 37 years old or however old you are. Mash, Cheers, Seinfeld, the office. What do you say to that, Mount Rushmore?

Let's go to the control of New York first. I like those ones. So some people in the comments are saying someone, Bernie, said, Cheers, Seinfeld, Kerb, Roseanne was thrown out there. Remember Roseanne? Well, that would be a list that's much closer to. I didn't watch Roseanne, but Curb, I'd love to put Curb in. But I'm trying to be in touch with what actually was transformative as well,

not just what appealed to my personal taste. And a lot of people are agreeing with you with MASH in the comments right now on the Mount Rushmore shows for sure. Someone said Taxi as well. Now, I'm going to be real. I didn't watch MASH. So it's too old for me, and it was in syndication. And there was something tonally about it, like when you're a kid,

and it comes on syndication, it just didn't do it for me. Like the whole intro. But it was literally a sitcom, right? Tinfoil, you know, it was half hour. I know it was comedy. It counts as a sitcom? I would say it counts, yeah. It counts.

Never saw it. All right, did I miss anything? Young establishment, James, you're totally different generation. Do you think it's total sacrilege that I left off how I met your mother or Big Bang Theory? No. Those were good, but they're not like, they're not iconic. They're not. maybe friends is a step above them but

I think you got to add any of the Michael Shore shows like Brooklyn 99's great Parks and Rec is great um come on yeah those are great shows they're really funny Mount Rushmore though it's close Parks and Rec is close Parks and Rec gets on a lot of top 10 lists

I think so doesn't have same power let me ask you a question I was totally checked out, right? Quit watching sitcoms. I'll tell you why also. I hit a certain stage in my life. It just didn't fit.

Also about the time prestige television came out. So any television that I wanted to watch, it was dedicated to the Sopranos, the Wire, the Breaking Bad. That's about the same time that stuff took off, right? So extra time I had was given to that, Deadwood. Those shows, what's the best of? those shows that came along and dominated like big bang theory how i met your mother two and a half men were they all on cbs by the way when they they it moved from nbc to cbs and cbs just started

dominating the sitcom game were those all cbs and which was the best two and a half men i think broke insane amount of records i'm not don't quote me on that but that i think was the biggest biggest one how i met your mother was up there too um so those would be for people like my age i think Patrick's age. I think those would be up there because the early 2000s stuff, you know, it happened when we were going like out of our adolescence, you know, so I think those are huge. Yeah, I think how I met your mother finished up my freshman. Yeah. So that's you? That's your age group, James? How I met your mother? About, yeah. It finished up my freshman year of high school.

Okay. But we all talked about this before the show. even though we're three different generations, the three of us, I'm the oldest, you two, ten-foil pat, and two a days are in the middle, and James is the youngest generation. I think it's weird how the 90s are a cultural touch point for all three of us. I think that's weird. Like Seinfeld, friends, I just, I think it's weird to me that I kind of consider that my cultural bullseye, and then not only you guys who are in your 30s do,

But James, like in your 20s, you've seen, have you seen all that stuff, James? Like, you've watched Seinfeld? Yeah. I mean, I've seen some theories that say... What'd you do, stream it? Yeah, Netflix. I did too. I had never watched it back then, because it was a little over my head when I was young, but I stream it now.

There's a lot of folks that say America really peaked in the 90s. Kind of 1999 was high point. So maybe that was kind of when the cultural was killing. it. I think you're reading my text too much. It's my theory. A lot of people. I also, do you remember Full House? What about Full House?

That was more for the younger crowd. Full House was great. There was, I believe it was ABC that did stuff like Full House and is that the one with John Stamos, by the way? Full House. And Bob Saggett. Yep.

Yeah. They had, theirs was less edgy. And ABC's was more wholesome, and I was a little more into the edgy stuff that was on NBC, you know? I mean, Friends isn't that edgy, but it's kind of funny thing about NBC

dominated the sitcom game. I'd say in the 80s and 90s. In the 80s, they had cheers. They ultimately had Frazier, I think, right? They had the Cosby show. Thursday night on NBC's was huge. and then

ABC was always kind of and I think ABC's like Full House I think that was Friday nights and like I'm not going to watch sitcoms on Friday nights it's just not happening and so then somewhere it transitions to where CBS becomes the dominating

sitcom and when was that like back in the day we had appointment television that was Thursday night that's when you watched your sitcoms was that the way it was for CBS and all the shows were rattling off what night was it I don't even know

because I'm so checked out on that some had Tuesdays I think I think some started going out on Tuesdays because Thursdays were so dominated and then we did Fridays, Fridays were kids stuff like in the 90s they had TGIF which was like Friday shows for kids

Friday night. Right. All right. There's my Mount Rushmore. Leave it for me in the comments if you think I'd left something out or what your Mount Rushmore of sitcoms might be. I'll check it out on YouTube on X at Will Kane on Instagram, see Will Kane on Facebook where you can watch the Will Kane show as well

just head on over and subscribe to the Will Kane Show on Facebook. And subscribe on Apple or Spotify. You can listen to us whenever you like. That's going to do it for us today. We'll be back tomorrow. We'll also keep analyzing the testimony of Michael Cohen in the case against Donald Trump. I'll see you again next time. Listen ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. podcast 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 the quiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.