Will Cain Country - No Miracle Needed: U.S. Hockey Wins Gold! (ft. Josh Ritter)

Episode Date: February 23, 2026

Story 1: America’s hockey team just took home the gold against Canada at the Winter Olympics, and while most are celebrating this patriotic moment (as they should), some on the Left are not happy. Will and The Crew break down the bizarre backlash to Team USA’s hockey win and react to the backstage phone call President Donald Trump made after the win.Story 2: Fox News Contributor and Award-Winning Trial Attorney Josh Ritter joins Will to break down the latest in Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance, before giving his analysis of Nick Reiner’s arraignment.Story 3: Two-A-Dayz Dan shares the story of his nightmarish commute to work amid a historic winter storm while Will picks apart his questionable choice in clothing. Plus, Will breaks down his conversation with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and reacts to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) awkward attempts to allegedly endear himself to the black community.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

USA, USA, USA! It's all anyone's talking about today. The United States of America snatches the purse from Canada. Gold in hockey. What does that mean? For our national psyche, what does that mean for our relationship with Canada? What does that mean, of course, for left and right? All it means in the end is you know and I know.

Let's just celebrate. USA. Plus, Rob Reiner's son, Nick Reiner, set to be arraigned, and what in the world is going on with Nancy Guthrie? Could Gavin Newsom have really, has suggested he can't read in order to pander to black Americans? All today on Will Cain Country. It is Will Cain Country streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel. The Fox News Facebook page, The Will Cain Facebook page, the Will Cain Facebook. Facebook page, Terrestrial Radio, Spotify, and on Apple. USA, baby, USA.

Coming up a little bit later in the program, we will have Fox News contributor award-winning trial attorney and former Los Angeles District Attorney, Josh Ritter with us to talk about both Nancy Guthrie and Nick Reiner. But let us start with where the entire nation's consciousness. is over the last 24 to 48 hours, and that is on the United States Olympic hockey victory. Gold. Two days, Dan, 10 full pet, let's go. Come on.

Let's do it together. Come on, ready? We're all alone in our living rooms, probably watching this. So at 10 a.m., let's do it together. Ready? USA! USA! USA! Oh, absolutely.

I was going nuts. doesn't make that a wonderful in sync chant. But it deserves. It deserves. It deserves. It deserves. It deserves. This is incredible on so multiple levels. The stories, the cinematic moment, the overtime goal, the interview by Jack Hughes, the call to the locker room by President Donald Trump. This thing bleeds red, white, and blue. bleeds red, white, and blue. Now, if you haven't heard any of this, I think we have a sampling

of what went down in the locker room. There's a good chance at this point you've already seen Jack Hughes post game interview. There's a good chance. Hopefully, you've seen the replay of his overtime goal. There's possibly a good chance you saw his teeth getting knocked out in the third period. But did you see the entire team huddled around FBI director Cash Patel's phone talking to President Donald Trump? I can tell you, you don't have to worry about the weather or landing. We don't care if it's snowing, if it's the worst blizzard. We sell it through that, just like you did in the ice.

Thank you, Mr. President. We'll do it at the White House. We'll do the White House the next day. We'll just have some fun. We have medals for you guys. And we have to, I must tell you, we're going to have to bring the woman's team. You do know that. Absolutely.

We're going to have to bring the women's team. He's inviting them. He's inviting them to the state of the union on Tuesday night. He says, we are going to, of course, bring you to the White House for, as we do, all championship teams, bring them to the White House. And I must tell you, we're going to have to invite the women's team. I'll probably get impeached, he says. I'd get impeached if I didn't invite the women's team. It's just so naturally funny and incredible.

President Trump riffs for a solid three minutes. And I don't know that the men's hockey players said a word, got a word. and edgewise. However, they're all smiling, they're laughing, they're enjoying every moment. President Trump is incredibly into Connor Hellebook and who played an incredible game. Our Secretary of War has named Hellebrook the Secretary of Defense for the game that he played against the Canadians. But they're all loving it and they're having such a good time. They also had in their, as I mentioned, the director of the FBI, Cash Patel, who was in the room with them,

and the FBI director was living it up. It's so good. He's chugging a beer. He's slinging beer across the room. They're jumping up and down. They put their gold medal over the neck of Cash Patel, and they all start singing Toby Keith. It is so freaking just,

No, red, white, and blue. It is so good. Now, I had coffee this morning with a buddy of mine who is from Canada, and he was rooting for Team USA, because he is what we all would hope of anyone that immigrates to America. He is full-on American. And we were laughing about all the different things that make this so great. Justin Trudeau, if you'll remember after the Four Nations tournament, where Sidney Crosby hit a game-winning goal over the Americans. At the time, Trudeau had posted onto X, you can't take our country and you can't take our game. This was, of course, during the entire international conversation about making Canada the 51st state. Well, the White House grabbed that, retweeted it, and put on top of their ex post a picture of an eagle claws out, pinning down a Canadian goose on the ice. It was really good. And what makes all this so wonderful, this is what I told my friend from Canada, and Patrick can't take part in this part of the conversation because he doesn't get the vibe. Patrick, for some reason, is developed a hatred of Canadians.

What makes this also wonderful is nobody hates Canadians. Nobody hates Canadians. It's our mockery and our victory and our domination of Canada is only comedically compounded by the fact that they care so much more than us. not just about Canada, but about the relationship that they have with the United States. The great joke is a Canadian-assad American, tell us truly what you think of us. Tell us what you think of in Canada. And in a very fountainhead, Ian-Randian style, the appropriate response is, but we don't. We don't think of you in Canada.

And that is what makes all of this so savage and so wonderful. The left is upset, boys, and you know it. And I don't know if it's my algorithm. I don't know what's going on. Did you hear about it just because of your social media or did you hear about it in your real life? Real life. Did you hear about it from the Brooklyn brunch crew? Yeah, they thought Cash Patel being there kind of ruined the wind for them.

So that was fun. Oh, my gosh. I know. Of course, they've tried to take this moment of Cash Patel's away from cash and away from the current Trump administration in saying he's using taxpayer dollars to go to Italy. He is acting undignified for the director of the FBI. as to the point of whether or not he is dignified. Go be unhappy somewhere else. I do feel like in the wake of this victory,

the left is revealing itself to be just the unhappiest people on earth. If you can take this moment and find the negativity, the negativity lies within you and your soul. Let the man has fun. Patel is a massive hockey fan, and he has a relationship with USA hockey. And you can see in the video, they're all loving that he's there.

They place their metal around his... If they thought he was intruding, the intrusion idea requires that one of the parties involved thinks that it's an intrusion. And there's literally not a single player in that locker room that seems in any way displeased to be partying with the director of the FBI. So take your unhappy soul to some other quasi-sporting event. Might I suggest ice skating? I don't know. I don't know what event the left can fully embrace. I don't know what victory they can love for America. But to the point of whether or not this is a waste of taxpayer dollars,

I have people on my social media suggesting that they're from the right, and they see this as not only undignified, but a waste of taxpayer dollars. Well, I saw an awesome takedown by somebody who says they were a behavioral scientist at the FBI. And they pointed out, the FBI has been involved in security for the Olympics since Atlanta and Sochi. They guard our Olympians. And it is a mission-critical project that actually the director of the FBI has a very important role in that in traveling overseas to oversee the protection of our American athletes. And so the presence of Cash Patel isn't some great departure from the role of director of the FBI, but a fulfillment of the role of the FBI. And you're just simply continuing to look for your unhappy prism to see everything through the world of politics.

And I think it's best exemplified by this headline. I think this is from, is this from Huffington Post? Is this from NBC? Huffington Post. There's a name. Huffington Post. There's a name for the discomfort you're feeling watching the Olympics right now. Subhead.

If you're waving the American flag or chanting USA and it turns you off right now, you're not alone. It's just, man, if the left wants to play this game, if this is how they want to define themselves. And the right already believes this to be true about the left. But if you want to lean in and confirm and validate everyone's sentiment that in the end, you really just do hate America, then I invite you to walk down that path. You are going to walk down the path to permanent irrelevance. Because right now, everybody that I know in America is singing with their heart and with their mouth, USA, USA. Go ahead. Two days, Dan, Tinfoil Pat.

Well, my in-laws are Canadian, as I've told you before. So they're having an extra hard time because how they feel about America right now in the Trump administration. So it was kind of like a double loss for them because they're very upset about losing hockey and losing to Trump's America. So it was a very sad day to talk to my in laws. I may have said some things I probably shouldn't have in gloating. So I might be in the doghouse. Well, I don't blame the Canadians. Like for them today to be in mourning, to feel like they've lost something, which they have, incredibly important to their national identity, it just makes it funnier that it's not tied up in our nationality.

I was trying to be funny. Which it may be so serious. Today we wake up and ice hockey is the personality of America. That's who we are. We are hockey. We're all. Yeah. We are hockey.

Yeah. It should be the most American sport. It's what everybody wants to football to be. All right, Mr. Florida Panthers that wins everything. Okay, relax. I've been a hockey fan for my whole life, so. Somehow you have a way of bringing things down. We're all celebrating and you want to replace football with hockey.

And somehow you belong in the end. I was like, wait. On the left. My guy. Everybody wants to change the rules. You deserve each other. For football. I hate three.

It's what everyone wants sports to be. So let's just embrace it. The game has changed. It's great. I've seen the Instagram post going around about hockey versus the NBA and guys playing through injury. Jack Hughes having those teeth knocked out, bloodied mouth, Wednesday and winning goal. Anthony Davis breaks a finger or something and can't play at $60 million a year. I've seen all that.

But you and the left are made for each other, Patrick. You're two peas in one pod. It's true. You are made for each other. it's the most beautiful marriage. You and the brunch crew. You and the brunch crew, wedding bliss from here to eternity. Come about mimosis with us.

From the rest of us, for the rest of us. It is USA, USA, USA. Coming up, award-winning trial attorney, Joshua Ritter on Nancy Guthrie and the arraignment of Nick Reiner on Will Kane Country. This is Ainsley Earhart. Thank you for joining me for the 52-Ebrose. episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Josh Ritter is a Fox News contributor. He is award-winning trial attorney. He's a former Los Angeles District Attorney. You see him across Fox News commenting on various stories. He's been embedded, by the way, in Arizona now for, I don't know, getting close to a month, while the world, and maybe increasingly the FBI, searches for Nancy Guthrie. He's here today to talk to us about Guthrie and the arraignment of Nick Reiner. And we're glad to have Josh Ritter on the show today. Hey, Josh.

Hey, how are you? Thanks so much for having me. You know, I was going to read your bio. And in fact, I want to. Here we go, because I have something I want to ask you about in your bio. Here's here, as it is written, is the bio of Josh Ritter. Josh Ritter, also known professionally as Joshua Ritter Esquire, is a criminal defense attorney in former prosecutor who appears frequently as a legal analyst. serves as a Fox News contributor. I think we can stop right there. From this point forward, it goes on to give your bona fides about your trial experience, but you know what I want to ask you about, right?

I mean, it's sticking out like a sore thumb in the midst of this bio, okay? Josh Ritter, aka Joshua Ritter, Esquire. Now, Josh, do you go around? Is it on the business card? Am I one of those jerks that lets everybody know it's Esquire? I couldn't. The Joshua Ritter was the handle was taken. I had to somehow distinguish myself on X, and that's what I was left with.

But do I have regrets about it a little bit? I don't know if you know this, Josh, but I'm an Esquire, I guess, by education, by legal training, have passed the bar exam, have never appeared in a courtroom other than as a witness. The Esquire thing, I don't even know where this comes from. And, you know, why do lawyers get an S-Qaeda? Is it like doctors get doctors, so we get Esquire? They do, but they never use it. Only jerks would attach it to the back of their name on their Twitter account. But again, in my defense, Joshua Ritter was already taken.

Josh Ritter's already taken. It's a folk singer. I don't know if you know about that. So I was trying to find my little niche and it ended up being this. the real Josh Ritter Josh Ritter superstar What are some of the ones The official Josh Ritter

That's what I should have done Wait wait, wait two of days Dan Two of days Dan has one for you What do you got Dan? I looked it up It comes from an old French word Eskure Meaning shield bearer

Like a young squire or knight Shield bearer Like a knight Like a knight So you guys are knights Okay Okay Nice

I still sound like a joke I think at this point you lean all the way in. I think when you introduce yourself to people, you go, hey, how you doing, Joshua Ritter, Esquire? Make them put it on the Chiron Esquire. Yes. I'll put it up now, Esquire. It's the best. Yeah, please, please fix it right now.

It does not say it on the lower third. I'd like that to say Josh Ritter, Esquire. Josh, where are you, man? Are you in L.A.? Are you in Arizona? Where are you as we speak? I'm back home. I was in Arizona for two weeks, but I'm back home.

and I'm just waiting for something to break and for them to say, can you please hop back on a plane and go back to Tucson? But, I mean, two weeks of being out there. It's three weeks we're going into week four. I thought we would have a conclusion to this whole thing. And I don't think we're any closer to solving it than we were three weeks ago. It's incredible. So we're not any closer to solving the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie than we were three weeks ago,

meaning, Josh, that every little incremental storyline and piece of evidence that we chased in the interim hasn't really advanced the investigation. That's certainly what it feels like from my perspective. I'm curious if that's what you mean. But whether or not it's a glove or a piece of DNA or a nest video camera, nothing really in the end seems to have moved law enforcement from really the place that they were in the first 24 to 48 hours after the disappearance of Guthrie. I mean, to be fair, they have an incredible piece of evidence in that surveillance footage, right? In that ring camera video. That, you know, to have that is remarkable. You've got the person caught on tape.

You know the general description. You know, you know, the clothing, the backpack, all of this stuff. Plenty of stuff for them to work off of. But my point is that none of that is panning out. I mean, they're still going around to gun shops and asking any, you've seen anyone suspicious lately. They're still combing the desert. I mean, there was a bunch of volunteers out recently over the weekend, combing the desert looking for clues. You have the sheriff who I'm no fan of, but he's giving interviews recently.

And he says, we have no persons of interest. We have no names in particular that we're looking at. And now with the DNA that's inside of the home, which by the way, we don't even know if it's really the perpetrator's DNA. It's just the best piece of forensics they have to go off of is a mixed. DNA, and they said processing that in the lab in Florida could take weeks, months, or longer. So that's what I mean as far as being no closer. Incredible. It's insane.

It's incredible because you have obviously much, much, much deeper and broader experience in the criminal justice system than do I. But they've literally made television shows about the importance of the first 48 hours in a criminal investigation. And the longer this goes, the less likely it is to be solved. If it is going to be solved, you presume, as it drags on, what's actually happening is, they have way more information they're suggesting they do to us, the public. And they're just waiting to spring the trap on the perp.

They're waiting to arrest the suspect. But that feels increasingly less likely to be an explanation for why nothing has happened with Guthrie. Yeah. No, you're right. Statistically, with each day that passes, the chances of them solving this or finding someone and drop exponentially. So we're, you know, four weeks in or heading into the fourth week, this is really, really dire. I mean, Tucson is an hour half away from Mexico. So if anybody was trying to evade capture or scrutiny, they could easily have been across the border before anyone

noticed that she was missing. So you've got that problem lingering out there that this person just could be in Mexico. But the only thing I will say that gives me a little bit of hope as far as the DNA is if you remember the Coburger case, that took 47 days before they solved that, which now that we're living through it in this case seems like a lifetime. But during that time, they had located DNA, processed it, worked it through that IGG system, which was no small task. Then you have to find us, you know, determine who your suspect is. Go out and find that person. In Coburger, that was easier because he was a college student. They could easily find him.

Who knows who this person is? And then you got to get a confirmation DNA. So they had to follow Coburger all the way back to Pennsylvania before they were able to retrieve some more DNA and confirm that he was in fact their suspect. So I'm hoping. And that was 11 days that they knew who they were looking at before they actually made an arrest. So I'm hoping, and maybe I'm being a little overly hopeful, but I'm hoping that we're somewhere in that process now with this DNA. But then you've got this sheriff coming out and saying that they're having. issues determining the DNA. So who knows?

Well, that's what I wanted to ask you about next is the sheriff. And you've already said, the sheriff of whom you're not a huge fan. I want to take a moment to just analyze the behavior of the sheriff. And so, and at the same time, try to subject myself to a great amount of self-awareness. First of all, I don't need to know, literally need. I may want to know, and I as a stand-in for the public what just actually happened in this case. But I don't need to know. What needs to happen is law enforcement needs to know what happens in this case. And so we need to grant these law enforcement officers, not grace, but some sense of competency, some projected sense of competency onto them that they are actually communicating in a way that doesn't compromise

their own investigation. We have to assume at some level that that is what is going on. He's holding stuff back. He's not sharing stuff with us. Maybe he's giving conflicting information at times, and it's all in service of the investigation, not a national news program. And that would be very fair. However, I think it's also at this point very fair to ask whether or not that chess is being played by the sheriff. And there are things, Josh, you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer by training. I think that helps but isn't necessary to think logically. But I try to think through things logically and there's some things that don't add up for me unless you can help me understand. Like saying the family is completely cleared from this investigation. If you don't have a suspect,

logically to me, you can't very well rule out people as suspects. And even if it's not a match for anyone in the family to have been the man who actually entered the room, what if there was a contractual relationship? What if there was a friendly relationship of any type with whoever this potential suspect is? Those seem like still possibilities, not probabilities, but possibilities, and the sheriff rules that out, which to me just doesn't add up logically. No, you make an excellent point. They don't owe us anything. And in fact, most investigations are conducted with very little information being shared with the media or the public. And we're all fine with that. We get that because to your point, they should be serving the investigation,

first and foremost, not trying to share information with the public. But the problem was that they initially did, and they came out with a bunch of information in those first few days in these press conferences and this kind of press tour that he did, that he's then had to walk back a lot of that information. First, it was, you know, signs of forced entry. Then no, whoever said signed a force century. I'm not going to say that. Then it was new. Then he's getting all, uh, bizarrely vague about who it was that was last with Nancy Guthrie and who dropped her off and all of this confusion. And then they shut it off. They turn off the tap and they say, we're not doing any more press conferences. And instead, it's these bizarre statements that come out where he tries to clarify things or these one

on one interviews that contradict themselves. The problem is not that we're not getting enough. we're just getting bad information and the information is starting to contradict itself. To the point about clearing the Guthrie's, I agree with you. There are times a perfectly acceptable answer from law enforcement can be I cannot comment on that. We're okay with that. Like that means, okay, you've got some information that's sensitive. You don't want to affect the integrity of the investigation. Go ahead and say you can't comment.

But he feels like he needs to comment on everything. and sometimes his comments just end up being wrong. So clearing the Guthrie's, maybe that was a plea from the family themselves because they had been suffering a lot of conspiracy and a lot of suspicion online. And maybe he felt like he needed to clear them. But it's also, to your point, very early in the investigation to be clearing anyone. I don't think anyone should be cleared until somebody's in handcuffs. But the idea that he, like for instance, we know that the FBI was out speaking to. gun shop owners recently. We have videotape of a gun shop owner giving an interview to Fox saying,

yes, the FBI came by and they showed me a bunch of photographs. He was asked about that and he says, no, not true. So does that mean he's not aware of it? He's not kept in the loop or is he giving us bad information or is he being purposefully misleading or unintentionally misleading? Or how about just say, can't comment on it. And then we all would have moved on. But it's that kind of confusion that is causing a lot of people to not only be frustrated, but question whether or not he's up to the task. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with Josh Ritter on Nancy Guthrie and Nick Reiner on Will Kane Country. Welcome back to Will Cain Country. We're still hanging out with ward-winning trial attorney, Joshua Ritter, Esquire. And the only way that honestly at this point, the sheriff for law enforcement bails themselves out of this bad look for the sheriff is if there is arrest made in the next coming down.

perhaps weeks that we will be able to look back on and say, as you said with Coburger, they've been working on for 30 days. And then that gave them the ability to clear the Guthrie family. They'd already, if they have a suspect, and then they'd already researched what not that suspect has any connection to the Guthrie family. Okay, maybe then you can clear the family. If you have a suspect, that will explain some of the weird things that are said or their behavior. But again, back to the behavior, to your point, when you're searching the desert and you're going around gun shops, showing a picture, it doesn't read to me like you are that far down an investigation and you're waiting to spring a trap on somebody within the next 14 days.

Yeah. I mean, a lot of this seems like they're just going back to, you know, beating the bushes again, trying to find any information that they can. I mean, the one hopeful thing, you know, aside from the DNA is that they have received at last count 40,000 tips. So it's not, for lack of information from the public. They've also got mountains of data from cell towers, from the, you know, the digital devices that they've already recovered. And I imagine I am hopeful that the the break that they need is already in their possession. It's just a matter of finding it. And they've now raised the reward. It's $100,000 with the FBI plus $100,000 from private sources. that's 200,000 reasons for someone to, you know, put aside their loyalties if they know something,

if they're a friend or a relative. With that much information out there, with those many tips, with the amount of resources, 400 something officers dedicated to investigating this, you've got to imagine they're going to get a break somewhere along all of this. It's just your, you know, when is it going to take place? The fact that we're going into week four makes me think, you know, I'm shocked. I'm shocked. If you had asked me four weeks ago, how long would this thing take to get solved?

I would say we would have had somebody in custody the Friday after she went missing. But here we are. Which was the case when it came to the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife. Josh Ritter, Esquire, with us here today to not just talk about Nancy Guthrie, but also the arraignment of Nick Reiner, the son of Rob Reiner, who's scheduled today to inter a plea. As a reminder for everyone, this was scheduled to be. done some time back. It was extended. I believe, Josh, and you can correct me where I get some of this wrong, but because of mental health issues with Nick Reiner that compromised his inability to enter a plea. In that time, he's lost his criminal defense attorney, Alan Jackson.

In California, it's probably the same as it is everywhere, Josh. Is it a requirement of the defendant to enter an affirmative defense at arraignment? is it somewhere else down the line? Can he simply plead not guilty today? Or must he plead not guilty by reason of insanity at arraignment? No, he can plead not guilty and then make that decision as far as not guilty by reason of insanity at a later time. It would just be a change of plea because then they're going to enter that defense. That's what everyone suspects is going to happen. It could happen this morning. They could also wait to do it. But it does seem like everything that we've heard, you know, he did miss that first arraignment because he was, they had him in a

suicide prevention vest, and I think he was still probably detoxing. They've had to put over his arraignment again, I think probably for mental health evaluation. So it does look like that is the defense that they're going down. But, you know, I'll just remind everyone that someone could have severe mental problems and still not qualify for insanity for the purposes of a criminal defense. But it does look like that's what the road they're going to go down. here is the breaking news i saw you glancing at your computer josh and this did just come in breaking news nick riner pleads not guilty um within the last couple of moments here out there in los angeles um walk us through that what do you mean what do you mean that somebody could be you know

whatever word we want to use insane crazy out of their mind but they're not legally insane it looks to me, look, that Nick Reiner definitely had mental health issues, homelessness, drug addiction. I don't know. I think it is that he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is a catch-all form of mental diagnosis that includes often, or at least colloquially, like, bipolar. They're going to make the argument, I think, Josh, that he used on meds, he switched meds, he was adjusting to meds during this period. but what does he need to be to be not of sound mind and saying as a legal defense? Yeah. It's a very particular question. And it's very different from the question of whether or not somebody is suffering from mental health issues.

And what we all might consider, you know, oh, this guy was obviously, quote unquote, crazy. He obviously had problems. And it does look like he had problems. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was being treated for that. he was on medication. He had a history of substance abuse. All of those things are one part of the inquiry that you do have some sort of mental health disease or defect. But the other part of the inquiry is did it cause you at the time of the crime to be unable to appreciate the consequences of your actions, that they were either morally, ethically, or legally wrong? And that is where the, the real, you know, rubber hits the road as far as an insanity defense because he's obviously suffering from some sort of mental health issue. And the prosecution will probably concede most of

that. But does his action show that he didn't appreciate what he was doing is wrong? The example I use is you can say the dog told me to kill. But as long as you know killing is still wrong, that's not insanity for the purposes of criminal defense. So look at what he did. Soon after the the killings take place. He doesn't wait around in his underwear covered in blood for the police to arrive. He takes off. He goes to a hotel in Santa Monica, some 30 minutes or so away and apparently washes himself up. They say that there was a bloody scene inside of the bathroom there. I'm doing a little bit of speculation based upon what we know. But he then, you know, goes from that location and they don't find him, they don't find him until he's downtown Los Angeles. So he's,

you know, those appear to be consciousness of guilt, a person who's trying to evade capture, a person who's trying to cover up for what they did. And all of that will be pointed at as saying, this is a person who may be troubled, but understands what they're doing. And the Conan O'Brien party ahead of time. There was, you know, there was a lot of talk about how upset he was and how angered he was. Again, all of this appears to be somebody who knows what they were doing was wrong. and that's really the question. I mentioned this phrase in passing, and I want to take for granted that everybody knows what it means, but not guilty by reason of insanity is an affirmative defense.

You enter the plea of not guilty, and then you make the claim that you're not guilty because you were insane. Affirmative means it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that he was insane, whereas the rest of the trial is the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This now shifts the burden to the defendant to prove, by what standard I would ask you, in just one moment, what is the burden of proof that they didn't understand the consequences of their action? So now, Nick Reiner and his attorney have to show he didn't or prove he didn't understand the consequences to his actions. You made some very good arguments of what the prosecution will say in response. They'll say, well, look at his behavior. He acts like he did. But as the defense,

what will they say? How will they prove that and to what burden that he didn't understand the consequences of his actions? Yeah, that's a very important. important point that a lot of people don't understand. Most defenses don't require any kind of burden shifting whatsoever. You can make a defense that I had an alibi. You can make a defense that, you know, you haven't proven all the elements of the crime or, but when you start to use, like you said, an affirmative defense, self-defense is a really good example. If you start to say, I was defending myself and here's all of the, here's why it was reasonable that I interpreted the violence. Here's why I used deadly force.

in a reasonable manner, you have to prove that. It requires the defense to actually prove that to the jury. It's not to the same standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's greater than probable cause. It's in the middle there that jurors are going to have to determine that. And the same goes with insanity. So what we're going to see in this trial, if it is an NGI defense, is we'll have an entire guilt phase where the question before the jurors will simply be, Did he commit this crime? If they find him guilty of that, then they immediately go. It's called a bifurcated trial to the insanity phase, where then it's all experts. And the prosecution is going to call a bunch of extras to say, yes, he suffered from all these mental health issues,

but he appreciated the consequences of his actions in that moment. The defense will call a bunch of people to say the exact opposite. And then it's going to be up to the jurors to decide who do they believe. But you're right that there is a burden on the defense at that point. point to prove that he was insane. Are two more questions with Josh Reader Esquire, which is here today. You know, Josh, I love law school. I totally loved it.

I think I naturally, I think I naturally gravitate towards rhetoric as math, logic, burden share, you know, understanding the way that argumentation should work in people's minds, but you heard me use that word. And as I've gotten older, and I've spent less time directly with the law, and honestly, more time with what I do for a living now, and also a lot of my friends are lawyers, and they have, with their age as well, begun to appreciate this within the law, you start to realize that persuasion and rhetoric is not mathematical. It is not logical. It is not A plus B equals C for a jury, that we are emotional creatures, we are emotional beings, and we resonate and gravitate towards story.

And what I think I have come to appreciate, and a lot of my attorney friends have as well, whether or not they are plaintiff or criminal defense, is the power of story. So you go into a trial as a criminal defense attorney, and your job is to theoretically just require the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you don't, then we win, right?

But that's not the way it works with juries. They don't sit there and go, Well, you know, the prosecution got to 97%, but they didn't get that final three or whatever it is. They gravitate towards stories. And this is why you'll start to see people say, I didn't do it. And he did. Because juries can gravitate towards an alternate story. They don't like doubt.

They don't like indecision. They don't like questions. They like answers. And they like stories that they can gravitate toward. What I'm curious about is if you found that true as a criminal defense attorney, that you tell a jury a story that gives them a reason to vote your way, And I'm asking you that in that I guess the only story that Nick Reiner's defense team can tell is this insanity story. I don't know. Now, listen, I've talked about this with Donna Routuno.

I think concerningly, Luigi Mangione is going to have a story that juries are going to want to hear. And that story may get him off even when the law suggests no effing way. Because of the story, he may. But in this case, is there any story for Nick Reiner? First of all, you're spot on. Jurors, I don't care how many instructions you read to them. I don't care what the law says and you go through all the elements. You're right.

They are very much operating on their gut and the story of what's being told and what they think is right or wrong. I mean, they view themselves as having this position of kind of power to say what they feel is right. right or wrong, sometimes in spite of the law and hopefully you hope they follow the law. But in a case like this, okay, you are a privileged kid. You grew up and live in Brentwood. You still live in your parents' home. They provide everything for you. You don't have a job and it looks like you've never had a job. You've been in and out of rehab that your parents have paid for and helped you and supported you every step of the way. By the way, other kids raised in that same household didn't turn out like you.

And you're now going to say that woe is me, my problems, and I snuck into my parents' bedroom in the middle of the night and slit their throats because I was unhappy about how, what, a recent argument we had had, that's a heck of a story to try to sell to people. I think that they're going to have a real problem from that perspective. Now, it does sound like they've got something to work with as far as he's got a long history of abuse. And they can, you know, they're, they're going to pay for every high-priced expert that the county can afford. But that's going to be, that's going to be real difficult sell to jurors for the exact reason that you point out.

I can just hear you in your office. I can just hear Josh Ritterner's office analyzing a case the way he just did with us. not about the evidence, about the story. You're sitting there with your colleagues after they walk out and you go, this privileged kid is going to have me try to sell some other story than this one. Okay, and that leads into my last question, Josh. And it may not be theoretical for you, but I have to ask it. You may know exactly the answer, my point.

You may not be guessing because you're a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles. And I can only imagine at some level that becomes a small world. And you're a high profile one at that. What happened with Nick's first attorney, Alan Jackson? he says he says he thinks Nick Reiner is not guilty by the letter of the law in California, which basically he's saying there he thinks Nick is insane. But I always wondered, by the way, I guess Nick has money, I guess, or maybe he has already gotten access to money that was Rob Reiner. So I wondered, how is he affording Alan Jackson?

But what happened? Why all of a sudden did he lose Alan Jackson? Well, full disclosure, I've known Alan for 20-something years. I was his, I worked with him. I was his law. No surprise. And the DA's office. And when I left the DA's office, I was his law partner for a few years as a defense attorney. So I know him really well. That'll being said, I have not talked to him about this and kind of on purpose because I don't, I don't want to muddy those waters. But I know that Alan said, you know, forces beyond everybody's control. I really do think it came down to money, though. This is going to be a huge undertaking for. any law firm. And I don't think that Nick was able to pay. Now you say, well, wait a minute, how does he not have access to the millions of dollars that dad had? Well, if you're Rob Reiner and you've got a very troubled son with a bunch of substance abuse problems, I imagine you have some sort of trust in effect. And I imagine there's a clause in that trust that talks about if you ever get arrested for a

felony or if you're ever in trouble, this money's not going to cover you. I just, that is my sneaking suspicion that somewhere along the lines, they may have hired Alan, the family. And then when it came down to actually loosening up the cash and the trust, the trustee said no way. And so then Alan said, well, thanks, but no thanks and good luck to you all. But then it was funny that he took that opportunity to take those parting shots during that press conference saying he's not guilty. but, you know, good luck to him. I think that's what it came down to. I mean, it's a huge case.

I can't imagine why else you walk away. Something tells me that's not a guess. And the fact that Nick Reiner today is represented by a public defender. So something about that adds up that we might just know what happened there now with Al Jackson. Josh, this has been a great conversation. I really appreciate you joining us and spending someone's time with us and helps to talk to you more about this and many other cases. Absolutely. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Cain Country. There you go. It's Joshua Ritter, Esquire, here on Will Cain Country. I want to, we got a couple of things I want to talk about. First of all, you guys realize, right, that Two of Days Dan is like basically a mountaineer. Yeah. Like what he did to come into work is the cliche. thing that grandparents said. He walked to work uphill in the snow both ways today, right?

The Northeast is under blizzard conditions, right? It's under blizzard conditions. It's brutal, dude. And as I learned this morning, it's brutal. Hold on. Okay. Brutal says two days. So I was told on our morning call that only emergency workers are directed to leave their home

by New York mayors on Ramamandani. Not essential workers, but emergency workers. So what is Dan doing in the office, you ask? Great question. But we are fortunate because, as we're told, and I've heard this from everybody. Everybody in New York, it's awful. Everything is shut down. There's no cars on the road.

What did I hear, Dan? A foot of snow, two feet of snow. We're probably at about 18 inches now, I would say. It's still going on. 18 inches of snow. You were breathing hard. on our morning call. Walk if you're high step.

Yeah, it's crazy. You're high stepping through the whole thing. Like, I'm going down 6th Avenue, 5th Avenue, high stepping through snow. It's nuts. That sounds nuts. And I was looking, this happened. Somebody said, weirdly on the 6thes, 2026, 2016, 2006. So that means I was there for two of them in 06 and 16.

I do remember. And it's wild when New York looks like a scene out of vanilla sky. if you guys can remember that movie. Very bizarre. But it's a ghost town and nobody's on the roads and it's fascinating. Then it turns awful, awful because all that beautiful

white snow turns into gray and black slushed. It sticks around for weeks and in Zoroamam Dhani's New York, it may never go away. It may just always be there. From now on it's a permanent fixture. Permis snow. Buried cars in New York. But Dan recorded himself coming into the office

And now I have some questions. So let's watch, listen, and analyze today's Dan. What's up, everybody? I'm here outside in New York City. It's crazy. I can barely breathe. I barely made it. It's crazy.

There's snow all over me. This is the city right now. We never know. It could get better. We'll see. I made it. Yes. Okay. All right. A little documentation of the morning commute.

It was tough. I don't know if you can keep the three of us up while running that alongside of us. But I have questions. A lot of questions after watching this video. I'd love it if you can just keep that up on a loop, if that's at all possible, while the three of us remain on screen, Dan. But let us start, if we might, with your attire. Patrick, are you looking at this? Do you have questions?

I can't see anything. Okay, I want us on screen. I want us on screen, too, if it's possible. Let's look at the gloves. Let's start with the gloves. What's going on here, Dan? Fingerless gloves, man. Fingerless gloves, fine.

But what's with the rips and the tears in them? Like, you're homeless. Like, what's going on, man? I needed those to, because I knew I would be walking and having to, like, text and go on the call and all that type of stuff. And so I had to find a way, so I had these old, old fingerless gloves. Then I used to play guitar in. I used to wear them while I played guitar. Here we go.

And that's why they're ripped. I used to play gigs wearing those. No, you get nothing past me. Everybody thinks I might be mean or whatever. You get nothing past me. These gloves were not for function. They were for style. Yeah.

There is no doubt. my mind. Am I right, Patrick? He wore these gloves because he likes the way he looks in these gloves. Yes. Do you think you might have gone further in American Idol if you wore gloves that didn't have hairs and rips? I thought about it. Yeah, I thought about it. He actually, Patrick, likes the rips in the glove. Like, he is doing a thing and there is no blizzard that will stop him from doing his thing. That's what I take from that. Okay. So, and I'm not done. Keep the video up. Let's talk about what else is going on in this video. Okay. You're wearing a hoodie, which looks like a standard hoodie. Not special. It's covered in snow. I'll give you that. Yeah. And then let's see what we've got under the hoodie. We've got like a corduroy shirt, I would say, and a relatively thin black jacket. Okay, so you go hoodie, shack it, or hoodie shirt shacket? Is that what we're looking at? hoodie, shacket, jacket.

H hoodie. And the jacket is thin. It's very thin. I have an explanation, though. No, you don't. This also was not for function. This was for style. Why am I? You don't have a parka?

You don't have a winter coat? I couldn't find it. You don't have something to keep you warm in the snow. You couldn't find it, but you could find the old guitar gloves. Yes. Yes. My wife moves to. around. I don't know where things are anymore. This is nonsense, folks. This is why I am your national media broadcaster

with amazing ratings, Will. Your ratings are amazing. Because you're not going to get anything past to me. And I see layers. I'm going deeper than the obvious. And I see I am leading the people to the truth that you, no matter what the conditions, including a blizzard, are dedicated to

grunge rock band style even at your own discomfort no it's not true I can't go along with this one is it's not true it was a it was a mad dash to the train this morning my mind was disheveled my body was

disheveled but I'm made it through the tundra and I'm essentially the same as someone don't have to apologize I'm essentially the same person I'm the same person that basically climbed Everest so I mean that's about it You don't have to apologize, Dan.

Will's the same person who just crapped all over me, who's probably the biggest hockey fan here. I mean, like, you don't have to apologize for anything. You are who you are. Just be yourself. Yeah. Oh. Wow. Just dig it in.

Listen to Mr. Lefty. Listen to Mr. Lefty over here. I got a gang. I got a gang of victims coming back at me, which is fine. Bring it. Bring it. By the way, did you guys, we'll return to Snowpocalypse analysis in just one moment. On Friday, I got to interview the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson.

And I was really pleased about this. I met Besson in Iowa when I interviewed President Donald Trump. And we connected at that time and been working and hoping to get together. And he was in Dallas last Friday. We had a rodeo of a day because of the tariff decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, which rescheduled our interview from a pre-tape at 1030 at the beautiful old Parkland. Ultimately, ended up it was live on the Will Kane show in studio on Fox News. We did about 20, 25 minutes together, and the conversation went absolutely everywhere.

I got Besson on the breaking news of the Supreme Court decision on tariffs. We talked about debt and deficit, and can he really tame deficit? He is incredibly articulate on the Trump administration's economic plans. We then talked about that he had worked for George Soros, and he had worked for him for 15 years, and that he had worked for him at two different occasions. And I said, hey, listen, clearly George Soros is somebody that's been important to your career. You're now in the Trump administration and you're around a lot of people like me who have a great amount of skepticism of George Soros. So please tell me what in your mind are we getting wrong

about Soros? And Bessent basically said nothing. He said, I don't know anything about his worldview. We only talked finance. We only talked, you know, trading. We didn't talk about his nonprofits and his work out there in the world. And he said he last time he spoke to Soros was in 2016 when Trump was elected. And in his description, they had a robust conversation. To which I asked him, what is a robust conversation with a guy who's almost gotten a fist fight with Elon Musk and Bill Pulte looked like? And that is your Treasury Secretary. But I saw the media write-ups of the story, and they called it a wide-ranging conversation. Because I also asked the Secretary about his sexuality. I know his sexuality, and some people do, but not a lot of people know. The Secretary of Treasury, Scott Besson, is gay.

I didn't know. That is not notable in any. way, it is certainly not important to his job, except in the context that it is not notable. And that's why I asked him. Because if this were the Biden administration, it literally would be the first line on the resume. And it would be screamed and celebrated. The first, you know, gay Treasury Secretary, I know, Janet Yellen. But their first openly gay Treasury Secretary, you know, what, what do we, how do we throw the parade? That would been the Biden administration. Because I do think, by the way, Besson is the highest holding public office holder openly gay in the history of America. And here is the Trump administration who is described by the left as homophobic, racist, anti-gay, anti-LGB, everything, whatever.

And Bessent is sixth in line for the presidency. Sixth in line for the presidency. And you barely know this fact about Scott Besson. And I find that notable, and I asked him about it, and he was incredibly open the conversation, and he said, it shows that this administration makes decisions based upon merit. And I had the merit to get this job, which everyone who's ever watched this knows is undoubtedly true. Now, I got a lot of pushback online, like you two pushing back on me right now together. I'm so disappointed in Will. Why is this important?

How is this relevant? This is so rude. And all I would say to that is, I make no apologies whatsoever. ever. I follow my curiosity. I follow what I find is interesting. The Treasury Secretary liked the conversation. He knew ahead of time that I was probably going to ask about this. I told him, I want to ask you about your personal life. And he said, cool, let's do that. I didn't blindside him. He wasn't offended. He enjoyed the conversation. And my point in asking these questions was to make the point how irrelevant this has been to the Trump administration. For everybody on the right

that thinks somehow that I was somehow some gotcha journalist and was rude. I don't think you watched the interview. I think you saw some characterization of it where you read something online, but you didn't actually even watch the clip or see the interview. And I make no apologies and never will about asking something that I'm genuinely interested in. My goal is not to be rude. My goal is to have a fascinating conversation about the truth, even when my two producers want to paint themselves as victims of oppression on Will Kane country.

I don't feel oppressed. I feel attacked. Well, you're not done. We are only in the middle rounds. Roll the video one more time because I have another question about your hike through Blizzard 2026. Explain this to me. You say 18 inches of snow. Yeah.

Cars aren't running on the road. Yeah. Why do I see pavement on the sidewalk? Because that's the Avenue of America. Yeah, I'll give you. That's the Avenue of America. I'll see some snow banks piled up on the sides. I'm telling you, man.

There were four foot snow banks. Look at that. I see sidewalk, dude. I see footprints hitting concrete. Because that's the Fox building. I'm starting to wonder if this whole thing is way overblown. It is not. I promise you.

Okay, so, all right, so Fox and News Corp and the owners of that building have been out there shoveling off in front of the building. Is that what that is? There was a whole, like, cat, one of those cat machines out there. So they did a great. job out there. And 6th Avenue. Fifth Avenue wasn't as great. Madison wasn't great. It was really just 6th Avenue looking down. But yeah, I did get the, I did get the clearest area of New York City on video. Were they approved to do that? That's what I was really disappointed in.

Yeah. I was really disappointed in your documentation because this undercuts the idea that you guys are really fighting blizzard conditions. I should have done my town. Cleaned and swept. And you got a sidewalk that looks pretty pristine. And I'm going, where is the 18 inches of snow that you're hiking through. Where is that? On the side streets? What's going on? Yes. It was the streets. That was worse than the avenues.

But it was bad, man. I've got to go back in it later today. Well, I feel for you. I appreciate you coming in. I truly do. You're in the building, and I love that. Let's go back, if we can, to just a few more of these indulgent moments of Team USA Olympic hockey program.

This was, I tweeted, posted on X, this weekend, what ended up going pretty dang viral. But at 9.30 a.m. Central time, my wife had literally no idea that there was a hockey game on TV. And at some point, she said to me in the third, she goes, oh, it's just in the third quarter? I'm like, no, it's in the third period. And this will be the end of the game. 30 minutes later, she was in happy tears and Googling every single fact she could find on Jack Hughes, Quinn Hughes, Luke Hughes, the entire family story.

and of course the story of Johnny Goodrow. And that moment during the celebration was incredible. Best. Several members of the team grabbed Johnny Goodro's jersey, skated around the ring. Johnny Goodroo, NHL player, U.S. Olympic hockey player and his brother, killed. How long ago was it, Mr. Hockey, 10-4-2?

It's been two years. Was it about a year ago? 2014. It's been two years. I think the little boy, wasn't even born yet. Mike. He was still in the womb.

Cycling. Cycling. From what I understand, my wife told me, when my wife told me during her Googling, a car pulled to the left to go around them to give them clearance and an aggressive driver tried to pass on the right and hit the two cyclists killing the Godreau brothers. They skated his jersey around the rink. And then, I believe it was Matthew Kachuk. And I don't know who the second player was.

was go up into the stands and get Goodrose kids and bring them down on the ice and Dylan Marking. And Dylan Markin along with Rurinsky. Yeah. Kachuk was holding the jersey when they came back on the ice. And they held, well, the picture we have in front of us is, is Matthew Kachuk holding one of of Johnny Godroo's kids. He took them off the ice.

But they played together in Calgary for six years. I mean. Yeah. Yeah, it's an incredible moment. It was a really, really awesome moment. This whole thing, the Canada stuff aside, because truthfully, that's the fun part. That's like the picking on little brother part of this entire thing. But the American unity and beautiful celebration and Jack Hughes' awesome interview where he says how proud he is to be an American and how much he loves America. and U.S. hockey, and then to see them celebrate in the locker room, absolutely, unreal. Absolutely. Unreal.

The one of the thing that I promised we talk about today is Gavin Newsom. Let's do it. I'm not going to hold it over tomorrow. This is wild. It's crazy. Do you have this today? I do. Two days?

Yes. Do you have this video? Uh-huh. Okay. All right. Governor Gavin Newsom of California. He is giving a speech. But what?

What is the organization? It is a primarily black audience. I'm not sure what the organization is, but it's a black audience. And Gavin Newsom tries to connect with the audience. Listen to this. I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you. I'm like you. I'm no better than you. You know, I'm a 960 SAT guy. and you know and i'm not trying to offend anyone you know trying to act all there if you got 940 but literally a 960 SAT guy i cannot you you've never seen me read a speech because i cannot read a speech it's maybe the wrong business to be so there is um guys i just saw this post by Chris Rufo. It reads the accusation against Newsom is that he was condescending to black voters,

but from the video, the crowd appears to be heavily, if not mostly white. So it may not have been that it was a black audience, but today he's accused of basically saying, I'm just like you. I scored low on the SAT and I can't read to a black audience. From the beginning, this was literally unbelievable, meaning I could not believe that he would do that to a black audience. And maybe it's because, truthfully, he would not do that and did not do that to a black audience. if that audience is in fact not a black audience. What I found fascinating is a wholly different thing. Because I sat there this morning looking at this being absolutely as charitable as possible

because it's so over the top and absurd that it couldn't be true, I thought, even from Gavin Newsom. But here's what I thought was interesting. Him trying to play the everyman role by talking about his low test scores and inability to read. I just started thinking Gavin is playing by a very traditional play. book. That is a very traditional political playbook. I'm just like you. I'm an every man when nothing about Gavin Newsom, by the way, reads that he is an every man, from the French laundry during COVID to the haircut, to the slick back nature. There's nothing about Gavin Newsom that reads every man. And yet that works. That works in politics. It works so well that I can only

find in my mind one exception. And that one exception is the sitting president of the United States. And this is why he's Michael Jordan. If Donald Trump were on that stage or if Donald Trump were sitting in the old of the office watching that video, you know what his response would be. His response would be, what are you kidding? This guy's an idiot. We don't want a dummy in the White House, and everybody would laugh, and everybody would be on the side of Donald Trump. The traditional playbook has played the everyman because that's how you connect. And Donald Trump throws the playbook out and all of a sudden undercuts Gavin Newsom's offense. That's offense from Gavin Newsom. He's playing offense. I'm an every man. I'm like you. And Donald Trump takes his

offense and turns it in to a negative. And he does it authentically and immediately and instinctually, and he, in my mind, is the only person that could do that. If I did that, we don't want a dummy in the White House. Who would win? And everyone's subconscious. Would Gavin Newsom or me win? Now, I think the answer is Gavin Newsom. I would look like the snob, Alita's saying, oh, we don't want a dummy in the White House.

I don't think JD Vance could pull it off. JD Vance went to Yale. I don't think Marco Rubio could pull it off. I don't think anyone could pull it off. it off. Gavin Newsom is playing by a playbook in an age where you're going up against Michael Jordan and your best shot is actually his offense. He will win it. And I find it fascinating, why? Why can Trump do that? And literally no one else could do it. No one else could say, he's an idiot. We don't want a dummy in the White House. Because he does it a lot. I mean,

if you just continually do something, it's like, well, that's just his thing, you know. I think That's part of it. But when people say he does it a lot, they're suggesting he hurls insults, and we've become, we've become callous to his insults. But it's not. It's not just that it's an insult. It's that it's true. Donald Trump is saying something true. We don't want a dummy in the White House.

We don't. We don't want a dummy in the White House. We all know it. We all think it. It's inside of all of us. But then there's this emotional, subconscious thing that also says, oh, I want somebody like me, right? I want somebody who's an every man. And Donald Trump rejects that emotional lens through which we internalize information.

It goes straight to the truth of the information, which is something we also all agree with. I don't want a dummy in the White House. But he's the only person that can say that real, true thing. Newsom did something wrong. Because usually as a politician you just say, I understand the every man, not I am the every man. You know what I mean? Because there's the difference. Because you don't want someone like you in the White House.

So you want something that you feel comfortable and safe with. So you say, I can understand. That's what Trump does. He says, I understand the worker. I understand the blue collar worker and all that. But he doesn't say I am that necessarily, because that's the separation. Interesting. That's interesting.

Yeah, I don't know. Even if, take Marco Rubio, if Marco Rubio said, we don't want a dummy in the White House. I understand the every man. But that doesn't mean we want somebody that scored a 960 on his SAT in the White House. I still don't know that he would pull that off. I think your analysis is pretty dang good, but I still don't know that that would help him. I don't know if that would help him overcome the emotional reaction people would have that. But Donald Trump does in a way that nobody else does.

He says the thing you think that you feel is wrong to say. And yet you like when he says it. And no one else, people have tried. You expect it. I think Ted Cruz has tried. I think other people have tried. And no one else can do that. Say the obvious truth in a way that totally cuts out our emotional reaction to the truth.

Yeah. I mean, it's insane that Gavin Newsom said that anyways. I watched it. I was like, dude, what are you doing? It's crazy. Right. It's crazy. It's unbelievable.

All right. Let us end, though, on the positive note of USA, USA, USA. USA. USA. Yeah. Sorry, Canada. That's going to do it for us today here on Will Cain Country. We'll see you again tomorrow.

Same time, same place. Please follow us on Spotify or Apple. We'll see you again next time. Listen to 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.