Will Cain Country - Refugees, Terror And The West: Is America At Risk? (ft. Glenn Greenwald)  

Episode Date: May 1, 2025

Story #1: As more refugees enter the U.S., are we at risk of facing increased terrorism and violence like in European countries? Will empathy lead to the suicide of the West? Story #2: The Host of 'System Update,' Glenn Greenwald joins Will to discuss the ousting of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his staff as the first casualties of the second Trump Administration. Plus, is America’s new mineral rights deal with Ukraine a step toward peace or a slippery slope to more war? Story #3: Will and The Crew dive into the wildest sports stories of the week as the Lakers are bounced from the playoffs after going all in with Luka Dončić, Pacers' PG Tyrese Haliburton's dad goes face to face with NBA superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo, and more tension bubbles up from Bill Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson.  Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, give us your tired, give us your poor, give us your huddled masses. It's an invitation to the world from the United States of America. Is it an invitation to the suicide of the West? Is it an invitation to terrorism? Is it suicidal empathy? Two, Mike Walts, the first to be fired from the Trump administration, National Security Advisor, out today. We break it down with the host of System Update, Glenn Greenwald. Three, Janice Ante Cumpo goes face to face with Tyrese Halliburton's dad.

The Lakers go down and more on Bill Belichick with our top sports stories of the week. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand wherever you get your audio entertainment, Spotify, or on Apple. It's always every Monday through Thursday, 12 o'clock by coming a member of the Wallitia. What's up, fellas? Two days, Dan. Ten faux pat. Right as I was coming on.

air well I was that yeah yeah it's happened yeah it's not our panic right as I'm coming on air I swipe the controller that that controls my background yeah and I can't find the image that we normally use so it's just like panic grab this image which iteration is that of the graphic design I mean there was so many different iterations of what would become the Will Kane show studios for television this is just one of them. Here's another. I'll just randomly swipe. Yeah. Boom. Here's another one. Beautiful. There we go. Gorgeous. I want to go there. Just, just America, baby. Maybe it's,

maybe it's poetic in that, starting on Monday. Brand new studio for the Will Kane show on television. Yeah, let's go. It's so cool. It's about to open. I'm so excited about it. It's going to have some bugs and some kinks, I'm sure. We're going to have to work through it, but it's going to be cool. This studio will most likely remain the same. I'll continue to do the digital Wilcane show from these studios today. But it'll be all a different look come Monday. I mean, I can move around, I can walk, I can interact, I can have guests in studio. What are you going to do with your hands? Yeah, everybody knows. Who knows what I'm going to do with my hands? Hold them up like Ricky Bobby. I don't know. I don't know. But set your DVR. Tune in on

Monday, unless we get some huge technical problem, we have to push it off. I probably shouldn't promote it. But on Monday, that will be the launch of the Will Cain Show Studios in Dallas. News today out of the Trump administration, Jackie Heinrich, tweets this morning, posts on X. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is out, along with his deputy, Alex Wong. additional names likely to come expect to hear from POTUS on this soon I'm told this is big this is a big firing from President Donald Trump Mike waltz who's been a friend of this program who I know has been sort of a central figure in the first in the run-up to putting together the cabinet

and then in the cabinet as recently as yesterday in the televised cabinet meeting you heard from National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. This morning, he was on Fox and Friends, but by roughly 10 a.m., he's out of the Trump administration. Why? Well, we're going to try to get into that a little bit with the host of System Update on Rumble, Pulitzer Prize award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald.

But let's get to it today with story number one. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. That's what's been an invitation to the world from the United States of America. But increasingly, it looks like it could be an invitation for suicidal empathy. Two headlines. This week, news out of Germany that one out of eight Afghan refugees taken in by that country were not properly vetted before achieving refugee status in Germany. Headline from 2021 here at home in the United States. Roughly 53,000 Afghans were brought to eight different bases across the U.S. after being rescued from Kabul.

More than 700 Afghan refugees currently United States have left the military bases. They've been evacuated without intent to return. The number of independent departures or refugees leaving to start a new life is more than 300 at Flores, Texas alone. let's put exactly what into context what's happening in germany and see if it doesn't give us a little bit of a warning here at home in the united states in 2023 germany took in 350 000 asylum seekers that's a 51 percent spike from the year before where they coming from Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan. In addition, over a million Ukrainians are now at home in Germany. In total, over 3 million asylum seekers and refugees in Germany, that for a country with a

population of 83 million. This all began under Angela Merkel in 2015, who established a policy essentially of open borders. Humanitarian empathy. It's been a core component of much of the modern West, including the United States as given voice by then-president Ronald Reagan. But it has come with a price, and that price has been obvious in Germany over the last couple of years. Here's a few incidences. In August of last year, in Solingen, a Syrian refugee stabbed three people to death at a festival. In May 2024 in Mannheim, an Afghan asylum seeker murders a German police officer.

It was past February. A tourist was stabbed in Berlin at the Holocaust Memorial. The attacker was a teenage Syrian refugees shouting anti-Semitic slogans. This isn't a problem exclusive to Germany. In Vienna, Austria, ISIS-linked suspects planned an attack at a Taylor Swift concert. In Moscow, 145 were killed at Crocus Hall.

In London and Leeds, there has also been violence with ties to terror. This open borders humanitarian empathy has had a real cost not just on the security of the West, but as given voice by Vice President J.D. Vance on the culture, the principles, the foundation of Western civilization. This is not a problem we should think about as exclusively European. We talked about it at the time after America's evacuation from Afghanistan. We took in 125,000 refugees as the highest number in decade. They came from Congo, Burma, Syria, and of course, Afghanistan. Now also Ukraine and Venezuela.

76,000 Afghans in 2021. 270,000 Ukrainians. In theory, there is a very strong. vetting process. It involves DHS, FBI, biometric data interviews. It's supposed to take up to two years. But in practice, that's not how it works. We're short-staffed, we're overwhelmed. We fast-track people for humanitarian parole. You add to this, the number of terror watch list flagged individuals coming over the southern border illegally, and you have the recipe for something very dangerous here at home.

With the news in 2021 that many of these Afghan refugees were simply walking off of military bases independently, you start to wonder exactly what we've put into place here in America, and again, not just in terms of our security, but also in terms of what it means for our culture, for our principles, for the ideals of Western. civilization. We can't simply be someone who has an open heart and open borders. We can't simply be someone that says, give us your tire, your poor, and your huddled masses. Immigration was never unfettered. Refugee status was never in mass. It was always about assimilation and integration. It was always about who adopts willingly and wantingly Western values. This has been a story

riding under the surface here in America for several years. It was talked about at the time. What are we doing? Bringing in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, even if they need it, even if, yes, they're fleeing persecution and war-torn countries. That doesn't necessarily mean they're fit to be Americans. We want to have big hearts, but we want to have a strong country. Germany serves as a warning signal, a warning sign, as they increasingly live. under the fear of terror and obviously

as they start to divorce themselves from the principles of, for example, free speech, lose the defense of their own civilization. We have to learn from Germany. We have to learn from what's happening across Europe. We have to be vigilant of what's happening here in America. This story can't simply wash away

under the surface. I don't think it is. see some of the implications on college campuses across the United States. We've got to ask harder questions at the time. It can't be grandstanding and emotion. It's got to be harder questions. We look at who it is. That's going to be an American. We'll be bringing back in two a days, Dan and tinfoil pat. Yesterday, by the way, I had a big debate on the Will Kane show with Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman. I've had a couple of these. I had James Carville the other day. and Dan Goldman yesterday.

I find fellows that I get in a very interesting response when I have these conversations. I would say 70% of the response is positive. I would say people love it. They love to see the debate. They love to see different points of view. But then there's another 20, 30% that hate it, that don't want me platforming these individuals

and I think I give a weak response. I don't slap them around enough. I'm not aggressive enough. I want to share with you some of that feedback really quickly. I kind of collected some because I think it serves as a pretty good... You read so much feedback. Illustration. What's that?

You read so much feedback. I love it. Well, and I try to be very deliberate about... Man of the people. Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to get it to work here on my... there we go in my studio here's gin in texas that's the first time i've watched will show and that was

fire that you actually have to interview with dan goldman here's another one another five minutes on your show with a liberal democrat spilling lies you're worse than cavuto here's maggie grace will mop the floor with congressman dan goldman here's daren bentley absolutely love that you're able to interview all these democrats it's very insightful He goes on to say he drives for Uber, and he's had a lot of maturation and conversion and hearing both points of view over the last several years. Alex Miller, you are a clown. I'm done with you sucking up to commies.

You won't be on long. Night John says, I tried to give you a chance several times, but I can't watch anymore after you had that New York dim embarrassing you. Adios forever. Patrick Murphy, you are one far left lying Trump hating liberal lunatic guest away from losing a viewer. One is no big deal, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Don't blow it. Maybe I grabbed too many negative ones. Gravely says, I think you look like an idiot on your new show. You invite the opposition. They make you look like an idiot. If you can't do better,

then don't empower the enemy. Here's one. Will gets a gold medal the way he's handled Hakeem Jeffries and Dan Goldman. Dishonest attacks on Trump's competency. He is really coming into his own, talking about me. There were way more. positive ones that enjoyed the debate. Go ahead, tinfoil. You said it's like 70, 80% positive. That's not what I'm getting from this small sample size. It's a loud minority.

Well, that's the human nature of collecting most of the negativity. I collected the negativity as much as the positive. There was a lot of great feedback as well. Here's what I'm going to say to this. Just having fun with it as well. But this is who we're going to be. And if that disappoints you, I'm sorry. I am going to invite voices on who have different points.

points of view than me, who are often diametrically opposed to me, that in many cases will say things that I abhorre. I think it's ridiculous beyond the pale that Congressman Dan Goldman suggests that Donald Trump is incompetent and he doesn't know he's just spitballing here whether or not it's appropriate to invoke the 25th Amendment. After years of gaslighting the American public about the competency of Joe Biden, they have the nerve now to draw that out about Donald Trump. I find it abhorrent. And I told him so to his face. Now I will do so in a polite and substantive manner. I don't see the value in a slap fight.

I don't. For those that think I'm not strong enough because I just don't cut them off and yell at them, look, man, that doesn't do anything. That's not, it certainly provides no light, and I think it provides weak heat. I've done first take for a long time.

I know what an entertaining debate is. I know what an enlightening debate is. And we're going to have this on the Wilcane show. Not all the time, not every day, certainly not every segment, you know. but I think we live in our echo chamber bubbles too much and I think there is value in hearing the other point of view even if it gets stuck at times on something yesterday as ridiculous as the competency of Donald Trump. So I think it's fun. I think it's valuable and at times it

will be contentious. At times it will be enlightening. We're going to have Glenn Greenwald on in just a minute. Glenn and I don't agree on everything. That's the point, okay, to have these conversations and we're going to be doing that on the will cane show go ahead two days no i appreciate it too you know i'm of a little bit different viewpoint of you guys maybe sometimes and i appreciate the debate and having an actual debate and not just stepping on toes even the the brooklyn brunch crew watches the will cane show at 4 p.m. once in a while and uh so and they like that that's bad don't don't that's not the core audience is like oh good you're curring the favor and viewership of the Brooklyn brunch crew no no no they do it out of you know so they know they disagree with you

essentially but the debate is good and interesting and so it's it's appreciated well we're gonna keep doing it and I hope you keep watching the Will Kane show so coming up is the host of system update Glenn Greenwald I think he's gonna have some fascinating insight on what just happened here with the firing of Michael Waltz as national security advisor by Donald Trump that's next on the Will Kane show This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests.

Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. 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 Fox Truecrime.com.

Congressman Kevin Hearn posts on X, an absolute masterclass from Will Kane. Bravo. Words matter, truth matters. Buzz Patterson of Red State said Wilcane just eviscerated Dan Goldman on Fox. Luke Lancia says, great job putting Dan Goldman in his place earlier. way to stay cool in spite of the absurdity. Also, the raging Cajun was in over his skis yesterday, talking way too much, not listening enough to you, huge fan. But then Carmen Thompson, who's a big fan and faithful fan of the Will Kane show, says,

I don't watch these segments. I love debates with two sides, but this wasn't that. People that were okay with Biden but believe Trump is incompetent, deserve zero platform. It's a bad look for the show. So there you go, tinfoil pat. It's not all negative. There was a lot of positivity, too, here on the Will Kane show. streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube and the Fox News Facebook page.

Hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. Glenn Greenwald is the host of System Update on Rumble. He's also a Pulitzer Prize award-winning journalist, and he joins us now. What's up, Glenn? How are you? Well, I didn't know that you had gone out at it with Dan Goldman, one of my least favorite members of Congress. I'm definitely going to have to write when we're done go and watch that.

That was yesterday. You know, Glenn, you are very adept and exceive. experienced a debate. Here's what's funny. Going into that prep, I'm going to tell on him, my producer was like, just please go get Dan Goldman. Please get him. And I get it. Like, he is one of the more contemptible members of Congress and the things that he've said. But I'm like, yeah, man, but I need to have an issue. It's not just about being mean to somebody. Like, what are we going to talk about? Unfortunately for the congressman, he introduced an issue that I didn't expect or anticipate right away by suggesting that Trump is incompetent and maybe we should consider the 25th

Amendment. I'm like, after four years of Biden, because you don't like Trump's policies, you decide it's worthy of the 25th Amendment? Yeah, I mean, well, he was also, as you probably know, one of the top prosecutors on the Mueller team, and still to this day, strongly believes in the debunked Russiagate narrative. But yeah, that is quite bizarre, because whatever else you want to say about Trump and I have my own criticism with him for sure, I think it's quite amazing how pretty much every day he invites the media into the Oval Office, goes and does every interview that he gets asked to do, like really probably one of the most open presidents we've seen in decades in terms of willingness to answer any question. And whatever else you want to say about him, he certainly

is an incognitive decline or slowed down or severely impaired the way Biden was. So to suggest the 25th Amendment for Trump, but not Biden just shows extreme intellectual dishonesty. Yeah. Let's stay on Trump. So this is breaking this morning. So Trump has fired NSA, National Security Advisor. That's always a hard one because you use the acronym and then you want to give them a title, but the title's in the acronym. So if you say NSA, you go straight to Waltz, I don't know. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has been fired. Along with some of his deputies, Alex Wong, I've been told, Glenn, that there's probably going to be more from that department who are going to go as well. I wanted to get your reaction to this. I mean, politically, which is probably the least interesting part of this, it's a kind of a big move to begin 101 days in to do away with one of your top guys. And there's no doubt, Walt's had a center seat at the table. Yeah, you know, sometimes this kind of palace intrigue and infighting is difficult to decipher, even if you're speaking with people inside the royal court to try and find out what happened. But what I think we know for certain,

is the Signalgate scandal, which, you know, Trump tried to dismiss and say that he wasn't angry about. I think always the part that was going to make Trump angry was the likelihood that Mike Walts had Jeffrey Goldberg's number saved in his phone and obviously had a history of speaking with him, which Goldberg strongly implied was the case. And I think was a much more likely explanation for what happened there. It wasn't that he made a mistake. It was that he was communicating with one of Trump's worst, most devoted media enemies. But the other part of it is there is clearly something going on. Pete Hegseth has lost a lot of his guys, the kind of people he's been with for many years that were the top people in the defense department. But the

issue with Mike Walt has always been that Trump came in to the presidency this time vowing to cleanse and purge the Republican Party of its neoconservative influence, you know, sort of that, like it was the Steve Bannon ethos. That has been a major theme. And then he ended up appointing to keep position several people who are aligned with what you might call the neoconservative or Lerz-Cheney political ideology. And Mike Waltz, far and away, is the most aligned with them, constantly pushing for war to time when Trump is trying to avoid war with Iran and secure a nuclear deal. So although we don't know exactly what motivated Trump here, I think at the very least what I can say is for me, I think it's a very good outcome from a policy and ideological perspective to remove somebody who is just one of those standard war mongers. Shears every war, wants war, threatens war, pursues war at a really delicate time when the United States is facing the potential of a massive major war in the Middle East.

Okay, I want to take that in both parts. Let's set aside the ideological thing. We'll come back to it in a minute. Let's start with the first thing you laid out, which is the leak. And I have some questions, but it just occurred to me when you were talking. Don't you find it fascinating, then, Glenn, that Trump gives that interview at 100 days to Jeffrey Goldberg? Like, I buy, I think you're right. I think he's mad at that possibility that Mike Waltz was talking to Jeffrey Goldberg.

But is the takeaway Trump's allowed to on the record, but you guys aren't allowed to off the record? Is that kind of, I just think it's so interesting Trump. chose Goldberg to give an interview to. I don't want to psychoanalyze Trump, but I've, you know, been somebody who's watched him for decades. I lived in Manhattan for when he was, you know, sort of the real estate baron and tabloid star. So I've been watching Trump for a long time and well before he entered politics. And there's always been this really interesting dynamic that on the one hand, he kind

of has this outsider's resentment of elites very similar to like how Richard Nixon really disliked East and West Coast elites because he felt they looked down upon him. Trump, you know, began as not a Manhattan real estate developer, but as kind of a, you know, his father was a major developer of real estate in like Queens and Staten Island and Brooklyn. And he never felt like he was really accepted by Manhattan elites, but wanted their acceptance at the same time that he was hating them. I think that in a lot of ways is a relationship with the media. He knows Jeffrey Goldberg is a scumbach. He knows he's a serial liar. Jeffrey Goldberg has invented some of the worst stories about Trump over the last nine years. The Atlantic became ground zero for Russia

Gate, among many other things. You know, Trump's saying losers and and suckers join the military and then he loves Hitler and fascism. But I think there is a difference in Trump's mind. Trump will give interviews to media figures that he dislikes, probably because he may want to get them to like him, maybe because he likes that challenge, that kind of conflict. But I do think there's a huge difference, as you said, between openly doing an interview. with a journalist and, like, secretly leaking to them in a way that suggests you have some kind of, like, friendly back channel that is very threatening to presidents, not to be able to trust the people who are supposed to be the most trustworthy. Right. I want to go to the

ideological thing in a second, but there is this undercurrent of stories on this leaking thing, right? That seems to be what is going on, I think, at the Pentagon, when you talk about some of those trust the divisors to Hegset, being dismissed. It seems to revolve around who is or is not leaking. This, I think, has something to do with that as well, if not Waltz. It could be Waltz, as we talked about, but maybe people that also work for Waltz. The funny thing about it, Glenn, and I think you're better at seeing the back channel of stories than I am. It doesn't feel like there's a ton of, like, I don't know, malignant leaks coming out of the Trump administration, but they are behaving a little bit as though there are.

Like, they are firing people going after any suspicion of leaking. And right now, during the first administration, yeah, I could have seen it. Like, whatever was feeding the Russia stuff and so forth. This time, I don't get the sense that if there are leaks, they're doing much damage, but they are full on pursuing anything they anticipate to be a leaker. Yeah, there's a lot of truth in that what you said that I agree with. that there's a huge difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0. Trump 1.0 was a mess. Like they really didn't know what they were doing. They were new to Washington. They were easily vulnerable to sabotage.

They often were undercut and subverted by the people who were supposed to be working for them. They had a very strong, clear plan to make sure that there was no such disloyalty through leaking that the kind of North Star of being about a rise in the Trump administration is loyalty to Trump. So I do agree that they seem to be very obsessed with the prospect of leaks, although I don't know what they're angry about particularly. Like I think the most damage of Trump hasn't come from leaks. And in the case of the three guys at the Pentagon who were fired led by Dan Caldwell, it's almost 100% clear that they actually didn't link. They were told they were going to be given polygraphs. They never were given one. And there is an ideological component to that as well, which we can get to, namely that those guys are the sort of from the like Rand Paul, Ron Paul, more like,

anti-war anti-interventionist camp that I think might have been what what got them targeted as well but I don't believe it's only about leagues I kind of think lakes might be the pretext for being able to take out people that you want to take out for other reasons okay that that leads us to the ideological thing for a minute okay this is my perception of the administration so your characterization of waltz I think is pretty accurate although and I know him little bit. I think that he had either begun to change or was straddling a line or, or you could argue just giving lip service to an America first. The word would be non-interventionist sort of point of view. It wouldn't be isolationist. It would be, we're not getting involved unless you

can make a very strong case for why it serves American interest. So it was, although you would have placed waltz on the more neoconservative end of the spectrum within the trump administration he wasn't john bolton you know he's not at least not publicly he's not that um and by the way i would say the same thing about the defense department now i also thought that they had sort of created this team of rivals though of people that were non-interventionist to the end of the spectrum of isolationist while also having a mike walt's voice in the room so i'd be a little surprised at 101 days in, all of a sudden they're like, no, we're purging anyone who disagrees or pushes us in a certain direction. And even by your own characterization, well, that would be, okay, on one

end, Waltz is out. He's more interventionist. On the other end, these three guys at the Pentagon are out, they're non-interventionist. So I don't see an ideological cohesion to all of this purging within the administration. Yeah, I think it's a very good point. I guess I would say a couple of things, though. One is that it absolutely is the case, and there were many articles about this, how a lot of these people who were vying for high positions in the Trump administration did start overtly modifying, if not outright, changing their long-held views that in order to align with Trump's America First worldview, because, of course, you can't openly dissent from Trump's core beliefs and hope to get appointed, because

as I said, I think the number one criterion for the reasons I said earlier for giving people high positions in the Trump administration is, are you loyal to Donald Trump? Like, you can disagree with him in private, you can offer your advice. But at the end of the day, are you going to be loyal to what his decisions are? And I also agree, and this is what I was always saying in the transition when people were freaking out, like, oh, he's hiring. He picked Marco Rubio with like a warmonger and Mike Wall. I was always saying, like, I think the idea of Trump is, I can have anyone around me that I want. And I'm perfectly happy to hear other views because I know at the end of the day, I'm the one who makes the decisions. And the fact that Mike Walts wants to go to war doesn't mean that I want to go to war. And we've seen that, you know, very Trump has that like boss mentality. Like I'm the boss. That was what the apprentice was. And I think that is really how Trump thinks. So I wasn't worried about that either. That said, I do think it's a little, I don't know, naive. I don't want to use such a strong word. But to think that in Washington, people get sniped by this, you know, kind of back channel, leaking.

smearing, infighting, without there being some ideological component to it. So I'm not saying Trump woke up and said, oh, my God, I don't want a national skit advisor who's a neocon and a warmonger. I think that you're seeing, though, these different camps undercutting and undermining each other. And I do think Trump was bothered by Signalgate from the start. He hates that kind of sloppiness, that stuff that makes people look bad. He didn't want to give Mike Waltz to the wolves.

But if you want to argue that it's primarily due to stuff the. residue of signal gate and how it eroded Trump's confidence in Mike Walt, I would absolutely accept that. I'm just not ready to say there's no ideological component to it. Okay, I think this is an issue that you would want to talk about and I want to talk about today. And it is Iran. So I also look at this and think, what are the two camps fighting over right now? Like, if there is a non-interventionist camp and a more interventionist wing who are sort of battling each other behind the scenes through leaks and through influence. What is it over, Glenn? And I think that the answer could be, you know, how much you emboldened Israel, push Israel, or hold back Israel on what they might

want to do in Gaza, but also how bombastic and muscular to be towards Iran. Are those the two issues you think that divide the foreign policy view if there is a divide within the administration? Well, I think there's basically, by the way, maybe Ukraine as well. Right. I think, and this is one of the best examples for how people are adapting their views to get into the good graces of Trump is Marco Rubio, the way he speaks about Ukraine now, and the way it's not in America's interest to fund it, how we have to end the war is completely different than what he had been saying for the two years, first two years of the war, which is we have to support Ukraine. We have to defeat Russia no matter of the cost. So I think Trump really does want an end to that war. Does not think the U.S. should be financing it. And he would have to have a secretary of state, at least willing to to accept that view, even if they didn't completely share it. But I think with Iran, and I think most people in the Trump administration hold that view, even though there's some probably pro-Ukraine sentiment still, but by and large, I think they want to end that war. I think the question with Iran is different, though, because if Israel were to attack,

there's no possibility that the United States military wouldn't be dragged in. There's no such thing as a unilateral Israeli attack that doesn't involve our troops in some capacity. I mean, we already, you know, deployed the military when Iran shot ballistic missiles at Israel and retaliation for Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus. So we've been active already in defense of Israel, and that is our foreign policy posture if someone attacks Israel, we get involved. And the other thing is, even if we didn't get involved, the retaliation of the Iranians, which, you know, is a very capable military.

We're not talking about a joke here. This is not even Iraq. This is three times larger than Iraq, a much more sophisticated military, is they can do retaliation against American troops and American interest in the region. They can blow up our oil rigs. They have previously, or Iran-linked groups, have killed American service members at bases in Jordan and places in Iraq and Syria where Americans are in small numbers, not very well protected. It would absolutely put, you know, it has a huge escalatory risk the minute you get involved in any way in there. And if you listen to what Trump has been saying since his first

president, today's first term, he wants his legacy to be that. he avoided wars, that he was a peacemaker. He boasts about the fact, and I think validly so that he was the first president in decades not to involve the United States in a new war in his first administration. And I think all other things being equal, he very much understands the dangers that it would pose to United States and to his presidency if the United States suddenly got involved in a brand new Middle East war with basically outside of Israel, its most powerful country. And do you think that's the biggest debate internally, how much to essentially back and unleash Israel against Iran? Well, I think the question is, I think what Trump wants more than anything is an agreement with Iran that has to be stronger than the Obama deal, the Iran deal that Obama worked on with the Europeans and the Russians to get Iran to sign because Trump has always said that agreement was too weak.

He nullified and withdrew from that agreement. That's what led to the inspectors going away. So you can't just replicate that deal. You have to get a better deal, a much more stringent deal to justify. Oh, look, our deal is much stronger? The question is, is there a way to get Iran to make way more concessions than they made the first time because they don't want to give up and will not give up their nuclear energy program, like their nuclear reactors?

They're not going to give that up under any circumstances. They made that very clear. But the question that becomes, how many concessions are they willing to make and how much is Trump willing to accept? But you have the Israelis on this side as well who don't want a deal. they want to be able to attack Iran. They want to remove the regime in Iran. And so you have to kind of satisfy the Israelis as well. And what the Israelis are saying is basically, unless Iran basically humiliates itself does what they're calling the Gaddafi deal, where you give up all your weapons, all your nuclear arms and the hope that you'll be integrated. And then 10 years later,

you know, the U.S. and France and NATO and the UK go and bomb your country and you end up, you know, being raped to death on the street. It doesn't seem like that's a very good model to encourage a country to want to follow. Yeah, I'd like to be like Gaddafi and I'll do what he did. Didn't work out well for him. And it's like there's rallies are trying to set up this framework where the deal will fail because they want a U.S. attack on Iran. They have wanted that for many years. But I think Trump really does want to avoid that. But he needs an agreement that he can credibly argue is much stronger than the Obama deal that he withdrew from. And to put a button on this, you think there are voices within the administration. I don't know what Mike Walts is

particular point of view was on it, but who won the Qaddafi deal for Iran and or, if not the Qaddafi deal, go ahead, bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran. Yeah, I mean, there are apps, I mean, from all the reporting, but also from things I've been hearing as well, there are kind of two camps. And Pete Hegsteth is in the camp of greater resistance to a war with Iran. You have other voices that are similarly resistant like Tulsi Gabbard and some of his advisors. and outside voices like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, who Trump really cares about. And then you have this camp that seems to almost want to war with Iran.

They've long wanted one. And then Mike Walt was in that camp. Mark Rubio is in that camp. Several other people are in that camp, like Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham, who say it openly. Like, we can't trust Iran. We can't do a deal with Iran. We need to take up their nuclear facilities now. So you definitely have these two camps.

And there are people in both camps that Trump respects and listens to. More of the Will Kane show right after this. 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. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy podcast.

I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Welcome back to the. Will Kane Show. All right, I want to ask you a question about Ukraine. I've kind of been struggling with this. So we're told we're on the verge of a minerals deal with Ukraine, right? And that's always been sold as this big marker. Like once we get this minerals deal, that changes the potential for peace in Ukraine. Now, I like the idea of a minerals deal in the America First

worldview. I don't mind. You and I might disagree with that, but I don't mind the United States looking out for the United States and going ahead and taking a rocky oil. Fine. If we If we win the war, we take the oil. You've got to preserve domestic stability and help out the population and that sort of thing. But a payback for what we've invested in Ukraine, great on the minerals deal. But I don't see, Glenn, how a minerals deal advances the United States into a position that avoids war. In fact, I see it as the opposite, right? So what is the point?

We're going to have greater interest in Ukraine. We're going to have American interest on the front lines. And somehow that'll keep Vladimir Putin from continuing to process. his war, I don't see how that works. In fact, it seems to me like an invitation to put us out there on the front lines and tempt him into something that draws us in. The Minerals deal, my point is the Minerals deal has its own virtues, but one of them isn't, for me, it de-escalates the war. I don't see how it de-escalates a potential U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine. Yeah, I totally agree with almost everything you said. I mean, I would not be in favor of like

starting a war and invading a country to steal their research. resources, just that's like imperialism that creates a, you know, very bad precedent for the war. But in the case of Ukraine, from an American first perspective, it certainly makes a lot more sense to tell them we want to be able to extract and monetize your minerals, given how much aid and support we've been giving you and how much you want us to give you in the future. Like between giving that aid, just because of some abstract, you know, fairy tale that we protect democracy and defend democracy and we fight authoritarianism in the world, which is not what we do and just get nothing for it other than this like feel good satisfaction or even

trying to weaken Russia or getting real value from Ukraine's minerals from an America first perspective. Clearly the Trump's plan is preferable. The problem is exactly what you just said, which is the way Trump is selling this, you know, minerals deal to Ukraine and to the public is look, you want NATO membership. You want a security guarantee from the United States. We're not going to give you NATO membership because we don't want to have to go to war. to protect your country. But if you give us these mineral rights, we are automatically invested in the security of your country. We will have a stake in your country that will make us, what military assets there will make us protect what we have now gained from attacks, including by the Russians.

And I thought the whole point of like the Magavu of Ukraine was we should be out of that region. We have nothing invested there. Like we don't want to go to war with Russia. We don't want to risk war with Russia. Right. So the answer is don't invest. Yeah, like don't, well, I mean, or you can, like, invest, but at the same time, not say, like, that means because we've invested that we're going to have a military interest in defending your country. Like, why not just put them in NATO then if that's the plan? exactly like i get okay why do we fight this war we don't have any upside it's not we have no investment but to me that's a continued argument not to get involved not to then invest so that we do get involved i mean i i i don't it seems to walk us closer to war

yeah i mean again like the the way trump is is pitching this is that once we have these mineral rights we will have a strong interest ourselves right now we don't have a strong national interest in keeping Russia out of Ukraine. Once we have a minerals rights deal, we will have a strong interest in protecting your country from any attackers, including Russia. And that's what concerns me. Like, do we really want to now turn Ukraine into yet another country that were duty-bound or treaty-bound or just bound by our interest to defend and protect with our own money and our own military and risking war to do it? That seems to be the opposite of the direction that I thought we were trying to go in. Right.

Okay, in the time that we have together, I want to do two more things with you. Unfortunately, one of them's kind of deeper and one of them's not. On the deeper side, you know I've never explored this together. I talked about this at the outset of my show today, sort of this story that came out that one and eight Afghan refugees in Germany haven't been properly vetted. We do see terror attacks across Germany in very recent vintage and recent history. You know, I've kept up with you dating back to when you and I probably had a lot more disagreements. And we still do.

I don't mean to wave my hand at that. I'm sure. But do you see this as a real problem as well? I do have great concerns about the foundation of Western civilization. I think Western civilization is one of the greatest things to ever, you know, happen in the history of humanity, the preservation of it. We're not talking about spreading it. I agree with you. Like, I don't want to go to war to spread our values, right? I think, but the countries that do share our values and us at home, they're worthy of defense all the way to the end. And I love how J.D. Vance gives voice to that. And I see what's happening in Germany and across Europe. And I see, you know, whether or not it's out of

empathy and humanity to take in refugees or it's more nefarious. And then it's much smaller degree, but it exists here in the United States as well. We brought in hundreds of thousands after Kabul fell in 2021. I think it's dangerous to take people in that don't share the fundamental values of Western civilization, even under the status of refugees. I've never heard you talk about this and heard what you think. Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I'm absolutely a defender of Western civilization. I think it has contributed immense amount of good on pretty much every level, you know, intellectually, religiously, culturally, just, you know, politically. And so I absolutely agree with the importance of preserving Western civilization. I went to Moscow, I think six weeks

ago, and I interviewed Alexander Dugan, who's a very influential figure in Moscow. And that's his view of the world is that there are all these different civilizations. You have Russian civilization, Chinese civilization, Muslim civilization, Western civilization, even indigenous civilizations. And they all have something to offer. They're all worth kind of building on and preserving. And that's why he hates Western liberals because they think theirs is so superior that they should impose that view on the world and eradicate all of these other civilizational differences. And I do agree with that view that we should preserve Western civilization without imposing it on the rest of the world. But the one thing I think about the immigration issue, and look, I totally agree.

I grew up in South Florida, you know, in like the 70s and 80s, and there was this gigantic Cuban community that was there and is still there. And their view was, even though we're in the U.S., we're even getting citizenship, we're not really here permanently. We're always going to go back to Cuba the minute Castro falls. And huge numbers of them never learned English. They stayed in a very insulated society that had. in English, they became big enough. And I always kind of resented, I guess, or or felt, you know, like it was

not good for a society or for a nation to have everybody kind of balkanize that you have to have some shared value beginning with a common language if you want to actually be a nation. I think the immigration issue, though, is a little bit different because major driver of immigration to Europe is the fact that birth rates have fallen so significantly. They're not even at, you know, enough to stabilize, let alone grow. And you have all these jobs that need to be done. And they're just, you know, Europeans are too old. Like, there's just so many old people that need to be supported with their social programs. And there's just not enough people to fill the jobs. And so part of the importation of immigrants from Muslim countries, from Africa, is

self-interest. You know, that and you're seeing a lot of that here in the United States, too. I mean, you know, recently Jasmine Crockett even said, like, look, we're done picking cotton. We need our immigrants to come do these jobs because we're not doing them. And I think there is a strong sense of that. You've had corporations wanting to come in. But of course, if you allow gigantic influxes of people to come to your country, have a different religion, different language, different set of culture values, it's going to create enormous tension. We are very tribalistic as humans. We evolved to be tribalistic. And when you are surrounded by people in your own home who just feel like their attention or even hostile toward your way of life and your view, of course, that's going to create

massive resentment and backlash, and I think you're seeing a lot of that. By the way, you speak Portuguese, right? So you didn't keep yourself balkanized in Brazil. Yeah, you speak Portuguese. But what is Brazil? That's not Western civilization. It's got elements of indigenous civilization. How would you characterize the culture, the civilizational? What is it in Brazil? I think one of the fascinating things is Brazil was colonized for a long time by Portugal. So you have this, and that's why they speak Portuguese, and so you have this extreme European influence in Brazil and its culture, its politics, and its genetics. But then you also have a strong Latin American presence in every part of there

as well because they are in Latin America and South America, right in the middle. They're the largest country on that continent. And then you also have an indigenous population from the Amazon and a lot of the population is just very mixed. So for me, it's really interesting to see how race is treated differently, like you don't really see what would be called interracial couples, even though they would look that way to America. There's kind of this fluency and spectrum of race as opposed to this constant segregation. And it just makes the culture super vibrant. You know, Brazil is a beautiful place, like in terms of its nature. The culture and the population are amazing. They have a ton of problems, but it's a big country filled with potential.

The idea always is, oh, Brazil is always the country of tomorrow. And it never quite sketched. there, but it's a really big and interesting and influential country. The sixth most populist in the world has the Amazon, has huge oil reserves, very important geostrategically. So yeah, it's a fascinating place. I've never been to Brazil, just following up curious really quickly. Is there a huge race divide, like between black Brazilians? You know, in Mexico, you have Weros, you know, who are kind of like the white Mexicans. I don't know the racial strata. And as you mentioned, mentioned inner marriage and cultural fluency or fluidity of all of those races in Brazil. Yeah, I guess one thing that I forgot to mention in, you know, talking about the genetic influences,

the cultural influences is Brazil shipped a huge number of Africans over to become slaves under Portuguese colonization. And there is a big population that are descended from Africa, you know, that you would look at an American to look at and say, oh, that person is black. And there's definitely a socio-economic divide based on that as well. I mean, you know, if you see in a very rich neighborhood, a black person there, you probably will assume that they're there to work. So there is, I don't want to say there's not a lot of racism. There's definitely racial stratification, but because most of the population to some degree is mixed with all of these influences, African, European, Latin American, indigenous, it's at the same time, though there is a

socioeconomic, visible socioeconomic divide, like I said, race is almost more on a, and a spectrum. Like, almost everybody is mixed. And so it creates this reduction of the importance of race and this idea of national unity. Like, hey, we're Brazilians. That's what we are. Like, you're a little lighter skin. You're a little darker skin. You have more African influence. I have more like dot and American influence or European. But there is a stronger sense of kind of of a national cohesion more so than division according to race. Last question, Glenn, I don't know what you consider yourself today. I mean, for a long time, I would have said Democrat or at least person on the left.

When you look at the left today, I had James Carvel on my show earlier this week. And he said, Will, we've got like four or five extremely talented politicians, like 350 hitters in the minor leagues. And we give all this attention to AOC and Bernie. And these guys just need attention. And I'm like, who? And then he wouldn't answer it. Because I'm like, who is this mysterious Babe Ruth in the minor leagues hidden within the Democratic Party? But for you who has a bit of a populist point of view as well,

I'm curious who you see on the left we're talking about the post Donald Trump world because I don't see much promise but it always happens when you don't see much promise but I just don't see much promise

for a charismatic leader that gives voice to issues that matter for people in America anywhere on the left so I largely agree with that but I will say that a lot of the reality of Trump and what makes him so fascinating

is he scrambled these categories to the point they're almost unrecognizable. You know, like it's Trump talking about undermining the power of corporate concentration, even tariffs, which is a very populous policy that had long been popular on the left. The left was defined by their hatred of free trade and NAFTA and all of that. That's why they hit the Clintons. I mean, like the real left, not like James Carville or Nancy Pelosi, but the real left. And then, of course, on foreign policy, same thing.

You know, I'd never imagine in my lifetime I would hear like a conservative Republican. So identified ranting and raving against the evils of like this. CIA and the FBI and the deep state. That had long been standard left-wing, you know, not just ideology, but jargon. So a lot of ways, these Trump has scrambled everything. I do think a big part of politics, and there's no better example that proves this than Trump, is how charismatic you are, like how much you're able to draw people to you, how generate interest in you, especially in this media world. And I think Bernie and AOC have proven over time that they're very good at that. Like they, they, they, the reason people are

pouring into their rallies and wouldn't do that for like Tim Walts or Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer is because they are just more authentic. They have that feel of authenticity, more exciting. I'm not at all saying they're really authentic. I'm just saying that they're good at being perceived that way. The problem, of course, is this perception that they're too far to the left. But if you look at Bernie's 2016 campaign where he almost destroyed the Clinton machine and probably would have absent DNC cheating, even though he was a quote unquote socialist, the people he was attracting were like labor guys and working class people, people who are political independence. Because Bernie can say, I'm not a part of the Democratic Party. I'm not a

Republican Party. I'm independent and just only talk about these class issues in a way that does appeal to a lot of people. His 2020 campaign became more or more conventional as a Democrat and he did far worse. But I do think he has shown that a kind of class-based economics-focused, left-wing populism can succeed in the hands of the right person. I just, don't think AOC is that person and Bernie is too old. AOC is just too tied to this like leftist empty, vapid culture war extremism that really alienates a lot of people and she's taken such extreme stances that it'll be hard for her to run away from them, even harder than it was for Conno Harris. I think you're right on the issue. I mean, I do think that is the opening

post-Trump for someone on the left to champion those issues in that manner, but they do have to divorce themselves from these horrifically unpopular culture war positions that they have. And I don't know who that is. And by the way, they have to be charismatic as well. All right, Glenn Greenwald, system update on Rumble. Make sure you check them out. Always appreciate having you on and the conversation. Thank you, Glenn. Always great to talk to you all. Thank you. All right. Take care. You know, I think you should check out system update with Glenn Greenwald, and you'll see him at 4 o'clock as well.

I just, I love the surprise as well. He talked about it. I'd never imagine. You know, I never imagine having such open and interesting conversations with Glenn, and I really, I love it. All right. It just keeps getting weirder and weirder and weirder for Bill Belichick. That's next on The Will Kane Show. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms.

and have helped raise $6.5 million. Visit go.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. 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.box. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. I guess keeps getting weirder for Bill Belichick and his girlfriend, Jordan Hudson, is the Will Cane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Two a day's Dan, ten-foot-pat. Dan, you wanted to ask me something about our conversation around refugees. What's up? Yeah, I was just curious because you were talking about, you know, the morality of letting refugees in and letting people in the country.

But the dangers of it, you know, people more on the left. think about the morality of it, bringing people into this country. At what point is there a line where it's, you know, we want to help people, but it becomes too much where it's a detriment to us? Well, at a minimum, we can say we have to do a big job vetting them, right? Can't we just say that? Like, it's got to be thorough. And we felt that at the time. Like, when we were taking plane loads of people from Afghanistan into the United States, I mean, if your antennas didn't go up, then I just think you're not a common sense person. Like, you're not, and I think that all too often, that's immediately dismissive into,

that's racist or whatever, jingoistic or cultural superiority, but get real, man. I mean, Germany's having to get real. That's the whole point. Germany's having to get real and ask these questions. You can't just be guided by empathy. You can't just be guided by being nice. Being nice is not a, it's valuable, but it's not a value. if that makes sense.

Do you know what I mean? It's like, it's a behavior being nice. It's not a guiding principle. But it is a guiding principle for a lot of people, and that's all that matters. Like a lot of people I talk to in circles that I'm with, you know, empathy for people in those situations is the only thing.

And we should help them even if it takes away from, you know, our needs or what we should actually be able to. Yeah, but I think that runs you in circles. And I think it's also hollow and fake. And I think it's usually at the cost of someone else meaning as long as you don't have to pay the price and look at everybody's behavior

exactly look at where they choose to live right and then do they invite the homeless man to come live inside their house right they don't right and so you know we can't invite the entirety of the world to live inside our house if they don't share our values don't contribute in a

productive manner in advancing the civilization that we have built then we are it's suicidal that's what that you know gadsad wrote the book suicidal empathy that is a suicidally empathetic approach and i don't think it's productive or worthwhile for the response to always be well then therefore you're racist or therefore you're you know on if you want to say you're culturally you're you have a superiority complex yes you do glen greenwald just said something interesting um when he was talking about when he was in russia and he said

the guy said you know there's russian civilization western civilization chinese civilization Muslim situation, and they each have their own virtues and vices. I actually think that's true. You know, there's no civilization that has a monopoly on virtue, but everyone has a scale. And that's the one, like, you can weigh one's virtues against its vices, its productivity against its laissez-faire approach to life. You know what I mean? Like, people often say, well, like in southern Europe, they live the best life.

Like, where do tourists go? Have you guys ever seen this, by the way? When people say they're going to Europe for vacation, they don't mean Europe. They mean Italy, France, and to a lesser extent, the UK and Spain. And to an even lesser extent, Germany. So we go on vacation to live the good life in countries that have a lot to say for themselves in terms of culture and lifestyle, Greece, Italy. But those aren't the ones, by the way, that drag the EU forward economically.

It's the Germans economy that does drive the European, you know, wheels of commerce. And so everyone has its pros and its cons. You can't act like every civilization is of equal merit and equal value. That's not to say they don't have their values, but you have to take out the scale. And there are things to be said for Japanese culture. Absolutely. You know, I told you guys when I watched Shogun. Yeah, I love that show.

based on the James Clavel book. I think it's an interesting debate over the cultural values pitted against one another of West versus East. But you still have to say, but on the whole, look what Western civilization has created comparatively and any other civilization. And I just don't hear any solutions from people who say that, that we should just let everybody in. There's no solutions. There's nothing besides that we should be helping people. Okay. How? Well, and that lack of solution is what I actually wanted to press Congress.

Goldman Goldman on yesterday before he devolved into the 25th Amendment, which is we're about to have a ton of debate over Medicaid and FEMA, probably not Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans want to cut $880 billion from the budget, and the only way to do so, if we're being real, is to begin to look at some of those entitlements. And it is seemingly focused on Medicaid, right? And it's going to be real easy, and it will probably be, I listened to James Carver, versus David Hogg. They just had a debate, and I just watched it. It was a good debate. And Carvel's subscription, prescription for the Democratic Party is you have to lean in on these messages,

Medicaid and tax cuts for the rich. That's your path back to victory Democrats. And he may be right, because it may have political hay. But it also comes without a solution. I tried to press Golden at the very end. Do you think the deficit is a real problem? And it's abstract. So, I think for the average American, they intellectually understand it's a problem, but I'm not sure they connect the dots on how it actually affects them yet, how it affects inflation, how it affects the economy. And he said, yeah, I do. Well, then if you're opposed to all these cuts, what is your solution?

There's not enough billionaires to tax at what rate to support the rate of our government growth. There's just not. And so they'll try to say, they'll either propose no solution or pretend that you can tax rich people enough to support. I think Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security at this point are 63% of the federal budget. That's 63%. But it does keep a lot of people, older people out of poverty. For now.

Yeah. For now. I mean, I read yesterday, Social Security, for example, is scheduled to be insolvent in 2030. And when it goes insolvent, you'll see a 23% reduction in Social Security checks. That's what will have to happen for it not to go bankrupt. So we better start addressing it. Like ASAP. And I think it's politically unpopular.

I don't think Donald Trump would support it, probably. But you've got to raise the age, like 65 to 67 or 69. And I know a lot of older people, it won't affect older people, by the way. The way the proposals are, they say it's for us, you know, people that have time to prepare. People are working longer. And living longer. It's not the same program that was developed back then. Right.

Like when we live to 75 or 70, you know, At that time, it was kind of to get you through 10 years of retirement. Now we're looking at 20, 30 years of retirement. And we just can't afford that. Go ahead, tinfoil. I believe it has actually been raised to 67 already. Right now? Yeah, the full...

So maybe it's 67 to 69. Yeah. So the full... It just went up like, I want to say in the last 10 years, to 67 from 65. 66 to 67. yeah it was 65 for quite a while right um all right we've got three sports stories we want to get to as well um let's start with this the los angeles lakers out in the first round of the NBA playoffs you love it Luca and lebron out you love it a little bit I don't want anything bad to happen

I don't want anything bad to happen for Luca but I can't watch the lakers go to the western conference finals or even to the second round because it's just it's an alternative world that I live in and what could have been and I it would kill me to see them and I'm not rooting against Luca but I'm kind of rooting against LeBron but I mean it's not a surprise they have no big men they have no defense and the wolves are really good and Anthony Edwards is taking a step forward and I mean he's a top he's a top five player in the NBA right she Gildes Alexander, Anthony Edwards Michael Jordan's son, Yokic

Luca, I don't think he's Jordan's son. I'm just kidding. I've seen that. But the wolves the wolves oust the Lakers in five, right? Yeah, he was in five. Brutal. Do you think, do you think how long did LeBron got? You think he's done?

No. No. I mean, as he wants to be, he's still a great productive NBA player. He's not still LeBron. body, man. How do you last that long? The way he's playing, how fast and hard he's stuff? Whatever he's doing. Everything's working but the hair transplant.

Everything is working. Meanwhile, the bucks have been eliminated from the NBA playoffs by the Indiana Pacers. And this moment happened at the end of the game. Janice Ante Cumpo, after the game-winning buzzer, standing on the court. And Tyrese Halliburton's dad runs onto the court and confront. fronts him this is sort of yon is talking to him now afterwards but haliburton's dad ran in front of him held up a towel with haliburton's face on it and yelled this is what we do this is what we effing do taunting yonnes it was really classless but i want to hear i want you to hear what do you

laugh in that tinfoil do you like it do you like that he loves it yeah so i love it mix it up you're not in the class you're not into class foil not classy you like you like you wanted me to slap dan goldman around just just wow you name checked them slap me out now name checked him yeah it's true um but i like class and so i love janus antacumpo here you go i believe like being humbling victory that's how we i am now this can be a lot of people out there that are like no when you when you win the game you gotta tag you know it's it's a green light for you to be disrespectful towards somebody else I disagree I've won the championship they have it okay and that doesn't say anything

I'm not trying to minimize their effort losing the game emotions right run high having a fan which at the moment I thought it was fine but then I realized it was Tyrese son which I love Tyrese I think is a great competitor he was his dad sorry, coming in the floor and showing me his son, a tower with his face, this is what we do, this is what we effing do, this, the F we do, this, I feel like that's very, very disrespectful. I love him. He's so good. I think he is my favorite non-Dallas Maverick player in the NBA.

Actually, he's my favorite player. I don't know if there's a single Maverick I love more than Yon. Just watching him play too. He's my favorite player. Not at Lucas gone. I love the way he plays basketball. I love... Go ahead, tinfoil.

You think you're going to get him? I mean, like, I heard he's leaving Milwaukee soon. I don't think that's true. I mean, I've heard that that's the only way for them to improve is to trade Janus. I think they saw what happened in Dallas. Like, if there is a parallel and it's probably more so, then the way Dallas loved Luca,

it's the way Milwaukee loves Janus. It's actually, I heard guys here comparing it. to the way Dallas loved, Dirk. Like, you've been around that long. You're dedicated to that one franchise. You brought that one franchise, a title. I just don't think you can do it. You can't trade Yonis.

But yes, if he's traded. First take, we'll try to get him to New York or L.A. I mean, does everybody have to end up in New York? I already heard next. Does everybody have to end up in New York or L.A.? Mm-hmm. How about a trade to somewhere else? But that gets the ratings, though.

Well, as you know. Yeah. And then we have the case of Bill Belichick, the latest. At the risk of grinding this thing to a halt, Tenfo, Pat, can you give us the latest on Jordan Hudson and Bill Belichick? Will, people are digging into the life of Jordan Hudson. And that comes because of this crazy interview. And so people have found out.

that she was worth almost $8 million than things to her property, her real estate investments in the last year or two. So she's banking money. She's been with the real money. Exactly. I have a theory. I don't really want to, maybe I shouldn't say it on air, but there's a, I mean, that's terrible. I know.

Some people, you can make money certain ways and say your real estate mogul, and make $8 million, but there's other ways to make $8 million. And I'm not insinuating anything. I don't know. I don't know. It's all a mess. And I said this yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if next season we're turning to Jordan Hudson to find out if the North Carolina Tar Heels are running a base 4-3 or 3-4 defense. I mean, this woman is in charge.

That seems to be unimpeachable. she's in charge they're pushing back belichick in his camp are pushing back suggesting and by the way julian edelman his former player believes this to be the case she was simply wearing her hat as a publicist in interrupting that interview with cbs numerous times not just as his girlfriend nicky glazer by the way comedian says 100% this she's acting as his publicist publicists do this during interviews people are out for blood come on nicky i really i actually really like nicky um that This is not, I guess I'm not famous enough to have a publicist. I've never had anybody interrupt an interview for me, and I would be super upset if they did. And in no world, my girlfriend, be allowed to wear these two hats. Go ahead, tinfoil. So another comment right under Niki Glazers is from Jennifer Belichick,

who is Bill's daughter-in-law, and she says publicist act in a professional manner, and don't storm off set delaying an interview. And this is interesting because she's married to Steve Belichick, who is the defensive coordinator of UNC, football. So it's not just a family issue. It looks like it might be professional issue as well. Wow.

It's a mess for Bill Belichick and for Jordan Hudson. I guess it's newsworthy. We've got to keep up with it day to day. But that's going to be it for us today. We're going to be around tomorrow for our Canaan Sports. edition that you can get at Apple or on Spotify, but we'll also be around next week, Monday through Thursday, 12 o'clock Eastern Time. We hope you'll join us at Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or Facebook. See you next time.

new Brett Bear podcast featuring common ground in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his all-star panel and much more available now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.