Will Cain Country - RFK, Jr. Becomes Left's Second Villain

Episode Date: March 26, 2024

Story #1: While solidifying his Vice-Presidential running mate today, RFK, Jr. just made himself the second biggest villain to the left. PLUS, Sean “Diddy” Combs is raided by the Department of Homeland Security. A ‘Lunch Break Panel’ with host of The Guy Benson Show, Guy Benson and Outkick columnist Mary Katharine Ham. Story #2: Five reasons it just doesn’t add up for Shohei Ohtani, but no one cares unless we answer one question. Story #3: March Madness bracket update with The Crew, and Will fan boys out with a country music star.   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

1. R.F.K just made himself the second biggest villain to the left. Plus, rated P. Diddy. Popular podcaster and influencer, Andrew Huberman, has made himself an acceptable target. While all of a sudden he's more acceptable. John Fetterman, a conversation with our lunch break panel, Guy Benson and Mary Catherine Hand. Two, five reasons it just doesn't add up for Shohei Otani. But no one cares unless we can answer one question. Was he betting on baseball?

And three, winning, I fan-boyed out in meeting country star Cody Jinks, losing me and March Madness. It is the Will Kane Show, streaming live at Fox News.com, and on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. You can always subscribe to the Will Cane show at any one of those audio platforms, or on YouTube, you can watch the Will Cane Show, in whole or in part, YouTube shorts, exclusive interviews, and entirety of past episodes of The Will Cane Show by subscribe. in the description right under this live stream and subscribing to Will Kane show. It is not adding up for Los Angeles Dodgers star, the best baseball player in the world. Now, I'm going to break it down for you five ways. It just doesn't add up, but I'm going to ask you one essential question. Why do you care?

Why do you care if the best player in baseball was betting? And I think the answer comes down to the answer to one question. Was he betting on baseball? Plus, I don't know if you've ever heard of Cody Jinks, but I have. My sons have. And he is the soundtrack to our lives. So it was awesome this weekend on Fox and Friends weekend when I finally got to meet my new best friend, Project Best Friends, Stepbrothers, me and Cody Jinks.

Coming up a little bit later here on the Will Kane show. But let us start now with Story Number 1. he is the host of the guy benson show on fox news radio you can check him out on x guy p benson and his bf mary katherine ham the outkick columnist and the host of getting hammered the podcast and follow her on x at m k hammer what's the p stand for guy it's a very waspy family name pelham why don't you go with three names like Mary Catherine Ham. Why aren't you Guy Pellum Benson?

That's a mouthful. I feel like Guy, sweet, short, almost as a nickname, I'm happy with it. I love the name Pellum. It's just a little on the nose for me, but since you asked, I cannot tell a lie. It's Pellum. You know, I'm not exempt from this. My Instagram is C. Will Kane, because Will Kane was taken. And I sometimes feel like Charles Williams-Cain sounds like I was born in England,

not in Sherman, Texas. But, you know, we have to do with our initials when we're trying to find handles that are available. Mary Catherine, you know, it's been said to me that you guys are best friends. Now, I think that Guy runs in a crew inside of Fox. I'm not sure. Social media suggests and gossip and rumors suggest

that includes, like, Kat Temf, it's Kennedy. Kennedy. I don't know maybe Dagan, McDowell. And I do see pictures when he's in New York, but I've heard you're the bestie. Many people are saying, I think there is some evidence for this. I was in the wedding, although Kennedy officiated the wedding. So maybe she's got to step up on me. But, you know, I'm working on it.

I'm working every day putting in work to remain at that spot because you can't just stop when you got that kind of competition. I love the piece of evidence that many people are saying. It's irrefutable, and it carries a lot of weight. It's just any time you have an edgy opinion, many people are saying. A lot of people are talking about it. Let's talk about what a lot of people are talking about today. There's a lot. It's crazy.

The news goes slowly and then it drinks from a fire hose. And today it's drinking from a fire hose from the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsing under the weight of a cargo container running into one of its supports in Baltimore to RFK picking. his VP choice. You know, Guy, I'll start with you. Steve Crackauer, who's a friend, producer of the Megan Kelly show, he writes a media newsletter that comes out called The Fifth Watch, and he talked about get ready, because it is starting now. RFK is about to become public enemy number two for the lift, because he represents a real threat to Joe Biden. And I think with the announcement of his vice president running mate, who my understanding is, her last name is Shanahan. She's a progressive Democrat. She's donated largely to George Gascon,

the district attorney in Los Angeles. I think it sort of shores up the idea that RFK is a progressive. Now, he may be, you know, iconoclastic. He might be unique, but he's still a progressive. And because of that, he represents a threat not to Donald Trump, but to Joe Biden. Yeah, I mean, he's heterodox, and he'll occasionally say something where I'll say, huh, Kind of nod my head a little bit. And certainly there's some crossover appeal, certainly with some Trump supporters, but having met him a few times, having read what he's written through the years and some of the comments that he's made, he is, for the most part, a dyed in the wool lefty.

With, again, a few comments here or there that might appeal to people on the right or in the center, but at his core on the issues that he cares in many ways the most about, he is very much on the left. He also has that iconic last name. and is attached to the Kennedy brand, even though a lot of the Kennedy family is unhappy with that, and they've made that abundantly clear. I think you're right. I mean, there was a story that I just saw today, one in a series will,

about how the Democrats are getting ready to unleash an army of lawyers to try to keep people like RFK Jr. and others off the ballot in key states because they're worried about the competition. They realize that they've got sort of a wounded duck as the incumbent who's really struggling. and if you crowd up that field even more and give people a reason maybe to sit home or maybe to go elsewhere, the result of the election could be quite different than it was in 2020. And so this is the irony of all ironies and just the hypocrisy on parade. The ostensibly, a very self-righteously pro-democracy party is going to sue like crazy

to have a little less democracy. We need to limit people's options because a little too much democracy. could be dangerous. So they'll do it for democracy, is how this bizarre line of argument goes. And I asked our friend Juan Williams about this the other day. And he said, well, yes, but they want to win. I'm like, well, yes, obviously that's what they're trying to do here. But that actually doesn't address the point of all the preening about democracy. So I agree with you. They are going to do everything they can and move heaven on earth, not just to disqualify RFK intellectually or ideologically, but literally disqualify him from the ballot in the name of democracy, of course.

And that won't be the first time. We saw that actually with Dean Phillips. We've seen the threats towards no labels. There was a threat that there will be no Jill Stein in, in 2024. And Mary Captain, I think. They tried to throw Trump off the ballot. Of course. Yes. Yes, of course. And you're making a great point guy about they were literally tried to interrupt democracy. But then all the water will be carried by the media. And I'm sure Mary Catherine, like, RFK, he's already been the subject, and any type of surrogate he's had like Aaron Rogers, even informally, has just been the subject of media attack. But, I mean, that's all been an appetizer.

Imagine over the next couple of months, it's going to be huge in what they do to RFK. No, I think you're right. And let me just say, I'm on record for many years saying that Kennedy is from top to bottom are trash. So I'm not endorsing anybody. the idea that the Democrats can sort of offload a Kennedy and pretend that he's a right of center figure, which was a weird move that the Atlantic and others sort of attempted to do a couple months ago. You have to deal with him as sort of part of your crew to some extent.

And I think they're realizing that electorally that might be how he's treated. The thing is about RFK is that he is addressing weaknesses to some extent for, both parties, but for Democrats in particular on, I think, the response to COVID, for instance. Now, I don't agree with him on everything. I think he's wrong on a bunch of stuff. But what he gets at that voters are listening to is this sort of, hey, the experts told us all this stuff that was totally wrong. Are we really supposed to continue to listen to the experts, right? That is a glaring weakness in the Democratic Party that they haven't dealt with. There was an Atlantic piece this week where they're like, oh, no, the COVID hangover

and unprocessed PTSD is hurting Joe Biden, as if Joe Biden was just some, like, observer to all of this, when in fact he endorsed all of these policies that people disagreed with. And not all of those people were on the right. A lot of those people were in the center, a lot of those people were in the left. So I think to the extent that they're not addressing that problem,

he's going to be appealing to people. There's a little bit of this on the right as well. And to the extent that the right doesn't address that problem, which unfortunately, I think Trump is not super excited about doing, given that some of the COVID response was his, people will be drawn to that message. Now, RFK has some ballot access, which is usually the big part of a challenge for a third party candidate. And I think Democrats will fight tooth and nail to keep him off those ballots. I think this story is a little bit underreported thus far because between him and no labels and Green Party. and Cornell West, you got a lot of threats that could pull off a lot of votes and siphon quite a few people in pretty close states, right? So this could make a big difference in the

result of this election. But yes, I think they will go full bore on him in an attempt to keep both his reputation under control, people not to gravitate toward the Kennedy name, and to keep him off ballots. Hey, Mary Catherine, I think you've talked about this, but I've never spoken to you about this. So you were at CNN, right? What years were you at CNN? 2016 to 2022. Although rarely used from 2020 to 22. So I was at CNN from roughly 2010 to 2014-15 in that range. And I've talked about this. And my experience at CNN, and this is sort of my, I think this reflects something we've all begun to realize about media, interestingly, over the last decade.

So I would have described CNN back from 2010 to 2014 as biased, very biased, but not necessarily propaganda. So I knew a lot of the hosts. I saw the production from the inside, because I was pretty integrated into two different shows, Elliot Spitzer's in the arena show, and starting point was sold out of Brian. Meaning, you know, when you're a contributor and you show up, you normally just get a topic and you talk about it, but I was around the show staff on a daily basis, so I saw also the process of topic selection. And I know in ways that it was bias edging on propaganda, meaning we're

not going to talk about that because that doesn't play well versus simply the opinions of the host constantly making their way on air in the form of fake objectivity. But you were there in a place where I think it was super different. Like, it went through a change with Trump in 2015. And we're talking about a lot of the same people. We're talking about Don Lemon, Solad O'Brien was no longer there, Chris Cuomo. I feel like you saw actually really different CNN. Yeah, there was a – so I came on in 2016.

And actually, I would say for – until Trump was elected and maybe like a little bit afterwards, it was a fairly healthy experience where I was sort of a Trump scout. skeptical right of center commentator, but we had, we also had pro-Trump folks on the air. We had, we had Kaylee McInney, we had David Urban, Scott Jennings, people who I respect and work really well with. And we were sort of bridging this Republican divide on the air and having nice conversations about it. And everybody seemed very open to that.

And then Trump won't. And you won't be surprised to know that David Urban and Kaylee McKinney never got the recognition that they should have. have gotten for being right when everyone else was wrong about him winning. And then after that, there was sort of like a network-wide aneurism about Trump being the president. And one of my functions at the network was just to say, hey, guys, he is the duly elected president. You can't unpresident him from an anchor chair or a commentator chair by just saying Russia, Russia, Russia, which by the way, I think they're going to try again. There are some signals, not from

CNN specifically, but from media, that they're just going to try to build this case again that never was real. Throughout the Mueller investigation, I thought, you know, I'm willing, I'm open to evidence, but I don't think you guys have what you think you have here. And that was sort of my function. Now, in that capacity, they didn't really love having me there all the time, with exceptions, by the way. Thank you to Jake Tapper for having me on a show, John King, as well. There were people who I worked fine with, but I don't think that the message was super welcome. And then in the COVID years, it was almost relegated to the behind the scenes entirely. You committed the sin.

You made the mistake. You committed the sin of doing a good job. I saw you. And I'd like to think that I did a decent job as well of confronting opposing arguments and then making the rational, clearly logical, I thought. think winning argument to their face. And I think that's the ultimate sin. Like, we're not going to book someone who we put on that, where we take an L. So, like, there's a, and that's the new CNN where I think the old one was a little more open to the idea of debate. And the new one's not biased anymore, is my point. It's pure propaganda. Okay, Mary Catherine, let's do this

together, because my understanding is guy is completely somehow political, pop culturally ignorant of what's going on. But this is big stuff, Benson. So P. Diddy's home has been rated by the homes, plural, L.A., Miami, rated by the feds, okay? Now, the, I believe the alleged charge is human trafficking. So here's my thing really quick. And I want to figure out how to talk about this with you guys, because I think, first of all, social media is super irresponsible in the way that it's talking about this right now. But I don't really know how to address. address. Here are some facts. He is subject to several lawsuits alleging rape and sexual harassment from both men and women. And inside those allegations, there are references to other big figures,

famous rappers, Meek Mill, that he was subject to, I don't know, sexual blackmail from P. Diddy. And so everybody talked about this like two or three weeks ago on the internet, and now all of a sudden he's being rated by the feds. And I think the internet wants to run to child trafficking rings and adrenochrome and I don't know all kinds of stuff right but I don't know we don't know legitimately what's going on um but I I think what we should also explore like whenever the allegation of human trafficking comes up I think it's become a really loose term I just remember Robert Kraft the owner of the Patriots got accused of human trafficking because he went to a massage parlor for a rub and tug and like all of a sudden now he's a participant in human trafficking so I don't really

know what's going on with Diddy and maybe we should let Mary Catherine go first guy unless you're ready to fire but I don't know what's going on but it seems big right I would just like to point out that that guys side eye there was like a perfect guy Helm Benson reaction to a P. Diddy story look I don't I don't know what's going on here right so I don't want to speak too in depth about it but he's being investigated by Homeland Security yeah Homeland Security investigations. Their purview is investigating, disrupting, dismantling terrorists, transnational, and other criminal organizations that threaten or seek to exploit customs and immigration laws. Okay. So that's what

we have thus far. The people who have made accusations about P. Diddy in the past, and I don't know if I'm to use that or if he'll go by Puff Daddy in the court, which is I don't know his more formal name. But at any rate, Sean Diddy Combs, the allegations made against him in the past, including by a woman named Cassie, who's a singer, who was involved in a long-term relationship with him. To my mind, those don't fall under the purview of Homeland Security investigations from what I know about those. Those were all domestic inside this relationship and settled in a sort of out of a court of law when she threatened to sue. So I know that about those allegations and they don't

seem to line up with this part. So we will have to wait and see exactly what Homeland Security is investigating because we do not know that yet in great detail. so i just want to see if he wanted to wait for a question or if he was ready to fire on his hot take on p ditty and it's clear he wants me to tee him up on p ditty well i am aware that this man is a rap star yes yes okay good take guy benson here's it here's something broader though and i'm i want to stay now i'm i'm legitimately being earnest when i says i want to color inside the lines. But, you know, there's this thing like, I had a guy come up to me the other day. I'm going to put this to you guy. Okay, and he's just a normal guy, right? And he thinks, okay,

Will's in the news. And he says to me, hey, is all this like, you know, pedophilia, Hollywood, elites thing, you think that's real? I'm like, all I can say is, I don't know. You know, like, how, I don't have any inside knowledge on that. But I do know, whenever I read stories, anecdotally in the news about like women being trafficked or even kids being abducted. There was a horrible story about a year ago about a girl being abducted from a Dallas Mavericks game. Her dad let her go to the bathroom by herself and she was stolen from that from the bathroom and taken to Oklahoma City. They found her within a week, but she had already been trafficked. She'd already been pimped out. But when you saw the culprits in that story,

look, I'm going to say it the way. They were criminally, they looked like two steps up from meth dealers. They weren't super sophisticated at least on the surface. But the implication we have this conversation in the public is there's this super sophisticated, true detective style things going on when it comes to human trafficking. And I just, you know, whether or not it's tied to, obviously Epstein's a part of that conversation. And whether or not it's in the political world, the elite world, Hollywood world, I don't yet see evidence that there's

and we'll see what happens with Diddy, but this is something that exists in the realm of a super sophisticated, organized criminal. I'm not saying it doesn't, but I just haven't seen it yet, and obviously then I can't import it onto Diddy. Yeah, I think it's a huge

evil problem that obviously exists. How sophisticated, how complicated, how complicated, how organized is it, and at what level? Those are different questions. I think it is rational, actually, for people, to at least go a somewhat conspiratorial direction given what happened with Epstein? All the facts of that case and then his demise and everything about that thing just reeks to high heaven. So it almost feels

like it would be denialist to just say, oh, I'm sure that was a weird outlier and it must be on the up and up, nothing to see there. I don't think that that's true. So people's suspicions are aroused. They don't really trust institutions anymore. in many cases across the board. They don't trust Hollywood or the media to get it right or anything like that. So I understand the suspicion. I think it's also important to say, as you did, and sometimes it's hard to say it in this business, and that was sort of my joke about Diddy and not really knowing much.

Saying, I don't know, those are not popular words for people to say whose job it is to have takes and to know things. But I think when you're talking about something as serious as this, if you don't know, it's important to acknowledge that and say there are so many unknown unknowns. Maybe this is a huge pile on against him that's completely unfair, that sort of germinated online in rumors and somehow exploded into something and he'll be exonerated. Maybe he's really bad and has done some horrendous things behind the scenes and maybe his celebrity has helped him get away with that. We don't know. And I think it's important to want accountability, to want

the truth to come out, to always follow evidence, but there's like this fine line of closing your eyes to something that clearly seems wrong because it's sort of like uncomfortable versus stampeding into something headfirst not knowing what you're talking about. Exhibit A being the whole Kate Middleton thing recently, I had to get dragged kicking and screaming into talking about that because I'm like, we don't know anything. And then we finally found out the thing. And I think it made a lot of people look kind of foolish, quite frankly. So it's a tough balance for people, especially in our world, to strike because we're expected to know things, we're expected to have informed opinions on virtually everything. And sometimes it's really, really hard

with not even incomplete, but barely complete information, even in a tiny fraction of it, to then come out and make, like, grand pronouncements. So I think it is reasonable and appropriately humble sometimes to just say, I don't know. But I really like how you laid out, and I don't like to, I don't, you know, the way I approach my job, I don't know how you guys do, I don't think of myself, I know we all do this, I don't think of myself as media. Like, I don't think of, I am, I know that, but I don't think of myself different than the average person.

And so what you describe guy, what I'm getting at is, it's not a unique problem to someone whose job is in the media. It's a problem that exists for everybody in America. Like, we have to exist right now on this line of somewhere really healthy skepticism of institutions and everything, because we'd get this sense and we're confirmed that we're constantly surrounded by lies. But we can't use that healthy skepticism to run to the most conspiratorial conclusion. And that's for everyone. I think we're all doing that. That's the guy asking me about this, about, hey, man, how big is this thing this? pedophilia. And he doesn't know, and I don't know. But I will say, Mary Catherine,

yeah, go ahead. Just very quickly, I totally agree with you. And like, I know we rail against the media, even though we are in the media. And there's a difference, I think, between legacy media that fancies themselves to be something that they really aren't and look down their noses at people like us. That's a separate conversation. But, and I'm sure that I'm imperfect at this in my own life and in my own career, but overall, because we have platforms that we have, I think that there is a greater responsibility to traffic less in the fever swamp stuff until you can really ask smart questions and know what we're talking about as compared to someone's uncle on Facebook who's just spouting off. I think we have a higher responsibility because the number of eyeballs

and ears that we attract, and we are grateful for that audience, but I think it comes with a few more guardrails. Yeah, I mean, I think what I aspire to be is sort of normie adjacent, which is like, I care about things that normal people care about. And I understand the things that make them skeptical and why they're skeptical. And also I, because this is my job, I have more time to invest in looking into the facts of these things and trying to figure them out. Now, that's also true of all my colleagues at a liberal news network who could have

figured out that we didn't really have the goods on the Russia story. But conveniently, they didn't. do that, right? Conveniently with Kavanaugh, they didn't actually evaluate the facts, because the facts would have led you to believe that this standard he was being subjected to was not a fair one that anyone else could stand up to, which was to prove a negative from 1984 without like a specific location or date, right? But the media unfortunately decides when it's going to get really energetic about figuring out the facts or disregarding them based on its preconceived notions and biases. And that is bad. What I attempt to do,

and sometimes does not behoove my own ideological side is actually to deal with some facts. And to Guy's point, it can get really risky when somebody whose name ID like P. Diddy or Kate Middleton will make you a lot of clicks and a lot of attention if you talk about that person in a salacious way. And I was proud even though I cared about the Kate Middleton story

that I did not act a total fool in public about it. I acted like a medium fool maybe, but I was well versed on, Conspiracy theories, but was not endorsing said theories, right? But you do have to be careful in this environment that you're not sort of hitching your wagon to something for your ideological ends or for your traffic ends when you don't know if that thing is real or not. But people are really, as guy knows, people are right to be skeptical. But there's an opposite to having such an open mind that your brain falls out, right? The opposite is being so skeptical that you jump to every wildest conclusion.

you can jump to when in fact I don't actually have a lot of faith in the powers that be being competent enough to pull off giant conspiracies that's one of the reasons that I don't believe in a lot of them because I don't think they have a great track record of doing things well and secretly honestly that's another that's another tension for me Mary Catherine like I'm trying to balance you know earned skepticism versus jaded cynicism but I'm also trying to balance there there's pretty obvious evidence of conspiracies that some levels of things, but I can't import that to like a greater conspiracy mindset because of the competency issue. I don't believe they're competent enough to pull off these

conspiracies at large. But you made a nice transition here, and I understand both of you aren't really read it on this. I'll give you the groundwork, but a nice transition on how media chooses to what, chooses to pay attention to. So Andrew Huberman is a super influential online media personality podcaster. He's kind of under the umbrella of the Joe Rogan wing. Axios had this interesting breakdown of the shards of media as it kind of breaks into groups. And I think they did a dozen different groups that media's been breaking down into. And one of them was like male-centric media.

And I would say that Huberman sort of falls into that. But it's bigger than just talking to guys about, you know, male health. and mindset issues, because I know a lot of women that listen to Huberman. I mean, he's deep. Like, he does, like, science of sleep, science of eating, science of working out. So it's self-betterment, but he does, I think this is an important detail is why I'm giving to you. He does sort of fall into that world of Rogan, I don't know who else, but that male-centric

media. And the New York Magazine just wrote a big hit piece on Huberman, that he's 48. He has a bunch of girlfriends that he's juggling at the same time, sleeping with, you know, six, seven girlfriends it looked like according to the piece. And by the way, he needs to do a podcast and a whole expertise episode on scheduling because his scheduling of all these girls was incredible. But he's single. He's fine. The allegation is he's sleeping around. I don't know why that's of news relevance.

And I try to steal man instead of straw man, their perspective. like what is this is this an inconsistency in what he's preaching i don't know that it is you know is he a hypocrite in some way i don't know that that he's shown hypocrisy and what he talks about versus the way he lives it's a little bit like dave portnoy they did that the founder of barstool like what is the news relevance that dave portnoy sleeps around with a lot of girls like what does that have to do with anything and the answer is dave portnoy simply found himself as an acceptable target of business insider, of whoever else, because he was right adjacent. By the way, I don't think Dave Portnoy is on the right, but he's right adjacent, or just not

group think left. And that's the same problem for Huberman. I don't know his politics, but he's in that male-centric bucket. He's right adjacent, or at least he's not group think left, and my takeaway is that's his sin. I'll go back to you, Mary Catherine. That's why there's a hit piece on him in New York Magazine. Yeah, again, let me say that I'm not read up on the actual allegations against him. What I will say is I wish there was this amount of energy for a hit piece on like Jeffrey Tubin's sexual impropriety for the entirety of his career. Like that'd be, that'd be a good piece to see, right?

But there is a sort of selective energy exerted by media when investigating different targets and deciding whether they're going to use the internet term milkshake duck, a given person and sort of come at them with any old tweets or anything that they have in their past. The other theme of this, Huberman aside, is I don't like the sort of knee-jerk, old media, reflexive denigration of any sort of outside the mainstream discussion of hormones, health, diet, nutrition, things that unfortunately government and mainstream media have colluded on, in really detrimental ways to the American public because they actually get a lot of things really, really wrong.

The government in particular on nutrition, very, very bad guidelines. You don't want to be eating at any point in history how the US government tells you to eat. And often when people sort of look for more information and people in places like podcasting world or Instagram supply new sources of information and sometimes, look, some of them are wrong, But some of them critically evaluate the government and mainstream nutrition advice or hormone advice or whatever it is and find, well, they're wrong.

And here's ways you could live a better life given the fact that we are critically examining this and knowing that it's wrong. The Washington Post is a perfect example. They did a piece this week on Instagram influencers and others who have attracted attention because they do information about hormonal birth control. Okay, now this is like a third rail issue because I never want to be accused of wanting to limit people's access to birth control. That's not the point. This is not a political hobby force of mine. What is important though is that you're curious about the medications that you're taking and that your doctor is curious about those medications and that you talk about

those in an informed consent sort of way. And there's not a small amount of evidence that a lot of people don't have those conversations and a lot of doctors don't have those conversations and it sets people up for bad results, right? But there was this whole piece in the Washington Post that just says misinformation is everywhere without refuting the misinformation. It's merely an attempt to say all these people you're listening to, all these people who are curious about this information, all these people who think differently from the two writers at the Washington Post who wrote about this and the three experts who are sanctioned that we talk to, they're bad and we have to shut them up. When in fact the role of the role,

of the news media should be to evaluate these things. And they're not doing that. They're letting people down. Yeah, perfectly said. I totally agree. Guy? Well, it might come across as no small irony that I'm not actually a great consumer of male-centric content in my personal diet media-wise. But that does happen to be the case. So I'm not really familiar with this guy or what he's up to. Your summary, I did a tiny bit of reading about it. Your summary, I think, was helpful. This is what I'm trying to figure out. So the allegation is that he is kind of a player

and strings different women along and is having sex with a bunch of them and has multiple girlfriends at the same time. And, okay, I mean, is that something that a lot of Americans would endorse as a lifestyle? Probably not. Is that news? I don't know.

Is he manipulating these women? okay that could make it a little bit worse is it news i don't know is he abusive right that would be a different question maybe that would be a little bit newsy is that even the allegation right now i'm just trying to figure out what rises to the level of hit piece where it's like okay we don't like this person right oh big like big like big thing where everyone's i guess now talking about it except for me it's like oh let's let's let's break down and dig into the my minutia of this man's sex life. And I know that for a long time, people on the right were scolded and sort of scoffed at

and ridiculed for being these pro-clutching, puritanical, uptight people, and it's just relax, it's just sex or whatever with Bill Clinton. And then it's like, okay, well, does this go beyond just sex? Is there some wider crime here? Like, I'm trying to figure out where the line is and what the threshold is for newsworthiness other than we don't like this person, this person ideologically or for whatever other, or from whatever perspective, is it kind of icky to us or might be a threat, frankly? I think this is an underplayed part of it.

It's not just that people in the mainstream press dislike these people ideologically and don't trust them. They're also bitter. They're also threatened. They feel like they are stealing their audience, their livelihood, their money, their clout, influence, their fame, where they could be a lot bigger if those sort of grubby little people didn't exist with such a big following. So that could be part of it as well, sort of like professional bitterness and various other, you know, human emotions. I don't know exactly what the motivation here is, but broadly speaking, if there's some deep dive piece into someone's sex

life, I'm sitting here wondering like, okay, this might be relevant to a woman who gets asked out on a date or back to this guy's place. She might want to know this about him. But why do I? Why do we? What grievance level rises to the level of national news and national conversation?

And unless I'm missing something, which I'm open to be missing something, this doesn't seem like it should be anywhere close to that. And it's more about the people pushing the story than it is about him. Can I add also that when it comes to man-focused types

of like infotainment or entertainment or podcast or whatever it is, there's a lot of evidence that that is also a failure of media and society in general to speak to the issues of young men. And there's a great book by Richard Reeves, who's a Brookings Institution scholar, who nonetheless wrote a book about the struggle of men and boys, I think it's called men and boys.

And there's all these metrics on which men are being failed by society, while society is constantly saying, women are being failed and everything is girl power and the messaging to every young person is almost exclusively about that. And yet the metrics show that men aren't being served. I have three daughters and one son. I don't feel like the son deserves some sort of comeuppance

because times were harder for women in the past, as they really truly were. That's a real thing. But he doesn't deserve to not have resources at his disposal because of that past, right? And I think some of these podcasts and figures, some are unhealthy, right? Like you get the Andrew Tates, but some are pretty good.

Like Jordan Peterson's book is a very healthy way to deal with the fact that society hasn't given a direction or a message to many of these young men, right? And I don't want to preclude all of those and take those all out, but there are some people who do. So it feels like if you become a guy who speaks to these issues, who has a largely young male audience, who can be right coded, let's use that.

term like you're right adjacent as you said you can look forward to the hip piece coming because there's a bunch of people out there who do not like that as a product but it's ultimately going to fail these men again because they will not have any people out there well guy despite the fact that you don't listen to male centric media we know that your masculinity comes by a way of instinct and intuition it's just natural so you don't need it reinforced to help you don't need it guided through a podcast so I'm going to do this really quickly, Guy. Jesse Waters was on the Will Kane show last week, and he laid out a few rules for men. I just want to see how many you're succeeding or failing at, according to Jesse

Waters. Okay, we'll just go quick, okay? Do you drink out of straws, guy? Hang on, hang on, the benchmark of masculinity is Jesse? Is that what we're saying here? Correct. Correct. Okay. Do you live up to Jesse Waters? Okay. I question the premise, but go on. Okay, duly noted. But do you drink out of straws? Very rarely. I don't like them. okay so somewhat masculine do you eat soup in public yes okay I have to say I think Jesse's got his finger on a pulse here you shouldn't be pursing your lips in front of other men with a spoon it's not it doesn't work guy do you eat ice cream cones really soup or is it just

soup adjacent because chili is very masculine chili is not soup it doesn't even need clarification chili is not soup it's chewed um i think you'd find it on a soup menu though do you do you lick an ice cream cone like do i eat ice cream off of an ice cream cone like what i don't bite it because i'm not a sociopath well but you don't put it in a bowl like a man when you choose to eat ice cream you order i usually i usually do a cup or bowl of ice cream i don't because it gets a little messy but i don't care about the licking that doesn't bother me. It's the messiness that bothers me. Yeah, Jesse, I don't want to see your tongue.

And then this is one of mine, and I'm going to admit to you, guy, you've been set up on this one. Do you wear boat shoes? Oh, yeah. I mean, I'm a shame that I'm not wearing them right now, frankly. I almost came out of the woman boat shoes. I'm anti-boat shoe. That's not a Jesse point. That's a will show point. I'm anti-boat

shoe, okay? And of course, our mutual producer Dan has set you up telling me ask him about boat shoes. So we knew you'd violate the boat shoe rule. Here's my ultimate masculine day. I order up a nice bowl of soup. I eat it in public. I wash it down with a big old ice cream cone and then I walk away in my comfortable boat shoes and I feel fantastic about it. Just sipping on a Starbucks coffee through a straw. Can I note that this weekend, I am going to dress my youngest son, who's one, up for Easter. And as a feature of that outfit, he indeed will be wearing tiny baby boat shoes. So I'm starting him off all wrong in life, I guess.

But let me say, we're a redneck family, right? That's our form of masculinity. There we go. But on Easter, we wasp it up a little bit. So he's going to have the boat shoes, he's going to have a sweater. vest and Jesse can deal because he's going to look fantastic. Yeah, cowboy boots on Easter

is difficult to pull off, you know, like pink pastel shorts and cowboy boots, read something different than masculine. And by the way, if I were in some sort of like life-threatening situation that required physical exertion, I would definitely pick Mary Catherine over Jesse

Waters to help save my life. With all respect to Jesse. Shots fired. Shots fired. Okay. I'll have to sort this out here. She's scrappy. Maybe on Watersworld. This has been awesome. Mary Catherineham, Guy Benson.

I've loved it. Guy Benson, catch him on the Guy Benson show 3 to 6. He's got to go prep that show right now. And Mary Catherine, at Get Hammered Podcast, and check out our columns at Outkick. Thank you guys so much for being on the Will Kane show. Thank you. Thanks, Will. All right.

It just doesn't add up. I'm going to give you the five ways his argument. fails. It just doesn't add up for Shohei Otani. But in the end, even if it doesn't add up, do you care unless we get the answer to one question? Did he bet on baseball? Next on the Will Cain Show. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.comfx 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 thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. Five reasons. It just doesn't add up for Shohei Otani.

Plus the one question that answers whether or not we should care. The question is, was he betting on baseball? It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, which you can subscribe to the Will Cain Show on YouTube. It's right under this video, under this live stream. There's a button you can hit subscribe to the Will Cain Show. Shohay Otani of the Los Angeles Dodgers is not only the best player in Major League Baseball. He's the best player in the world, and for many already deservingly in the discussion of will he be one of the best baseball players of all time. He's a really, really, really good, possibly great pitcher, and he is a great hitter, one of the few players to actually do both in professional baseball.

He just signed an incredibly long and lucrative deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers. And although he's been in the United States for seven years, he doesn't speak English. He has had a long-term interpreter, Ipe Matsuhara. Now, just about a week ago, in investigating an illegal gambling bookmaker in California, where gambling remains illegal, Ipe Matsuhara and Shoha Otani came up in the ledgers. Apparently, $4.5 million had been paid to this bookmaker, Matthew Boyer, from Shohei Otani. $4.5 million, quite a bit of money. The German reports, the number could go much higher.

and it just has stunk from the beginning. The story doesn't add up. And I'm going to walk through it. I show you the time to give a press conference yesterday and laid all the blame on his interpreter. He said that his interpreter, Ipe, who was his best friend, his driver, who he played pitch and catch with in warm-ups during games, who was by his side 365 days a year,

was stealing money from him to pay off his own gambling debts. Otani had no knowledge and nothing to do with this debt to a bookmaker. Now, right now, Pete Rose is out there. You actually put out a video and go, I wish I'd thought of that. I wish I had an interpreter in the 70s and 80s. But, you know, Dodgers fans want to believe Shohai Otani. A lot of baseball fans who want to believe in greatness want to believe Shohai Otani. But it's hard to believe, Otani, for five reasons.

All right. Number one. It is hard to believe that any bookie would accept $4.5 million in debt. Let you run up a tab when you make $300,000 a year. That's the reports from Major League Baseball about how much Ipe Matsuhara made as a translator for Shohei Otani. $300 to $500,000 a year. And not many bookies would say, $4.5 million, I know you're good for it. Unless they know somehow Otani is good for it.

What that means is you would think the bookmaker either thought Otani was in on the bets or Otani was such good friends with IPE that he would cover the bets, both of which could be a violation. Obviously, betting would be a violation. Covering someone else's bets could also be a federal crime. But it's hard to believe the book he would simply say, I know the translator is good for $4.5 million at the salary of $300,000. Number two, how long would your friend be able to be able to be able to be?

to steal money from you? How much money could your friends steal from you and go totally unnoticed? Now, I know professional athletes have a lot of money and many of them are irresponsible in how they manage their finances, but this reportedly was going out in half a million dollar chunks. Now, how many half a million dollar chunks would fly under the radar of your accountant? Was Ipe Otani's accountant? Was he his manager? He wasn't his agent. So he and only he, Even if Otani is irresponsible. He and only he had knowledge of Otani's finances. Only he could see $4.5 million going out in half a million dollar increments over time.

I don't care who your buddy is. And honestly, the fact that Otani's rich would increase the levels of insurance and suspicion and number of people involved in overseeing his business, then you or me being simply irresponsible and letting somebody have access to our bank account, which brings us to number three. How does IPE Matsuara have unfettered access to Otani's bank accounts? Like, what kind of power attorney do you have to give to someone for them to be wiring money directly from your account without your approval over and over again? The bank wouldn't ever go, hmm, this is weird, hmm, this raises a red flag.

And Otani's only path to the English world is through Ipe Matsuhara, which brings me to number four, the relationship these guys had up until the accusation of massive theft. There was a video floating around last week of the two Matsuhara, Ipe Matsuhara, the translator and Shohei Otani, in a dugout in Korea as the doctor. just traveled to Korea yucking it up laughing two hours before otani accuses him of massive theft now here's how the story goes the story goes that otani had no idea what was going on none until a team meeting shortly after that video we saw where ipe announces to everyone in the dodgers Dodgers organization and Otani for the first time that he has been taking money from Otani and and Otani because he doesn't understand English, he's only picking up bits and pieces of this story in this team meeting and walks out with IPE and continues to discuss it and then as a

private meeting where he begins to understand the full extent of what's going on. That's what we're led to believe that there were no discussions. Now prior to this, ESPN was doing story and talking to Ipe Matsuhara. And that news never got back to Atani. Nothing ever made us go back to Atani until he's sitting there with Muki Betts in the locker going, what's he talking about? What's my translator saying? What's he saying?

He's saying he stole from me? That doesn't make any bit of sense whatsoever. That is just a hard pill to swallow. Bring you next to, as part of this nature of the relationship, apparently, The way the story goes is CAA, Otani's agency, as well as everybody else in the Otani orbit. Now, when you're this biggest star, there's a lot of people in your orbit. Nobody had access to this information that this story was coming and to understand what was going on or to monitor Otani's bank accounts, then IPE.

The guy who was under suspicion, who would be eventually accused of massive theft, was the sole conduit that everybody was talking to. Okay, and by the way, let me lay in number five here, and that's the changing story that makes this all hard to believe, a tough pill to swallow. The original story is that, as said by the translator, that I was gambling, not Otani. Otani's my boy, he was covering my debts.

That's the story that Ipe told. then immediately after he tells it by the way at this point it's out this is after the team meeting after that immediately after that otani's camp goes not true not true lawyers were hired lawyers go not true massive theft because they realized you would think immediately whoa it's a rule violation for otani to be covering even his friend's debts much less if he was the one doing the gambling so now we got to get completely absolved of this we got a totally distance from the whole situation and IPE needs to take the fall. We've got to accuse massive theft.

Let me just ask you this really quickly. From that point forward, still all communication is happening through EPA. CAA, Otani Camp, Otani attorneys at that point. Still as they're trying to coordinate the story with IPE. And let me ask you a question. Would you continue to funnel all communication through a guy that you suspected of massive theft or a guy who was willingly taking the fall? like if everyone is communicating through the translator continuing to after this comes to light for a while for a period of time if everyone is continuing to communicate exclusively through the translator would that signify trust or distrust you wouldn't trust your sole channel of communication to be a guy you suspected of massive theft but you would trust to have your sole method of communication go through a guy who's on the team and taken the full.

fall. I don't know if Otani was gambling. I don't know if Otani was covering gambling debts for his translator. But I know that nothing about Otani's case adds up. That's five massive holds in the story that points suspicion to show hey Otani. Now that leads us to this. Does anybody care? Does anybody care if he was covering debts for his buddy? I think the answer is honestly no. Does anybody care if he was gambling? Honestly, I think the answer is no. Everybody gambles. Sports is rife with gambling. ESPN's running ads on gambling.

Draft Kings is everywhere. Fandule at the bottom of your screen. Nobody cares. They said they were gambling on soccer, NBA. Nobody cares. The only answer to where anyone cares is whether or not Otani was betting on baseball. If Otani, for the record, was simply paying off Matsuhara's debt, that would be a violation, although in a gray area, of Major League Baseball's Rule 21.

And if a federal investigation into illegal bets placed, league precedent suggests even then he would receive only a fine. There's precedent for that. Jared Kosert of the Miami Marlins, a pitcher in 2015. He, an investigation determined he was placing a legal sports bet. But he did not bet on baseball. Jared Kosert of the Marlins was fined. So even if he was betting, Otani, but on different sports, soccer, a fine.

But if he was betting on baseball, this is when we all begin to care. If he bets on a game, this is according to the athletic, in which he was not involved. Betts on baseball, he's not in the game. Year-long ban. Best player in baseball, potentially. Year-long ban from MLB. If he bet on a game in which he was involved, permanent ban, lifetime ban from MLB. Otani's story doesn't add up, and I give you the five reasons.

We care if he bet on baseball. It's massive if he bet on a game that he was involved in in Major League Baseball. Coming up, Cody Jinks, one of my favorites. Country Music Star, met him this weekend. I'm going to introduce you to his music and let you know what it was like for that project best friend, stepbrothers with Cody Jinks. Next on the Will Cain Show. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me, Kennedy.

Make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week. Every week. Download and listen at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. Breaking news, a deep dive investigation. to Jesse Waters' masculinity, courtesy of investigative reporter Guy Benson. Coming up in just a moment here on the Will Kane show, streaming live at foxnews.com,

the Fox News YouTube channel, and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand, subscribe to Will Kane Show on YouTube. I have subsequently to our discussion on the Jesse Waters' rules for men and putting them to the test of the host of the Guy Benson show, Guy Benson, received intel. I have received photographic evidence of a violation of hypocrisy, much greater than Andrew Huberman's, because Huberman wasn't preaching fidelity and violating his rules for men. Instead, Jesse Waters preaches the men shoddy ice cream cones. And I got that picture from Guy Benson of Jesse Waters holding an ice cream cone.

It looks to be a waffle cone, in fact, holding an ice cream cone. Guy Benson has done a deep dive. I wonder if he Googled Jesse Waters' ice cream cone. Was that just a picture? I have no idea who that other dude is in the picture. But he has taken a shot at the host of Jesse Waters' primetime. Let's bring in two-a-days, Dan. Let's bring in tinfoil pat.

Let's bring in young establishment James here into the Wilcane show. Shocking revelation there about Jesse Waters. Fascinating. From Guy Benson. You know, guys are investigative journalists, man. really goes after the story and that's just like him to find something like that so i'm not surprised but it's revealed doesn't it doesn't look like a screen grab from the internet it almost looks like a picture that guy took so i'm really interested in where this this um what word did they

use to call photos like in a in a legal filing that makes them sound more important that they are this audio visual evidence that has surfaced this this multimedia this multimedia evidence has has surfaced in dieting Jesse Waters' masculinity. Before we get into Cody Jenks, guys, let's get an update on our March Madness Bracket. We have a little competition. We both took long shots and favorites, and all four of us filled out a bracket.

Now, I know I'm out on long shots and favorites. My favorite was Auburn, my long shot was McNeese, both Dunzo. I know I'm doing bad, right? Yeah, your bracket's not. great but you are actually in third place still which is saying a lot so sorry Patrick you're coming in a fourth you have 1.3% chance to win there Patrick so it's not looking good for you will you're in third place you have about 11 11% chance to win still you have a thousand

a thousand points max left I'm in second place I have 30% chance to win here but young James has filled out a pretty great bracket. Shocking. And he has a 57% chance to win young James. But I'm right behind him. It is shocking. It's totally predictable. Let me tell you why.

You, young James, are also known as Establishment James. And, you know, you're right down the middle of the mainstream, acceptable elite opinions. And you know what this has been this March Madness? Chalk. Chalk. I don't think it's any surprise that tinfoil Pat did a deep dive on the internet, squinted his eyes hard enough and convinced himself that, you know, Moorhead State would win the national championship.

And that got him in hot water in a tournament that went chalk. I have my own tendencies in leanings. And so you could almost put us on an ideological spectrum, and it's an exact correlation to this success. in this March Madness, a tournament where a shocking number of ones and twos are in the finals, which is not what happens historically.

And of course, establishment James does well in a chalk tournament. You have a chance to win. This is your chance to win your best path to win, you will. You have Auburn winning the whole thing, but for you to win, Marquette has to not win at all. Connecticut cannot reach the national

championship, and Tennessee cannot reach the national championship. And then you have a shot. That's how I do well? That's how you, That's how you do well. Exactly. Those three things need to happen. And for James to win. Marquette lose soon.

Yep. Connecticut lose soon. Tennessee lose soon. Yep. And James to win it all just needs Duke to reach the elite eight. They play Houston on Friday night at 940 if they need them. Wait, wait. All James need is what?

Dan? All he needs is what? For Duke to reach the elite eight. Because then points wise, we're all out. If they reached elite. Oh, we. We all lose if that happens. Okay, so we've got our cheering.

We all know what to do. Exactly. And, of course, it comes down for establishment, James, to Duke. He's just... Maybe establishment in Deep State is just coded for knowing how to get things done and knowing how to win. You just can't write a script like this. Maybe, but sure has really burnished your reputation establishment. So we all root against Duke, and I root against Tennessee, Marquette, and Connecticut.

I love it. Now I have, I know what to do this weekend. I tell you what I did last weekend. You want to talk some more, James? I was just going to say, go ahead. Bring him back up, Dan. He wants to talk some more. Wow. Last thing. A Dallas guy's going to root for Houston this weekend. That's just for the Shadegh. Yeah, I'm going to root for Houston. Okay.

Yeah, last year in the Big 12. Before we march off to the SEC, I'll root for the Big 12. You have anything else, James? I'm turning his mic off now. I'm turning his mic off now. okay i want to make sure see if he had a monologue i want to check in with james make sure we've got all the establishment opinions fully represented on today's wilcane show um speaking of weekend last weekend i got to meet one of my favorites cody jinx now um i like country music off the beaten path i like old school outlaw country i like wayland jennings willie nelson merle haggard

um i also like regional country i like texas country i like texas country They call it Red Dirt Country. That's guys like, you know, in old days it was Pat Green and Corey Morrow. It's Randy Rogers' band now. But there's this other style country. There's probably my favorite that exists somewhere in between. Not Nashville, not regional. And I think it's best typified, and it's a little old school outlaw, by a guy named Cody Jinks.

Now, I love Cody Jinks. Always have. My sons love Cody Jinks. We love a song called Mama Song, somewhere in the middle. I should do a top five songs by Cody Jinks. He has a new album out called Outlaws and Mustangs, and that song's really grown on me. But I got him on Fox and Friends this weekend, and it was awesome. Listen.

Go on hit the highway, disappear in the night. Gotta see the world all by yourself, and that's all right. You ain't leaving me worried. You were born to wrong. Think about outlaws and Mustangs, they always come home. It's always come home Acoustic Cody Jinks and a guitar

A little bit of an accompaniment guitar About as good as it gets for me And my project best friend is off and running I've been texting with him a little bit before the show So I already knew we loved the same part of Texas Montague, Cook, Grayson County area of Texas He lives up there on a ranch He duck hunts

I told him I'm looking for a place up there to duck hunt I might have found it and duck hunting with Cody Jinks he had on his guitar a sticker I never knew this about him called who says who is John Galt knew immediately what that is so it turns out he's a big fan of Ian Rand

and I think we just became best friends I mean right there it's over I encourage you to check it out so we'll get him on the Will Kane show sometime really soon we're going to tell stories hang out I'd love to incorporate a little more country music into the Will Kane show and we'll have him soon

here Cody Jinks but I would encourage you go check out Outlaws and Mustangs, and it's old stuff. Check out of his old stuff. There's a playlist that we've talked about in the past here on the Will Kane Show. It's called Kane Country, and it's public. It's my style of country music. You can subscribe to it on Spotify. It's got a lot of Cody Jenks, a lot of Whiskey Myers, you know, some Chris Stapleton,

really good stuff, but a lot of jinx there on Kane Country on Spotify. While you're subscribing, go ahead and subscribe to the Will Kane Show on Spotify, on Apple. on YouTube. You can listen and watch whenever you like. That's going to do it for this. Today, we will see you again tomorrow with Tommy Laren. So we'll see you next time. Fox News Podcast Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show ad-free on the Amazon music app. 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 Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts.