Will Cain Country - SCOTUS Showdown: Men in Women’s Sports (ft. Sen. Markwayne Mullin & Kristen Waggoner)

Episode Date: January 14, 2026

Story 1: The U.S. already operates under Cold War–era agreements that allow an expansive military presence in Greenland with NATO approval. So why does President Donald Trump argue that isn’t enough? Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joins Will to explain why the administration views Greenland as strategically critical to U.S. national security. He also weighs in on escalating political unrest in Iran and how President Trump’s oil sanctions are reshaping the balance of power among America’s geopolitical rivals.Story 2: Will and The Crew give a post-game analysis of his debate on 'The Will Cain Show' with Democratic Congressman Maxwell Frost on the shooting of Renee Good, reacting to criticism (and praise), from you, The Willitia, and discussing what makes a debate “good.”Story 3: What is a woman? It’s a question that many on the Left struggle to answer, and one that became the center of ongoing Supreme Court cases on transgender athletes’ participation in sports. President, CEO, & Chief Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner gives the latest updates from these cases, over-viewing the main oral arguments and sharing how hundreds of her clients have been affected by the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran, Venezuela, Cuba is the world being reordered in the vision of American imperialism. Senator Mark Wayne Mullen fight. Post-game breakdown of my debate with Democrat, Congressman Maxwell Frost. Wilcane Country at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, which you should follow. While you're at it, head over to Spotify or Apple. Hit a follow and always hang out with us in the Wilicia here at Will Cain Country. Fight yesterday with Congressman Maxwell Frost. Whenever I host a Democrat, an elected representative on the Fox News Channel, on the Will Cain show,

the criticism and the feedback falls into four camps. One, we love it. You kicked his ass. Two, why do you even bother having them on? You interrupt too much. What's the point inviting a guest on if you're not going to hear what they have to say? Four, wussy, he talked all over you. He controlled the interview. Learn how to fact check. We'll talk about that feedback and do a little post-fight analysis with my debate with Congressman Maxwell Frost. But as we speak today, tensions mount on the streets of Tehran. Is the regime about to fall in Iran. President Donald Trump says, hang in there, keep the protests going.

Quote, help is on the way. What does that mean? What are we about to see soon from the United States of America? Joining us now is Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. What's up, Senator? How's up, brother? How you doing? I'm good. I've got to admit. I didn't expect to see Indiana and Miami the last two helmets on your desk. I just, I don't even know what to say. I mean, congratulations to them.

I'm glad Indiana's there because, you know, I hope they win their first national championship. Miami, the only reason why I'm even happy to see Miami there is because Notre Dame threw such a fit that it's nice to see that they pulled off a huge upsets like this. Hey. It really is wild that these are the final two helmets standing. It's really wild that the national.

championship game is coming down to the Indiana Hoosiers against the Miami Hurricanes. It does bring us some interesting questions. By the way, which might actually pertain to your job as well in Washington, D.C. I've been reading so much analysis. This morning I was reading about the starting quarterback for the Alabama Crimson Tide, who's going to declare for the NFL draft and probably be a first-round draft pick, Ty Simpson. But along the way, he's turned down $4 million, $5 million, $6 million to remain in college football, Tennessee, Miami, were reportedly ready to throw big money at the incumbent starter at Alabama. At the same time, there's maybe the nation's number one tackle at the University of Colorado has just entered the transfer portal. And I was reading this morning that

the going rate for a top tier tackle in the transfer portal is 1.3 million. But this guy will get probably somewhere around $2 to $3 million. And the numbers are absolutely fascinating of what these quote unquote amateur athletes with these college football players are getting. And I know that there are people. I don't know if he's a friend of yours. He's become a friend of the program. Cody Campbell, booster for the Texas Tech Red Raiders, who's looking to bring some legislation. There's a debate in Washington, see, about what type of legislation, what type of regulation. And I'm not suggesting these guys making all this money, Senator, demands regulation, but it still is that we are in. And it's never been more so. This transfer portal season, the last

month in college football has been insane and it is absolutely the Wild Wild West. Well, listen, I have three kids that are D1 athletes that wrestle at Oklahoma State and two wrestle Oklahoma State, one at OU. And the transfer portal is awful. And I'm just saying this because coaches, if you talk to coaches, I talk to a lot of coaches right now, they can't coach the kids because if you try to discipline the kids, especially a really good athlete, you try to instruct the kid, they get up and they leave. they just transfer out.

And so there has to be some structure around this. And not to mention when they transfer this much, are they really there for an education? Because that's what college collegiate sports was all about, was getting that education, building that foundation. And every time you transfer, are you on schedule to actually build to graduate with a four-year degree or a five-year degree? No, that's why the college athletes graduation rate, on-time graduation rate,

has plummeted since this transfer portal has been put in place. And so I think there's got to be some guidelines. I mean, just spitball in here with you. What I would like to see is that when they transfer, they can transfer after their sophomore year, and then they can transfer after their senior year for their fifth year eligibility. But they can only hit the transfer portal twice.

That way they have to stay out of school, get a foundation, and they can be coached. But the NIL, man, name image and likeness. I know this wasn't what we're going to talk about, but we're just going down the rabbit hole with you, Will. But the name image and likeness should be based on name, image, and likeness, right? If they're selling a jersey and you get a percentage of it, if they're running commercials or ads on you, you should get a percentage of it.

You got a big social media following. You ought to be able to get paid for it. But to have someone, and I'm not, listen, I'm not going out to Mark Cuban on this, because good on hand from Bell to Go to his university, but to build it go in and buy a team, which they have a great coach, don't get me wrong, at Indiana, just shows what one big donor can do for a university. When they're not paying kids based on NIL, their name, image, and likeness, they're paying them because of their association with the school.

That's completely different within what NIL was supposed to be for, and there has to be some type of structure around this, or you're not having, you know, collegiate athletes anymore. And by the way, you set them up for financial failure, too. Because if they get paid all this money in four years and you're not having financial classes with them, you're not having any guidelines behind this.

I mean, my Lord, NFL players, most NFL players, I think the last time I saw the statistic is five years after they quit, they're broke. Because they didn't manage their money right. Now you take that to a college athlete at 18-year-old, 19-year-old. We've got to have some type of boundaries around this at some point. Indiana, in defense of Indiana, if I were a fan of the Hoosiers, I would say Mark Cuban, doing what he's doing for the Hoosiers is only catching up to what so many have already done

for the University of Texas or for Oklahoma. Now, I would say this was also very predictable. I was on ESPN at the time suggesting NIL will be a farce. There's no way to avoid it being a farce, how do you put a market value on, at a much lower level, Billy Bob Ford dealership outside of Norman suggesting, I'm going to pay this defensive end $1 million to come be in my car ads when actually what he's paying him to do is to sack the quarterback. Who's going to put the market value on the car ad versus sacking the quarterback? Now, I know that some of the legislation in D.C. is going to try to co-op, for example, Ernst & Young to vet true and real NIL deals. I think it's doomed to failure. I think the entire enterprise has been doomed to

failure in forcing some real definitional market economics into NIL. What I would offer is something a little different, as long as we're spitballing here. Instead of the sophomore and senior year transfer period, what if we did something like the NFL or any other really form of employment, which is just suggest you sign a contract and you're held to the contract. So it's not, you can't transfer, honestly, it's not even every year. This transfers could be every six to seven months. And, well, I guess it's one year because we're down to one transfer portal window. It's now. It's in January. But you sign a guy. He signs a two-year contract, a three-year contract. He can't transfer during the terms of the contract. I don't disagree with that. I thought about the contract, too.

But, I mean, there is some cases to where rare cases, but there is cases to sometimes where you do need to leave and so do you get into it where they can buy your contract out do you get universities because the NFL they get they can go in there and they can buy the contract out right you can swap for it so then you get into to trading papers which is why i i always started with acronym kiss uh keep it simple uh the more complicated to get the more the more for um interpretation and my whole point on the nil with that you know like what you said billy bob auto dealership in norman Oklahoma that's got a used dealership can pay a million dollars kind of but that's easy to build look at and see what the going rate for a spokesperson is for a used

card leadership and so you can see if you know if the name image and likeness is actually matching what would be if you got you know the rock to come in and do your to do a commercial for you versus a college football player so there is some boundaries because in every industry as you know there's always a set standard. There's always a going rate. I don't care what industry you're in. There's kind of a pay scale that you follow. So I don't know. I just know what we're doing isn't working and it's got a, it's got to change. I mean, a prime example for this. OU, OSU. OU and OSU, they've always been competitive in wrestling. Like I said, I'm vested in both. This year was the first time that

that OU was shut out by OSU and wrestling in a bed alone on Sunday since 92. The big difference is there's been a lot of money, specifically one individual, which is good on him to build and put the money in. I mean, the people that have the finances, fine, go do this. But it's not equal anymore. Not everybody's on the same playing field. Put a tremendous amount of money between the OSU program, brought in a great coach.

Once again, my kids are benefiting from this. I'm not saying this. but it took away the competitive edge because of one big donor into one program. They're not competitive anymore. They're not even close to being competitive. Even though OU is still ranked in the top 15 in the country, there's still a big difference between the top five versus everybody else. And they're all financially supported, heavily financial supported.

Yeah. It is the Wild Wild West. Congratulations to Miami and Indiana. Let's translate and transfer over into the world stage, Senator. The President of the United States tells the protesters of Iran, help is on the way. What do you understand that to mean? Well, I've got to be careful what I can talk about. I have been briefed slightly about what's going on, not what the strategy is.

There's two different things. So I'm just going to make kind of an educated assumption here. A couple of things. One, turn the lights back on. By having Starlink be able to get back in the sky, we will be able to decipher really quick, who's using Starlink and who's using closed circuits, because every time you use your cell phone, every time this happens in whatever place, it puts up a signal, it's like a fingerprint. And so it's easy to isolate the regime from Starlink.

And then even know if it's using Starlink, there's a way for us to get messages. So turn the lights back on for the people to communicate about what's really happening. I mean, for instance, Starlink's just been up for a little bit. We're getting reports now that Iran has put their Revolutionary Guard in, which is, by the way, this is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is considered to like the SS comparable to the Nazis. They're true believers. So they've stationed them at hospitals, and anyone that comes in with serious wounds or gunshots, they're basically saying, you can't fix them, let them die.

So those reports are starting to come in. I believe once we see the full picture, then the president can start making sound decisions on what he wants to do. I want to remind you to the 12-day war. The president made it very clear during that 12-day war that he knew where the regime leaders were and said, we could take you out or behave. If you come after us, we know where you're at,

we're going to locate you. Well, the technology that we have to be able to do that is still in existence today. And if we, even if we don't physically fully take them out, we drive them deep into their cave and they can't communicate anymore with a revolutionary guard or their army, chaos breaks out. It allows leadership to rise to the top. And we're not there to take out the regime. We're there to support the people of Iran to take back their country.

And this is, we didn't start this, the regime by oppressing the individuals there, by not allowing girls to go to school by stoning individuals for minor offenses because of Sharia law, they have forced this on the people because it wasn't that long ago, where Iran was more restaurantized than probably United States.

I mean, you can go back to the year I was born in 1977. They had more people, more women elected to public office in the United States. They had more women in the workplace and more professionals, professional women in the workplace, the United States did. Fast forward to 1979, they overthrew Shaw, and this is what we have today.

So those individuals from my parents' age, they still remember what Iran can be. And they are fighting to get back their country, and the president is saying, we're going to support you. That doesn't mean that we're pushing for regime change. We're just supporting the people in trying to keep this murderous regime change from killing them. So I feel like we turn the lights back on and we either drive the regime leadership into hiding and give them an exit ramp to go to Russia. I'm sure Russia will allow them with open arms or eventually we weaken them to where the Iranian people can capture them. Let's keep trying to figure out if this is a new vision of American imperialism with Senator Mark Wayne Mullen here on Will Kane Country.

At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health from the Big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life.

Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. This is Ainsley-Airheart. Thank you for joining me for the 52-episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We'll still hanging out with Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. Today, the Vice President is meeting with, I think, representatives of Denmark, perhaps representatives of Greenland, about the future of Greenland. We have, as I understand it, Senator, World War II, Cold War Agreement,

with NATO and Denmark to have as big of a military presence as we want in Denmark. We can put whatever we want, as many bases as many soldiers into Denmark, preserving our national security interests. That doesn't seem to be good enough for the president. He's talked about the value of ownership. Fine. We all get that as a proposition. Nobody washes a rental car.

There's a value in ownership. But what is it that we want out of Greenland that we can't get with our current security agreement. So I think you need to go back and look at the conversation has been taken on, taking place for literally 20 years about the aggressive behavior that Russia and China has had in the sea just off of Greenland. The shipping lane there, which is vitally important, by the way, because just like Alaska covers are western flank, Greenland covers are eastern flank and the shipping lanes that go

through there. But there's a lot of vital infrastructure that's in the water. there too. China and Russia for years has been mapping that area, aggressively mapping it, aggressively laying what we think is a plan for underwater issues during the time of war. They are alerting the system to where they could probably choke down that lane. Even NATO has raised awareness of this and has asked Denmark to do something about it. They've refused to do anything about it. They've kind of like turned a blind eye, turn a neutral eye to it. The amount of infrastructure that it's going to take us to actually be able to protect our eastern flank

is a tremendous amount of investment and not, I mean, in the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. What we are saying is our approach is, listen, if Denmark wants us to do this, and Greenland wants us to do this, by the way, they're all threatened by Russian China operating like they are, But if they want us to protect them and they want us to put in the hundreds of billions of dollars for the infrastructure that's going to be needed for air defense, for ports, for early warning systems, the list goes on, then we probably, it'd be in America's best interest that we actually own the soil we're investing those dollars into. And I mean, we're not looking to invade and we're not doing that. What we would like to do is see Denmark, either one, give the people of Greenland an opportunity to vote if they would rather be part of the United States. Or two, sell it to us, because the amount of money we're going to spend putting in it is going to be ridiculous, expensive. But if they sell it to us, then the money, a big chunk of it, should go to those that are living in Greenland.

But it has become a national security interest in us to make sure that because of the aggressive behavior of Russia and China in the waters there, it's become a national security interest in us or for the United States to have more than just a partnership. Okay. I get all of that, Senator. I hear you on the national security threat. I hear you on the investment that it would take to secure those shipping channels that land around Greenland. The question is, why, though, does that investment demand ownership? I get it. You don't have to sell me on it would be good for America to own Greenland.

I get all that. But I hear the critics when they say, you already have the security agreement in place that you could do everything you just said. And then if you're arguing back to me is, yeah, but if I do everything that you just said, it's all the benefit Greenland. I'm spending all this money for Greenland. But you're also making the argument to me that it's for the benefit of America to protect our eastern flank. And we certainly do things across the globe that serve our own interests without demanding an equity stake or wherever we're doing it. We patrol the Suez Canal. We patrol the Red Sea.

We patrol and essentially, for lack of better word, not own, but control with our dollars and our resources, large parts of the world where we don't demand ownership. So I guess I feel like as much as I think it serves the American interest. And by the way, I believe in conquest. You don't offend me with the idea of conquest, but for those that are offended, it's like, well, it's NATO, it's Denmark, there are allies. You can't just take land from somebody. So to their argument and their point, can't you get everything you need out and around Greenland without demanding the ownership of Greenland? Well, I'd go back to my first point about what Russia and China is doing in open waters just off the coast of Greenland. Russian and China isn't behaving that way off the coast of United States or off the coast of Alaska

because we don't control those waters. We're not having the U.S. Coast Guard out there. We're not preventing them from the aggressive behavior or the aggressive posture to which they're posturing there for. Make no mistake, there's a reason why they're doing that because that is a very important pass through there. And so if we have ownership, then we also control that water to a much deeper understanding than what we do right now. And what I said is that Denmark isn't enforcing that. Even though NATO has warned Denmark that this is a problem, NATO is not necessarily Greenland, but Denmark isn't making the effort to do anything about it.

And yet, like I said, this has been a problem for 20 years. that has been raised to Denmark to say, hey, you need to do this. You need to pay attention to it because this isn't in our interest and the rest of the NATO allies is interest. And because they've turned a blind eye, this is where we bled to,

okay, if you're not willing to do it, or maybe they're just not capable. Maybe they don't have the sea power to do it, which is, by the way, very likely. They don't have the ability to do it. We are going to do it, but that's got to be part of the U.S. coastal line. What President Trump has suggested that oil will be cut off from Venezuela to Cuba?

That would put Cuba, I presume, in a pretty difficult position. So is the end game in Cuba for Marco Rubio to be the president of Cuba, the general manager of the Miami Dolphins, the number one booster of the Miami Hurricane Secretary of State and National Archivist? No. What we were like to happen in Cuba is, you know, all those people that fled Cuba in California, to the Florida, it wasn't because they hated their country, it's that their country gave them nowhere else to go. And Venezuela's been propping up Cuba for decades now. We know that. You know, when we cut off this illegal trading that has been happening in Venezuela, it obviously

puts Cuba in a very, very, very tough situation. And it, you know, it worries you when you have Russia that is planning your backyard that close. What I've said is, the Western Hemisphere is our backyard. And we need to make sure we pay attention to our backyard and give the people that's in that hemisphere the opportunity to have freedom and move away from a dictator if they choose to. But there's a bigger picture that we're talking about,

not just Cuba that's losing the oil, but let's talk about China for a second. Remember Venezuela was providing roughly 400,000 barrels of oil a day to China. And then Iran was taken up over a million barrels a day, that was going to China, all on these illegal ghost fleet ships out there. Iran is in disarray. They're not able to export like they were. They have pretty much stopped all exports because they're just trying to get a hold of their country.

Venezuela has stopped. China is going to be in a very big mess pretty quick. They had 90 days of supplies, what is what we know of, but they never predicted they lose two sources at once. So with losing two sources at once, that supply could go down to 45 days because Russia now, is also being cut off. So not only have they lost one, two, but they've lost partial of three. And so China could see a 30% increase in energy because that's what they're buying this crude oil at about a 30% discount. They could see a huge increase in energy in a very, very, very short time. And that would run on the yen because all their factories, all their transports, everything.

And as we've said multiple times, energy is the backbone of your economy. You can't produce energy and or a product and you can't deliver a product with that factoring in the energy cost. And I think that's a bigger play that people aren't paying attention here because they're so caught up in Venezuela in Iran right now. They're not seeing the effect it's going to have on China's economy. So is that is that the overarching endgame? Is that the tie that bind Senator? You know, there's those that say President Donald Trump was elected not once but twice on this sort of. and I'm going to use their characterization, a characterization which I reject, which largely comes from some segments of the right, of this new American isolationism. I don't think it really was ever about isolationism. So if they frame it that way, they're going to be confused about where we stand here today. But he was elected on peace, and he continues to talk about his accomplishments when it comes to peace. He was critical of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and

as failed experiments in regime change. And I do think it's legitimate for people to ask, well, then what are we doing in Venezuela? What are we potentially doing in Cuba? What are we doing in Iran? Are we not doing some of the same of which he was critical in Iraq and Afghanistan? I have my own answers for this. But I would love to hear your answer as to how you reconcile the positions held in the past by President Trump with the actions today of President Trump. Is the answer what you just said, it's all a big geopolitical play to box in China? No, there's nothing about geopolitical play here. It just has to do where the dominoes are stacked.

I mean, when you have an axis of evil that consists of Iran, Russia, and China, and then they bring in Venezuela and Cuba as pawns, when you start pulling the string, they unravel very, very quick. And so when you start, you start, looking at President Trump's approach. President Trump is a peace to strength president. You can you can achieve peace through having a very strong America. And the president is using that. He's restoring that. He's saying, listen, we're not playing pancakes with you. We've talked policy enough. We've tried diplomacy. It hasn't worked. Enough's enough. We're not bluffing. You see what he did in

in Iran by taking out their nuclear sites. Mind you, the air defense that Iran had was very close to the same type of air offense that Venezuela has, too, which we obviously have been able to bypass. Why? Because they're using the same source. But when so when the president has made a proactive approach, he took out, he wants to, he put back sanctions back in Iran. Iran could have changed their behavior if they wanted to.

China could have changed their behavior. They could have started buying oil on the open market. that they wanted to. He put into sanctions against Russian oil oligarchs again and said, you're not selling your oil as long as you're still killing people in Ukraine. Russia could change their behavior anytime they wanted to. They chose not to. We gave Maduro multiple opportunities to leave. He decided not to. So we went and got the indicted cartel leader out of Venezuela. So he's given people the opportunity to change, but when you decide not to change, then we know, we realize how fragile your infrastructure is. By just plucking out Maduro, it caused Cuba.

We didn't go to Cuba. We're not going to Cuba. We understood how much Cuba relied on Venezuela, but that wasn't why we went into Venezuela. We went into Venezuela because Maduro was poisoned our streets. The ripple effect is it's going to affect Cuba. That's just the ripple effect. We wanted to get the guy who's poisoned and killing our friends and our families on our streets off of the ability to do that, which he was using the cartels and the oil cells to launder cartel money through. It was like he's the kingpin in the cartel world in Central and South America that's killing our friends and family on the streets. So that's our plug. Now what happened is in Iran, we didn't start that with that that uprising in Iran. But because of what is taking place, because the sanctions

that President Trump reapplied to Iran, and instead of us sending on pallets of billions of dollars to profit the regime like the Biden administration did. We reinstated the sanctions was put in place, and the Iranian people decided they had enough, enough to enough. And now we're saying we're going to support that. We're not into regime change. Regime change is what happened underneath Secretary Clinton with President Obama in office, and we went in there and removed leaders, and we caused a complete disarray.

And honestly, that's why the Muslim population has exploded around the world, because some men were displaced because their countries were in a civil war. And we're seeing the effects of that now. And some of these countries still aren't out. And Venezuela, we're given the people decide to get back to a democracy. And Iran, we're going to support the freedom of Iranian people and let them choose their leaderships. And China, once again, they were just part of the fabric that was a string because they chose to do business on the black market that now they're being caught in the middle of it. They can change their behavior and they can start buying crude oil at market price. They're just going to have to factor that into their cost now.

Okay, really quickly, I'm going to ask you two things. I want to see if you'll tell me the answer before we go. I do believe there's a report out today that contradicts previous positions from the government, that Havana syndrome. People who may not be familiar, Havana syndrome with some that's been talked about for a couple of years, where diplomats, CIA agents have talked about pulsing headaches, nausea, physical disorientation, stationed in places like Havana, might have been caused by some type of weapon. That was previously denied. It was suggested that foreign adversaries didn't have that kind of power.

I do believe there's a report out suggesting that it's real, and it can be caused. So I would love for you to tell me what you know about that. And the follow-up question is, was that what was used in Venezuela? There are viral things going around about some type of sonic weapon. I don't know if the viral things were real. I don't know if the posts are true. But there were some real halo stuff being used in Venezuela during the raid.

So the Havana syndrome, yes, very familiar with it. When I sat on my time on Intel, we talked about this all the time. every report we got was as inclusive, they couldn't find any weapons, they couldn't find any consistencies in this or not. I don't think it's connected to what we use in Venezuela. There's been a lot of, there's been a lot of reports on Venezuela that people are getting nosebleeds and stuff. A lot of it, we had to, we had to, I'm trying to figure out how close I can get to this. We had technology that was preventing drones. just in case there was drones by the enemy, especially what we'd consider kamikaze drones,

that were preventing them from hitting maybe some of our aircrafts. And that could have been a reverse effect. I've heard the reports too. I've been briefed on this four times. I actually asked specifically about it, and they just, they're like, no, sir. Those are false reports. That's just stuff you see on the internet. So I guess time will tell more of the reports come out.

the public, but what I've seen is that technology doesn't exist. All right. Finally, Paul McGee asks on YouTube, is this a sports talk radio show or a political talk show? I'm starting to get confused. I think we can both answer that, Senator. The answer is yes. Yes, that's right. Yes.

What's wrong with two guys sitting there having a conversation, right? Exactly, Paul. What's wrong with that, Paul? You guys having a conversation, sometimes political and sometimes sports. All right, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, thanks for spending so much time with us here today. We always love having you on. All right, we'll take care. Bye.

Okay, there he goes. Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma. Fight yesterday on the Will Cain Show on the Fox News Channel with Congressman Maxwell Frost. A lot of feedback, a lot of your comments. I want to break it down for you in a little bit of post-debate analysis next on the Will Cain country. To the studio for the post-game analysis of a debate between Will Cain and. Congressman Maxwell Frost. It is Wilcane Country. Stream alive at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page, the Fox News Facebook

page. Follow us on Spotify or Apple. You join the community in one of those Wilcane pages, YouTube, Facebook, where you can leave a comment. Like on Facebook right now, in the Willisha, in the comment section, Will Rose says you can't expect the United States to drop that much money in Greenland and not have any kind of ownership. But Teresa Polar says, talking about taking over Greenland, Cuba, sounds less like policy and more like a history lesson gone wrong. There's also a rebuttal from John Adcock, who says, you can defend something that you don't own. Ellen Vogel also chimes in, America has enough challenges at home without auditioning for an empire reboot. Yesterday on the Will Kane Show on the Fox News Channel, I invited on Congressman Maxwell Frost, Democrat, Florida, Young.

Far left. And I intended to have a conversation that spanned several aspects of the happenings in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Whether or not he and other Democrats who are calling the ICE officer a murderer are really dedicated to the thing they give voice to, which is due process. Whether or not they, like Mayor Jacob Frye, Minneapolis, believe ICE's presence in Minneapolis is unconstitutional. and whether or not they would give the advice to their sister to do what was done by Renee Good. Here's a little bit of that debate with Congressman Maxwell Frost. You use a very specific legal term. To use the term murder. Murder has a definition.

Murder has a definition. And you use that. It's a criminal definition. That's the term I'm using. What I am saying is, yes, that officer is entitled to due process. Yes, there should be a process. But two things. Number one, Renee Nicole Good was not given due.

process that ice agent was jury and executioner in that moment for that woman. But number two, and this is very, very important, within minutes, do you know who the first person to come out and label someone in this was? It was this administration. When Christy Noe, when Stephen Miller came out and labeled Renee Nicole Good. I know what you're going to say, but let's just suggest I went on to say you're just playing tit for tat. If you think it's wrong for the administration to call Renee Good a domestic terrorist, why are you so quickly calling? this man without any evidence, other than a viral video, a murderer. My George Costanza moment, tinfo, Pat, two a day's, Dan, is that when he said,

Renee Good wasn't given due process. And it was offered up on X by a member of Willisha. Renee Good ran from due process. I wish I would have said that because detainment, arrest, charging, adjudication, defense, prosecution, sentencing. That is due process. interaction with law enforcement is part of the process of due process. She exempted herself from it by running from law enforcement, ultimately running over. Officer Jonathan Ross, by the way, the reports are now. CBS News, Jonathan Ross suffered internal bleeding from getting hit by Renee Good's car. I think that's up right now. So certainly flies in the face of the idea that he wasn't in front of the car or didn't get hit by the car or wasn't threatened. I wish I would have said that was due process, Congressman Frost. She ran from process, but I didn't. And you're not going to bat a thousand in these things. You're not going

about a thousand, boys. And I've said there are several categories of analysis, feedback I get from the audience. I just want to tell you, I'm going to share some of it with you, and I'm going to tell you how they categorize into it. So here's Alicia Breslo on X as Wilcane cook to this guy. This POS, Dem has no effing clue. I got a lot of that. I got a lot that Will humiliated Congressman Frost. Then I got stuff like this from GME. Kane got humiliated again. Okay? I guess

I'm a regular place to turn for humiliation. But I'm going to give you a few more because this helps tell you what I think most people feel. And I'm going to tell you how I feel about what people feel. And I don't want tinfoil patent two at A Dan to chime in as well.

Marie says, I love you, Will. But stop speaking over your guest, even though we disagree with him, it's extremely annoying. Okay, not the only person. Here's another positive one from W.O.M. I love watching the Will Kane show. There's just humble brags. Trump was right.

No, they all fit into four categories, Dan. One of those categories is flattering. Trump was right, again, says this was not at all productive, Will. Every time you have a left-wing looney on, they just talk over you and repeat the same thing a million times. Are there any Democrats that aren't Trump deranged? They all sound like raving lunatics. do better. The four categories go like this, Dan. Yeah, there are a lot of people like,

you whipped his ass. That was awesome. I love your show. You hold their feet to the fire. And if I'm being fair, and I say fair because I give a lot of attention to the negative, that is the majority. The majority of the feedback that I get falls into that camp. There are three other camps. Those three other camps are, as illustrated just now, why do you talk over them? What's the point in having them on if you're going to just interrupt, right? I think that's also illustrated here by a guy who I think is being sincere. But imagine if you didn't. Rick Amweg. No, I imagine it. Listen to Rick. I thought a debate meant two people with opposing viewpoints discussing an issue. The conversation with Maxwell Frost was anything but that. Just let him express his views without interrupting. I thought I was watching an episode of of you. Okay, so that's the second

category. This is my burner. The will kick to his ass category. Yeah, that was just Patrick's burner. Yeah, I was not being sincere. It's not really your burner, right? I wouldn't, I mean, I wouldn't put it past you, but that's not really your burner. It was about five.

I'm going to be honest with the audience. Here's the calculation on this stuff. Okay? I enjoy disagreement. I enjoy the debate. In order for it to be productive, you have to be on the page. You have to be having a conversation. It can't be two different conversations being had at the

same time. You understand? You can't have two one-way conversations. You can't have two people talking past one another. And I think that I am pretty good at not doing that. I don't think that what I'm doing is over the shoulder of the guest in service of the audience. And that's what a lot of shows and people do. They use this as sort of like a shadow box. It's actually a W.W.E. performance for the audience's consumption. I'm listening to what they have to say. I'm rebutting with that. I'm engaged in the moment. And when I get, in particular, I'm telling you, Democrat politicians, I can sense immediately when that's not what's happening. when they stop having a conversation with me and start doing their public broadcast. Do you understand?

And I feel like both Moulton last week and Frost this week do that about halfway into their answers. I let them speak. That's who I am. That's what I do. And by the way, that's to address some of the other criticism I get. Like, while one camp thinks I interrupt too much, there's another. camp that's like, there's another camp that says to me that I let them, look at this, here's our car. Will, you let Representative Maxwell Frost run his mouth all over you. Why? He's a POS

loser and you let him talk over you in his condescending manner and it's beyond comprehension. Why, Will? I get, that's the third category I get. Like, Will, you got your ass whipped because you didn't interrupt. You let him go on and on. Okay, so I'm in a, for some of the, the audience, I'm in a no-win situation. You interrupt too much. Why do you have a guest on if you're going to interrupt them? I always will be. And for another category of people, it's like you let him run all over you. You let him do this.

And I think that's also illustrated by this one. And everybody's an armchair quarterback. I appreciate it. I'm an armchair quarterback when it comes to football or a lot of things. But Terry should probably put her application in because to Fox, she says, why don't you push back on guests? I'm at home with counterpoints, and you're trying to get. out the longest question ever. I just, Terry.

Relax. I look forward to the Terry show. I really do. I really look forward to the Terry show where you were this combative, pugilistic, great on-point debater from the couch in your home. And I don't doubt you do have those great points

because I often do what I'm watching. But you ever heard the speech, The Man in the Arena? It is a little different when you're the man in the arena. And I missed some. Like, I missed the due process thing. I'm willing to admit that. I should have said that about due process, but you cannot, I can be objective, you cannot say I don't push back.

You just can't. In fact, between the two camps, those that say you don't interrupt, you let them run all over you, and those that say you interrupt too much, I agree with the second more than the first. I wish I interrupted less, not more. I don't want to shut them down in the middle of their point. I want to rebut their point. I can only rebut their point if I hear their point. Now, my challenge is, and some of this is external to television, there is a finite period of time.

And all the left did their thing again. Every time Will King gets pressed, he has to go to break. I literally have to go to break at some point. And our debate is going to run. Our debate is going to run. So I'm going to have to cut it off at some point. And my technique is to be honest and open with the audience and everybody watching, we have a commercial break. We're going to have to end this soon.

By the way, Frost, just like Mark Wayne Mullen today, had a vote he had to get to. With politicians, I have to honor their request. They make requests on when they have to go to go to vote. Moulton had to go vote. Frost had to go vote. Mullen just had to go vote. And by the way, I kept Mullen three minutes longer than his requested time to leave so that he get to his vote. I don't know if he's running into the chamber.

I kept Frost two to three minutes past his requested time to leave to go do his vote. Moulton, I think I got him out on time to go get his vote. So this is all going on, folks. all this time issue. And it forces me to interrupt when I think that Frost, if I'm having a debate about Minnesota and you bring up January 6th, you're not having a conversation anymore. You're doing your own thing. They have talking points.

And Moulson did that. You're doing talking points. And Frost did that. And so I'm going to interrupt you because you're doing your thing and we're supposed to be doing a thing here together. There is the fourth category I mentioned, right? The fourth category is, why do you even have them on? Like, this is Lisa Robinson on X giving voice to this.

Will, you had Frost on today. The other day it was Moulton. Please stop giving them air time. I'm so sick of hearing liberals yell, squeal, and lie. Don't ruin your show with these people. If I want to hear from them, I will watch MSNBC. Well, Lisa, all due respect, maybe the Will Cain show isn't for you. I don't do it every segment.

I don't do it every day, but I am going to do it. I got a text from somebody yesterday after that was like, this was his characterization. You have to confront the loonies. You have to expose the loonies. I think there's value in that, okay? I think there's value in the conversation, and I will continue to have it. And if you can't abide by that, if you simply can't hear it, I think you've got a lot of options. Maybe I'm not one of your options.

If you don't like it, don't give value from it, don't enjoy it. don't want to hear the other point of view. I think you have a lot of options. I just might not be one of your options, and I respect that. Rating suggests that you are in the minority. A lot of people like the option that I am providing at 4 o'clock Eastern, 3 o'clock Central. I also appreciate that I meanness, even though I'm kind of rude to a minute on occasion, but not at the whole time, Congressman Maxwell Frost or Congressman Seth Moulton coming on to the Will Cohn show.

Today, by the way, in what I don't anticipate will be a debate, we will have Senator John Federman on the Wilcane show. We'll be right back on Will Cain Country. It's the golden moment. Triumph on the podium, golden hand. But with Corona Cerro, golden moments go beyond the Winter Olympics. They're enjoying sunsets, time outside, reconnecting with nature, and laughs shared with friends. For every golden moment at the Winter Olympic Games, Enjoy your own with Corona Serro, 0% alcohol and a source of vitamin D.

Corona Cerro, the official non-alcoholic beer of Milano Cortina, 2026. All right. Now I want to welcome in Kristen Wagoner. She's with the ADL, the Alliance for Defending Liberty. I believe I have that attribution correct. Kristen, we had you yesterday as well on the show coming out of the Supreme Court. after the arguments over with the justices, the oral arguments for whether or not states like West Virginia and Idaho can ban men from participating in women's sports, trans sports issues. You came in, ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom, not Liberty.

Tomato, but it is ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom. But I also found it fascinating. I don't know how long you stuck around, Kristen, but I guess the tariff arguments were a few weeks ago, but we're expecting a decision to come. come down at some point on the tariffs as well. But let's just talk about the trans thing. It's, you know, Secretary Besson said he thinks that hearing oral arguments at the Supreme Court is one of the last things that were, as the framers intended it, to really hear these people. And he accepted Katanji Brown Jackson. He said, but for the most recent justice, it's really fascinating to hear the process. He kind of dismissed her because she's really bad, even if you're on the left.

You have to acknowledge. She's just really bad. But it must have been fascinating to hear those arguments, which did bowl down to like, hey, what is a woman? Well, it was fascinating. At ADF, we've had the privilege to have 20 cases before the Supreme Court in just the last decade or so. And I've argued three of those cases. So it's been a privilege to look at all the different arguments and see how justice has show up. In this particular instance, we at ADF represented three of the female athletes that were parties to the case. We were also co-counsel and stood alongside Idaho and West Virginia. So it was a big day for us, and it took us about 10 years to get there in terms of when we first started seeing girls being challenged in locker rooms and on the athletic

field. And I sure hope it doesn't take another 10 years in order to ensure that all girls have the right to equal opportunity and fairness. So, Kristen, I'm going to characterize this. You tell me if I get it wrong, okay? And you heard me say, sort of you can go all the way of Supreme Court, and it's going to blow down to that now infamous question, what is a woman? And here's why. Tell me if I characterize this correctly. Okay. The Constitution of the United States does not preclude the state from discrimination. We all walk around kind of regurgitating that cliche. Like, you can't discriminate. No, you can discriminate. And we do it all the time. Laws discriminate. They even discriminate on the basis of race. But for every category of discrimination and the Supreme Court has their categories of discrimination, there's a different test. So, for example, if the state is discriminating on the basis of race, of race, either overtly or subversively, they have to satisfy a very heavy burden. That burden is called, in legal terms, strict scrutiny. Why are you discriminating on the basis of race?

Do you have a very, very valid reason to be doing so? And the answer in some occasions is yes, right? But there are other categories like sex, and that's what we call intermediate scrutiny. So the state still has a burden, but it's not as heavy as it is with race. to show why you have an interest in discriminating. So the question for the court in a lot of ways was whether or not these trans athlete bans are sex discrimination. And what standard did they use to uphold or strike down the law? And it boiled down to Justice Alito going, hey, can you define sex?

He didn't do what is a woman, but he did, can you define sex? And the answer was no from opposing counsel. And he's like, well, how can I decide if it's sex discrimination if I can't define sex? and it therefore came down to that same old question. What is a woman? It absolutely does. And actually, this is one area where I sort of agree with Kataji Brown Jackson. If you remember in her confirmation hearing, she says she needs to ask a biologist.

I don't need to ask a biologist, but I do know it's rooted in biology. We know for a fact that men have physical advantages over women. And there's no testosterone suppressant or puberty blocker that erases those advantages. And I think it's important to point out the ACLU absolutely does. know what a woman is, they are intentionally trying to blur the line and erase the line. And what I didn't hear enough of yesterday, I didn't hear enough about the voices of the women that have been harmed by men coming into their sports. First of all, between the two categories, boys and males are treated the same across the board. So really what the ACL was trying to do

is change sex into gender identity and to give special treatment to those men who would identify as women and not equal treatment. And that's the real heart of the issue. But man, I want to hear more about the 423 girls that the male athlete in West Virginia displaced 1,100 times. And I want to hear from the girls that lost 57 medals. Or how about our clients who literally were bumped from advanced competition because the male athlete took the client, took her role, took her roster spot. or the other clients that we had that actually had to compete against a guy at the NCAA championship and in the NCAA championship took the Big Sky Championship. And obviously they didn't even make it into the championship as a result.

What does that mean displaced? It's a stunning stat. One athlete displaced 400 some odd female athletes. What does displaced mean? Well, in track in particular where we're seeing this, you know, you get to higher competition and you make your way, there's only a limited number of people that can fill those lanes, right, whether it's the top eight lanes that get to take the track in terms of the heats. And then it's only a certain limited number that can then compete for the advanced competition.

So one male athlete has a seismic impact on all of the other girls that are trying to compete in track. And that's what we've seen. I mean, even in Connecticut, we had a case that has continued there where two boys competed as boys, three weeks later competed as girls to 15 state championships in just a couple year period. I mean, this is what's happening on the ground. So to not have that come out loud and clear

and have just everyone focusing on the boy who wants to compete as a girl rather than the unfairness. And the fact that, you know, the boy's in the girls' locker room and he's actually sexually harassing the girls. They've said that under oath. We need to talk about that too.

Our rights shouldn't be erased. Justice Amy Conan Bernie Barrett, pressed counsel on, and I don't know that I fully understand the argument, so I'd love for you to help me out here, that how is it sex discrimination if it only runs one way? So both, I believe, Idaho and West Virginia banned males from competing in women's sports. So to use the parlance of our times, trans girls, keep trans girls out of girls' sports, So boys competing in girls' sports. But it didn't work in reverse.

Do I have that right, Kristen? So if a girl wanted to go compete in boys' sports as a trans man, the states didn't preclude that. And how does that cut? Tell me the logic, which is law, of Coney Barrett seeing that as an important point. Well, I think you have to understand the two legal arguments, which you clearly do. But for your audience in terms of what was being argued,

there's an equal protection claim under the Constitution, and then there's a statutory claim called Title IX under federal law. And the equal protection claim basically says you have to treat similarly situated people similarly. And you already talked about the level of scrutiny that you get to in that. And in that particular application, what the court is looking at are there reasonable differences between men and women that would cause you to treat them differently? And, you know, you like to see on different cryons and the media talking about, well, this is a transgender ban. Well, actually, females who identify as males have, they can compete in the male category because they're never going to be as strong. They're never going to be as competitive. They don't have those physical advantages. And so it's not actually, it's recognizing those differences.

On Title IX, though, I think it's important to point out the Title IX statute itself actually says you can make these. these differences on the athletic field in living facilities and even in sex ed classes, because we all know that those differences are important in those settings. Okay, so a trans ban at large, what I hear you saying, would probably satisfy Title IX. But on the equal protection front, you don't want to argue, or it's not even tailored the law, to be a trans band. And part of the points of that is if it's just a ban on. on boys joining girls sports, it's easier to satisfy the reasonable standard for the level of

scrutiny required. Do I have that right? So that a broad trans... Okay. Sorry. I would phrase it a little different because it's actually no men get to do this, right? So the distinction is the male category applies to the boy no matter how he identifies. And really what's going on here is trying to replace the word sex for gender identity. trans those who are identifying as the opposite sex have every right to compete in sport. But what matters in sport isn't your gender identity. What matters is your sex. And for that reason, it doesn't violate the Constitution and certainly not Title IX,

which it's written into the law that you should make those distinctions. Does that make sense in terms of what I'm thinking? I follow. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. It seems Title IX is the easier standard to satisfy. I think it satisfies the 14th. as well, the Equal Protection Clause, because I think it's totally absurd all of this,

ultimately in the end. I'm indulging the legal arguments, so I think they're interesting, and I think that hearing the justices sound them out as interesting, but let's never lose side of the fact that this is commonsensibly absurd. And it seems like the Supreme Court actually agrees, right? Like, coming out of that, it's always hard to predict off of oral arguments, but it does seem like the Supreme Court would uphold the Idaho and West Virginia laws banning boys from participating in girls' sports? I'm extremely hopeful, and 27 states actually have these laws. So we want those laws to be upheld in all of those states. And if we don't, what we'll see is that girls are going to become spectators in their own sports. And again, I would just emphasize

what we didn't hear yesterday was in the focus on the girls in these cases, but also even on the language, you know, using terms like cisgender or transgender. Let's talk about biological reality, men who are identifying as girls, but they are men. Language matters, and it especially matters in the courtroom. I totally. That's right. The point of a courtroom, which I appreciate, is the precision of language. Even you, like I pushed you, what do you mean by displaced?

All of these words have meaning. A lot of people don't want those meanings questioned because they're actually trying to to lead the audience in a direction that it doesn't obviously mean. And so I think it's really interesting because I love how humans communicate and the stuff that's going on underneath the surface of our communication. Great job yesterday. Great job today. I almost made you a member of the ADL, Anti-Defamation League.

I'm glad to correct the record that you were a member of the Alliance for Defending Freedom. Kristen Wagner, thanks for being with us here today. Thanks for covering it. I appreciate it. All right. You bet. Let's go back to the Willisha for just one second. Lisa Freeman on that note says,

Need to do a show with a constitutional law professor or lawyer to explain due process. I think people are confused, especially the left. We should do that. Pat, Dan, we did it in our pre-call meeting as we, you know, I don't know that I satisfied him, but I did try to explain to Dan the difference between detainment and arrest. Oh, I know. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

He still doesn't get it. I still get it. He still doesn't. Or don't want to. Or don't want to. Well, I was making the distinction between detain differently, just as a point of... You mean, like, just using a semantic version of detainment, like, whatever that means? Detaining means not just stopping someone on the street.

I meant to take them somewhere. Detain them. Well, I actually think this conversation I just have with Kristen about the precision of the meaning of words is a big part of what's going on with the problem in our media. I think the media either stupidly or intentionally often chooses words that allows people to fill in the emotional gaps of the words while being purposefully or stupidly imprecise. Do you see what I mean? Like, it's it's, yeah, I mean, it's purposeful ignorance. Like on that detainment versus arrest, like what does it mean to be detained? Oh my God, they're detaining American citizens.

Well, everybody fills in the gaps. I think people fill in the gaps all the way to that means American citizens. and they're in freaking torture chambers in El Salvador. Like, that's what that does. They're detaining American citizens, and people fill in so many gaps before you know it. Joe Phillips is in jail in El Salvador trying to get out, you know? But detainment means he was stopped.

He was questioned. I'm actually going to work on this as soon as I get off this show. What is the legal definition of a difference between detainment and arrest? How long can you detain someone before it becomes? an arrest. You know what I mean? Can it go hours? Can you take the person to a new location? You went to law school. The police station. Again, being a lawyer doesn't mean you have an encyclopedia in your head. I'll just reference back to it. It just means I did go to law school. It's called it call. I got it now. I got it. The left is going to do what they do. I thought a lot about

this like, you know, your lefty aggregators, who are liars because they clip and all that. They did it yesterday, by the way, with Frost. I got a text. I tended like I ended the... The Brooklyn brunch crew must be big followers of Aeson and Aaron Rupar, all these guys. Oh, the bulwark covered it. Did they say I ran from it again? Yeah.

So every morning that you have a Democrat on, I get a text from a bulwark video or something like that. I'm just, hey, what happened to your boy? Like, you mean he killed it? And what was it? What was the accusation? That I cut it off again? They cut it off and that you kind of like were just not following where he was going. Oh, was it that I cut it off or was it the first one?

Because they also jumped on this. Everybody listening. Listen to this part. This is fascinating. Okay. This is how the interview started, right? I want to welcome in now Democrat Congressman from Florida, Maxwell Frost. Democratic will, Democratic Congressman from Florida.

That was his response. I'm a little confused. I'm like, what is he talking about? And I'm like, I think that's what I said. I think I said Democrat congressman from Florida. Did I say Republican? If I said Republican, I stand corrected. You're a Democrat.

I said, I'd be curious if you don't now describe yourself as a Democrat socialist. It's a rising wing in your party. You seem to fit within that group. Are you a Democrat socialist? But you're telling me Democrat. So if I got it wrong, sorry. What they were doing, what he was doing is, you know, whenever I have a Democrat on, it's funny.

The right will be like, stop saying Democratic. It's Democrat Party, not Democratic. party. I didn't know the left feels the same way. Don't call us a Democrat party with a Democratic party. So he was doing that. He was doing that like I have insulted him. Somebody, Patrick, do you know this, Patrick? Somebody sent me a screenshot of Wikipedia and it said, this can't be real. The term Democrat Party is a pejorative when in fact it is the Democratic Party? I mean, we are deep in the hoot. The official name is the Democratic Party. What? Members of that party are Democrats.

So referring to it as the Democrat Party is often considered an epithet or pejorative term used by opponents. That's what it says. So says Wikipedia. So says Google. Democrats.org. That sounds so far removed. What's the source that are citing? Democrat.org?

Democrats.org. Oh. Okay, great. By the way, WTR. Who gives an F? And that's what he came out with out of the gates, and that's what the Brooklyn brunch crew probably is on about. Like, you guys think you got a point scored on this?

I think he looked like petty little peas. I really do. Can I say that? I think I can say that. No, you can't. Nope. I mean, Clay Travis said. spread it out.

But I didn't say it. Yeah. You could say it without saying it. I didn't even say it. Yeah. Yeah. So you get the... So I thought about that.

There's nothing I can do to... There's nothing I can do, Dan. To keep the Democratic propaganda machine from manipulating 20 seconds and a reframing of a 10-minute debate into whatever it is they want. I can't do anything about it. So... How bad it, boys? Will Kane ran from another debate. Why does he keep inviting them on?

And now you and the right have something in common. They keep having the same question. Why do you keep having them on? Like Jim Dandy, I mute you when you have a moron on. Well, Jim, you could just consume the clips like the rest of the left. That's going to do it for us today here on Will Cain Country. We'll be back again tomorrow. Same time, same place.

Make sure you follow some Spotify or Apple. We'll see you next time. Listen to Ad Free with a 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.