Will Cain Country - Stormy Daniels Testifies! PLUS, Possible VP Picks For Former President Donald Trump

Episode Date: May 7, 2024

Story #1: Stormy Daniels testifies! What can she prove and more importantly what can she make you feel? To help break it down, Attorney and Legal Analyst Lexie Rigden joins the show. Story #2: The list for Vice President for Presidential Candidate Donald Trump was leaked, including with comments made by the former President. Who should it exclude? South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. Who should it include? Former North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. Story #3: Winners and losers of, plus reaction to, the roast of former NFL QB Tom Brady.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One. Stormy Daniels takes the stand. Stormy Daniels testifies. What can she?

prove maybe more importantly what can she make you feel two the list for vice president for presidential candidate donald trump who it should exclude south dakota governor christie nome who it should include former north dakota governor dug bergum three winners and losers reaction to the roast of tom brady It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page. And always on demand. All you have to do is simply subscribe or go leave a comment, leave a five-star review at Apple or Spotify. We'll read what you have to say.

You'll share it with your friends. And it will help us grow the user base, the fans, the community around the Will Cain Show, a community which is building on YouTube. We want to have a show that's interactive that doesn't talk at you but talks with you. And so your comments here on the Will Kane Show streaming live on YouTube are read and incorporated into the show. To ensure that you're a member of this community, make sure you subscribe to the Will Cane Show. It's either YouTube.com slash at Will Kane Show or there's a little subscription button underneath the live stream here. The text description underneath this live screen, just hit subscribe, ask for notifications. and then every Monday through Thursday, when we go live at 12 o'clock Eastern time at Facebook or

Fox News.com or YouTube, you will get a notification that you can join the community here at the Will Kane Show, a community which promises exhaustion and insomnia. Insomnia tonight, exhaustion tomorrow. I don't know what's wrong with the schedulers. They may be getting advice from the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, but I don't know what's wrong with the schedulers for the information. NBA in the NHL. They've managed to put me into personal hell tonight at 8.30 central time are both the Dallas stars and the Dallas Mavericks tipping off in the second round of the NHL and the NBA playoffs. How am I supposed to watch two games at once? Again, they're probably getting advice from Alvin Bragg, who doesn't tell anyone when he intends to bring a witness. And today, everyone was a little bit surprised when the prosecution stood and said, we called to the stand Stormy Daniels. The Hornstar at the center of the prosecution of Donald Trump. Well, at the center of the story,

but not at the center of the actual charges, not at the center of an allegation of a crime. I mean, Stormy Daniels can testify exactly to what? What does Stormy Daniels have to say that actually impacts the prosecution of Donald Trump? Depends on how you view a legal trial. Is it proof and evidence? Is it about the law? Or is it about how you make people feel? Let's break that down. Jonathan Turley, law professor and Fox News legal analysts,

broke this down very well on X. He said, Stormy Daniels is about to be called in New York, who sought to sell her story on Trump and receive payment for an NDA. It's not clear what she offers beyond salacious details to embarrass Trump. The NDA is not in dispute. What Turley is saying there is everyone acknowledges the existence of an NDA. The underlying reason for an NDA perhaps might be contested. Did they have an affair?

Did they have a sexual relationship? I believe that Stormy Daniels already testified to that fact and got into some salacious details about the position of that relationship. But what she knows about the existence of an MBA, what she knows about the law of the evidence of proof, offers nothing to the trial. In fact, I wouldn't even submit to what Turley has submitted to that the existence of an NDA is not in dispute. Because January 10th of 2018,

Stormy Daniels wrote a letter, signed letter, read the following, to whom it may concern. I recently became aware that certain news outlets are alleging that I had a sexual and or romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago. I am stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false. My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and nothing more. When I met Donald Trump, he was gracious, professional, and a complete gentleman to me and everyone in my presence. Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false. If indeed I did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn't be reading about it in the news, you would be reading about it in my book. But in fact, the matter is these stories are not true, signed Stormy Daniels. That letter, by the way, was backed up by a letter on January 30th of that same year, 2018, to whom it may concern. Over the past few weeks, I've been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago. The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017, and now again in 2018. I'm not denying

this affair because I was paid, quote, hush money, as has been reported in overseas own tabloids. I'm denying this affair because it never happened. I will have no further comment on this matter. Please feel free to check me out on Instagram at the Stormy Daniels. Now, whether or not she wrote those letters in 2018, the veracity of which will be assumed, with those letters which have, which bear her signature are true, she could theoretically recant that testimony. She might be doing it as we speak right now on the stand. Certainly if she's testifying to positions of their sexual relationship, then she is saying they had something more than what she describes in this letter. But at a minimum, it shows that she is someone whose testimony is inconsistent. In the law,

this is called impeaching the witness. You have said in deposition or you have said in other forums, something opposite of what you're testifying here today. It indicts the credibility of the witness. Now, Judge Merchan has said that those letters should not be introduced to the jury or made public under the gag order of Donald Trump. This gag order, by the way, I don't understand at all the constitutionality of something like this gag order. Threatening to jail Donald Trump now for what he has to say. I mean, if he jails Donald. Trump, he might as well give him the presidential election. What an absurdity. I will fine you $9,000 for talking and I will jail you for talking about really what is not really a legal case

in the end, but a big political campaign ad. That's the point of all of this, whether or not this evidence adds up to a crime, whether or not there is a legal charge even of a crime. That's been hard to pin down. What exactly are you hoping to prove? And what exactly does Stormy Dan Daniels offer you in pursuit of that proof. How does she inform us on the existence of a crime? She doesn't. She's just a character and a drama that is one big political ad. Turley goes on to explain in his post on X. He says, her testimony will not materially impact the evidence on whether the reimbursement to Cohen was correctly denoted on records. Ironically, even a porn star who sought to cash in on a scandal may be more credible than the serial perjurer

disbarred Cohen. So what Turley is saying here is we can have the debate about whether or not they had a sexual relationship. We can have a debate about whether or not they had an affair. We can have conflicting testimony about both those things. But what Turley is saying is there doesn't seem to be any debate, no conflicting testimony, about whether or not there was the existence of an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement. That is relatively submitted to. Now, why the necessity of an NDA? That's back to the nature of their relationship.

But the existence of an NDA, well, that's submitted. That's admitted. There's no crime, though, in creating an NDA. The crime would be, how was that NDA denoted in Turley's words? How was it denoted in the books of Donald Trump? and Stormy Daniels offers us nothing on the bookkeeping records of Donald Trump. That will come down to Michael Cohen, as pointed out again by Turley. And that will come down to the testimony of a serial perjurer whose impeachment capabilities,

whose inconsistent testimony is much greater than that of Stormy Daniels. It will come down to repetitive liar Michael Cohen against the testimony of Donald Trump. now that is all to presume as the way i've laid it out to you that is all to presume that this is a case about the law this is about proof this is about evidence this is about charges and this is about proof beyond a reasonable doubt under the banner of the law of the existence of a crime but that's just not what it is that's not the game that's not what's being played that's not the point of stormy daniels the point of stormy daniels is to make you feel trials for better or worse are not about the facts as we've talked about here on the will cane show we've had expert attorneys

on here countless during jury selection the trials are about people they're about those people that sit in the jury box and how they feel and what attorneys can do to make them feel feelings, by the way, are constantly underestimated. Even in my life at times, I've attempted to sort of overly rely on logic, you know, to think of persuasion as a mathematical equation. Certainly that was, at least in some part, influenced by the fact that I did go to law school and was drawn to justice based upon the idea that it is almost a formulation, that is cold, that it is removed of some of the most fallible aspects of humanity, which is emotion. But emotion is what makes us people. Otherwise, we would just

be AI. We would be logic robots, whether or not we'd be better or worse from that. The answer is worse, because how we feel about things is how we interact with the world. Let me give you an example of feelings for just a moment and how people can play on your feelings. I found this absolutely absurd. So Governor Kathy Hokel of New York, Democrat, was making an argument about investing in technology for underprivileged students, inner city schools. She was speaking in California. And she said something that manages to make everyone, those on the left and those on the right, feel some enmity for Governor Kathy Hokel. Listen to this. Young black kids growing up in the Bronx who don't even know what the word computer is. They don't know.

They don't know these things. And I want the world open up to all of them because when you have their diverse voices, innovating solutions through technology, then you're really addressing society's broader challenges. Young black kids that

don't even know the word computer. Immediately this was denounced by those on the right. If any Republican had said something similar, they would be immediately canceled. But there's obviously a great exemption. That exemption is the D that stands next to her name, Democrat. This is on its face incredibly racist.

Don't know. Young black kids don't know the word computer. It was also denounced on the left because they recognized the at minimum patronizing nature of this statement. But at maximum, this racist presumptial. about the inner city. A presumption, by the way, which is absolutely absurd and stupid. My children went to an inner city New York school for, well, most of their lives before we moved back to Texas. They went to Success Academy in Harlem. Most of their kids were lower socioeconomic, minority black and brown students from Harlem, from the Bronx, from across New York City.

And let me tell you one thing that I know for a fact. Almost everyone has access to a computer. everyone. If, if nothing else, through school. Schools are awash in technology. They are awash in it. Everyone has a computer. Now, granted, the school that my kids went to was a charter school and they offer more resources to these kids, but they're all issued a computer. But beyond that, the reason it's also stupid is I can just tell you personally that almost every kid, regardless of race, and this is without a fact true, almost every kid, regardless of race has at way too young of an age in their hands, an iPhone, a supercomputer in their pocket. That's a fact.

That is a fact. In fact, you would argue that it's a problem that too many kids have these phones at too young of an age. So she managed to be stupid, wrong, racist, and patronizing in one statement. And we can all feel that about what she has to say. All this to highlight and underline the importance of feeling. And that is what the trial of Donald Trump and the testimony. The witness stand is all about for Stormy Daniels.

It's to drench this entire affair, not in proof and evidence and not in the law, but to drench it in salacious details about porn stars and affairs. And so that those members of the jury feel something towards Donald Trump. In the end, what the prosecution wants is all of those jurors with their preconceived notions, they're baked in biases, they're understanding, they're understanding, Undoubtedly, voter history of checking the mark when it comes to a Democrat, go into that deliberation room, two lawyers set aside their better halves, better selves, or better angels, understand, but set aside that this should be about proof and evidence in the law.

And all 12 of them feel, I don't like Donald Trump. That's what this is all about. That's all that's offered today from Stormy Daniels, the ability to drench this in salaciousness and make people feel in pursuit of a campaign ad that will scream out convicted felon Donald Trump. Let's break down exactly what we can't expect from Stormy Daniels with story number one. Lexi Rigden is an attorney. She's a legal analyst. She joins us often here on the Will Cane show, and we get her here today for immediate reaction to the fact that Stormy Daniels is on the stand in New York City. Lexi, thanks for being with us. And unfortunately, like so many other terms,

trials. This one's not on TV. I think if nothing else but for our curiosity, we'd love to hear what this testimony is about. We'd love to see the cross-examination of Michael Cohen. But I just got done laying out that there's not much to be expected from Stormy Daniels. There's not much she can lend legally to evidence and proof in this trial. She can just lay out salacious details of an alleged affair. What do you think can be accomplished today with Stormy Daniels? Well, I just want to, you know, I was thinking of this. This is like a fever dream for somebody. your worst nightmare to have somebody testifying about your most personal and intimate moments because I know that they had both denied Trump and Stormy Daniels previously had denied

that they had sexual relations. Then she went back on that and said that they actually had. And can you just imagine being Donald Trump sitting there, whether what she saying is true, kind of true, kind of fault? Like, I can't imagine having to sit there and listen to my personal life be put on display. I just, that was my first thought. when I heard she was going to testify. But my other thought when I heard she was going to testify, which we had all expected, is I'm not sure what relevance she provides. There's no question there was money paid. There was an NDA signed. And that's kind of like why she's necessarily relevant for discussing this. I'm not really sure. But I think in the prosecution's defense, if there is any in

this case, you know, if I were a prosecutor pressing that case, I would call her because she is the person on the NBA. So you kind of want to have like a living witness to the agreement that is the payment that is in dispute. So I see why they called her, but I also think that she could probably be up there for about five minutes. I mean, she doesn't, the judge apparently had said that she could testify that the prosecution was going to elicit testimony about their sex life, but nothing graphic, but I'm not really sure why that's relevant. Like the issue with the payment, it's not their sex life. And would she have any particular knowledge of those payments? Could the prosecution hope that she would say, I didn't simply negotiate with Michael Cohen. I negotiated directly with Donald Trump or he conveyed to me that it was for the following consideration. And even if she did that, I don't know how it informs how that was denoted in the books. You know, so I'm trying to think from the prosecution's perspective with the most damaging thing you could get out of Stormy Daniels is against Donald Trump?

I guess if they were to have had a hypothetically, we're making this up so that nobody clips it and tries to say, look at what this person said on the Wilcane show, hypothetically making this up. I mean, I guess she could say, I had a conversation with Donald Trump and he told me to accept this money that I couldn't go public with the story because he's desperate to be president. I mean, I don't think that they have anything like that. You know, I don't think they have anything like that.

And there has been a lot of debate about the fact that. What politicians do is try to influence elections. That's what's called being a politician. And if there was another reason that you made a payment, it can't be qualified as a campaign expense. And that's been, I'm not an election law attorney, but that's been an argument that's been out there. And the federal election commission did not pursue any charges against him for anything having to do with election fraud. Well, in the hypothetical you laid out, to me, the operative thing that you said there is if she testified, and he told me he did it because he desperately wants to be president. That would be the operative thing.

That would be the most damaging or that would be the home run for the prosecution. But I'm highly doubtful that she would be capable of that kind of testimony. Even if she were capable of that, I'm curious about this, Lexi. I would be her credibility should be a question. Now, I don't know what you can tell me about this, but you mentioned it. She's gone back and forth on this, on the existence of an affair, right? she even put out signed letters, it appears, where she said there was no affair. Today, it's presumed, I think it's happening based upon live reporting, not with cameras, but reporters in the

room, that she is testifying to the existence of an affair. Can't she be impeached by that? Like, her credibility be questioned. Like you said this before, now you're saying this. But I believe that Judge Mershon is not allowing those letters she written in the past to reach the jury. I mean, it just seems like her credibility is just ripe for impeachment. Well, I agree with you. And in terms of what they allow the jury to see and be entered into evidence is one thing. But they would definitely try to impeach her. They'll say, oh, you're up on the stand now saying you had an affair. Remember in 2018, you vehemently denied ever having an affair? And then you don't say why. Why did you say that? Because that's the one question too many that you don't want to ask as a trial attorney. But you just leave it with the jury to cast doubt on her credibility. And this case has a lot of quote unquote star witnesses who, aren't credible, Michael Cohen chief among them. And as, you know, when you have to question these people, they don't get to choose how great their witnesses are. I mean, I'm sure that the prosecution, especially with him going on TikTok and everything, they probably hate that these are their star witnesses.

I mean, because it's so easy to impeach their credibility. So, but the point, we should say it's for the audience. The point of Stormy Daniels's credibility on the existence of an affair being brought up is if you can establish that someone is not credible on one thing, even just one thing, if you can establish, hey, you have lied, then it calls into question everything else they have to say. I mean, you can think about that. That's kind of a legal way of saying it, but from a common sense perspective, like, you catch somebody lying to you once. You don't trust them from then on, you know? So that's the point of impeaching a witness. Everything else that has said is it questioned from Stormy Daniels. And I think there's actually a Latin phrase, but I think it's

false so in unum, falso and omnibus, I could definitely have that wrong, but it's basically false in one, false in all. So that's going to be the argument that the defense is going to make is that these witnesses, and Michael Cohen hasn't come up yet, but that's obviously the big one, these witnesses that have issues with their credibility in the past, that's going to be the main attack from the defense. And that's sometimes the only way to necessarily attack a witness, because Stormy Daniels doesn't have a ton to offer here. We all know that she received the payment. Well, more than that just a moment, but it just, this is why like you raise your kids to tell the truth. It's, it's, yeah, it's about that's a virtue on its face, but it's also like,

well, if you want to be someone that goes through the world establishing trust, you know, you can't slip. Like, you know, you can't slip because what is the saying? I think it's like trust is hard won and easily lost. You just, this is the point of being someone who tells the truth. Okay, back to what I kind of opened my show with today, though, Lexi. Like, you and I are doing something, which in a way is intellectual and in a way naive. We are analyzing this from a legal perspective. We're talking about evidence and proof and credibility.

And in the end, what I've come to know and learn about humanity, but also jurors, is it's that they feel. In the end, they have guts and not guts as in bravery, but gut feelings, you know, about things. And they make these decisions often within five minutes of entering a deliberation room. They don't have a 12 angry men scenario where they sit there and they go over the evidence. They vote within five minutes and they follow the leader often. And it seems to me the value of Stormy Daniels to the prosecution is to make every one in that jury box feel like they don't like Donald Trump. Right. And what better way to do that than having a porn star who, I mean, she's a porn star. So she has, her credibility is already an issue probably with a lot of

mainstream people that, you know, and then she's also testifying that she had a sexual relationship, whether it was once or more than once, with a married man. So there are going to be people on the jury that find that the entire scenario to be distasteful. And they're not going to like her. and they're not going to like him for allegedly paying her off for her silence. So she's, it's an unseemly tawdry case. And I can't imagine, I cannot imagine sitting there and having my personal life put on display like that. That is a nightmare scenario. We had Kerry Kupak, Urban Fox News, Legal Ennishton, a little earlier this week.

And she was like, look, like you said, this is, this is tawdry. She goes, it's dirty. And it's the nature of politics. It's not just, not just the affair, but like NDAs in and of themselves are unseemly, you know, even though they are very common practice. It's like the idea of hiding things, you know, is unseemly, but dirty or unseemly is not the same thing as illegal. And I just think that's the whole game. The whole game is to intermingle those two facts, not just in the jury box, but in the public's mind. because again, this whole thing is about politics.

And jurors are human, as you pointed out. And so there might be people that kind of just want to punish, to punish, they don't like NDAs. I mean, NDAs have come under attack, especially with all the Harvey Weinstein stuff. He had paid off his accusers. So the jurors are really going to need to kind of be sober in their analysis of just because I don't like this conduct doesn't necessarily mean that it was illegal. And the other thing to remember, too, is that the people signing these NDAs,

They might not come about in a good way, but they also got a benefit of the bargain as well. You know, Stormy Daniels got $130,000. Karen McDougal got $150,000. And I believe a job at the National Enquirer. So it's, these are kind of, I guess, depending on how you want to look at it. I'm not sure these women would necessarily

classify themselves as victims of this. This is just, this was the cost of doing business. They agreed to this. They were paid handsomely for it. And now everybody in this scenario kind of has egg on their face. But that was never the intent initially. The intent was get them to go away quietly, give them a six-figure payout, and everyone could go on their merry way.

All right. Well, it's the testimony today of Stormy Daniels. And we appreciate Lexie Rigden, attorney, a legal analyst here with us today on the Will Cane show to make sense of what is very hard on its face to make sense of and then very easy at a common sense level of what's trying to be accomplished here in the prosecution of Donald Trump. Thank you, Lexie. Thanks, Will. All right. That gets you up to date until we learn more about what took place today in the courtroom with the testimony of Stormy Daniels. We've got a list of vice presidential candidates for Donald Trump.

He's addressed to the list. He had something to say about each and every one of the candidates. Let's go over what Donald Trump had to say and who I think should be out, Christy Noem. And who should be in? Doug Bergam. Next on the Will Cain Show. Presence Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished.

Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at foxtruecrime.com. 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.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. Donald Trump puts out a list in an informal fashion with commentary of his potential candidates for vice president.

It's the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News YouTube and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe right now. You'll get notifications of when we go live. You'll be able to join the community and leave a comment. We want to build a community that not just listens to Will but interacts with me as I refer to myself in the third person. forgive me we want to build a community that can interact and have not a one-way conversation but a two-way conversation your comments on youtube will be made available we'll be able to see that very easily by you subscribing on the will cane show and again you'll get notifications whenever the show goes live monday through thursday at 12 eastern time not just on youtube but on

facebook again comments on facebook are very active we see them all the time we want to bring you into the show and at foxnews.com and then if you listen to the show after the fact just hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. Become a member of the community. Let's make this not talking at the audience, but the ability to create a community where we talk with the audience right here on the Will Kane show. At Marilago over the weekend, Donald Trump began to address various people in attendance for a fundraising event, $76 million raised in the month of April for Donald Trump, and in a way, started to address them as candidates for vice president. I want to show sort of what he had to say about many of these candidates. It's been recorded, I believe, by a reporter

from Axios, who had some notations on what he had to say about various candidates. For example, Senator Mike Lee didn't really know that he was a candidate for potential vice president. Maybe he's not. Maybe he has another potential job, and he's a serious individual, an intelligent individual, be an asset to an administration senator Mike Lee. I love your haircut, and he's a good man, too. Donald Trump is the best pay-by-play analyst in politics. Senator J.D. Vance, he wasn't a supporter of mine at the very beginning. Anyway, I got to know him a little bit as a non-politician. He's become one of the great senators.

Senator Marshall Blackburn of Tennessee, she was like the Energizer Bunny. She would go from stop to stop to stop. I want to talk about some of the candidates that are more in the news today. And there are two individuals that he had something to say about on this set. of vice presidential candidates. Let's focus in first on Governor Christy Knoem of South Dakota. He said this about Governor Kristy Knoem. He said, somebody that I love, she's been with me, a supporter of mine,

and I've been a supporter of hers for a long time. Well, Governor Kristy Knoem is in the news. It's because she wrote a new book, sort of autobiography. And in that book, there's been many instances that have driven the news. cycle. But the one that I want to start with is a moment that she had on the ABC Sunday morning show where she was cross-examined about what took place in her book. She had a passage in her book where she said she met Kim Jong-un and that she had been to North Korea. She seemingly understands that this was not true. At some point in the publishing process,

Gnome, whether it's after it's noticed or called out or on her own acknowledgement, sought to have this passage removed. But the weird thing about giving her credit for the fact that this somehow escaped her attention and needed a correction is, it's after the book is written, presumably she took at least some part in writing the book. There's such thing as co-writers. There's even such thing as ghost writers. But even with a ghostwriter, you would think you would read the book about your life

and have the ability before it hits publication to say, whoa, I never met Kim Jong-un. What more, Christy Knoem had already recorded, the reports are the audio version of this book. So she read it out loud for publication that she had been to North Korea and met Kim Jong-un. She said, I'm sure he underestimated. me, but I'm used to dealing with little tyrants. I was once around school children. She was heavily cross-examined on ABC, and she didn't have much to offer about this. She said it was a mistake. It was corrected. She was asked, well, who are you confusing Kim Jong-un with? Like, why did you write that in? How was the mistake made? Also, how did you think you

were ever in North Korea. She said, I was in North Korea. She didn't even backtrack on that. She said, I went to the DMZ, which I don't know, does that qualify as going to North Korea, the demilitarized zone between South Korea and North Korea? She was asked, like, who did you confuse with Kim Jong-un? Like, South Korea is an ally. North Korea is a nuclear adversary. And she just doesn't have any answers for it. None of they're satisfactory. She tries some techniques like, we would never push back on Joe Biden like this. And here's the thing. I think Joe Biden should be raked over the coals. We've done episode after episode here.

I've gone off the wall with Peter Heggseth on Fox and Friends Weekend. I've spent monologues cataloging the Forrest Gump style lies of Joe Biden, the most interesting man in the world, according to his own telling, in politics. And if he went on ABC or any place with even the slightest bit of not legitimacy, but integrity, he should be raked over the coals. Instead, he chose to go on, like, podcasts, like smartless or with Howard Stern, where he's going to face no questions about his fictional biography. Now, the interviewer on ABC, I think her name is Margaret Brennan said,

if I had Joe Biden, I would cross-examine him on these details, but he's not here today. You're here today. So, Nome plays the victim, you know, this is like left-wing media attacking a right-wing figure. The thing about that is you can't use an overarching truth which is left-wing media attacks anything to the right of Bernie Sanders

to escape legitimate criticism of you as an individual. Did Christy Noem lie about meeting Kim Jong-un? If it was a mistake, why was it a mistake that went so far? Why did it go to her audiobook? Is Christy Noem telling the truth not just about a moment in her career, but about her beliefs, about what she stands for.

Christine Hone was on the wrong side in South Dakota, by the way of the trans issue. That was documented. She was on the wrong side. She may now have gotten to the right side, but she was on the wrong side in the beginning on fighting back on with her legislature

who was ready to advance legislation to protect women in sports. She was not. So the point is, like, who is Christy Knoem? How are we supposed to trust? She's not just playing to the audience. telling us what we want to hear. Then, of course, there's the issue of the dog.

She tells a story that she killed a hunting dog. She says, and the story has evolved over time, the dog is getting more vicious as the story goes along. The dog killed chickens, the dog couldn't hunt, dog attacked children. I have heard the story was the dog was an embarrassment around some big hitters in South Dakota. And the odd thing would be like, why would you brag about this?

I'm not as outraged by this story. I am. I don't think it's right to kill a 14-month-old dog that can't hunt. I think you can give it away. But I've worked on ranches. I've been around real cowboys. I understand the relationship with animals. And so, you know, it isn't always the same thing as your backyard golden retriever.

But I don't think a single cowboy ever worked for would have bragged about it. And so, like, what's the point in bragging about it? Well, the story I'm told is you brag about it. You put the story out ahead of time because it's actually worse than the one that is being told. So you get your version of the story out there. Long and short of it is this. Christy Noam should not be the candidate for vice president. With Donald Trump, I think the main thing that you have to find, to some extent, a quote-unquote fighter,

but somebody that doesn't take away from Donald Trump, doesn't create their own problems. And what's clear is Christy Nome is full of her own problems. Donald Trump doesn't need that. He needs someone who perhaps will fight, but more importantly bring competency. And most importantly, be a net positive. I have another candidate that I think checks those boxes. We can put it up on the screen and what he had to say about him. It's former governor of North Dakota, Doug Bergam.

Trump said over the weekend, I didn't know this. He was supporter of my two campaigns. He's a very rich man. Now, here's the story with Bergam. Bergam is boring. I know a lot of people like, he's boring. I don't care about it. That's the point.

You want boring. You want someone who doesn't bring negatives. And to some extent can bring some small positives. Those small positives being successful, private business, successful, governor of a state, good on policy, was boring, but he was good when he was on that debate stage running for a Republican president. Right on China, right on trade. I think Doug Bergam should be the leading candidate for vice presidency based upon what he offers to Donald Trump. Now, he said something about some other people, and we can show you what

he had to say, who might be in that same vein. Marco Rubio, Florida, Senator, his name is coming up a lot for vice president, said Trump. Tim Scott, as a candidate, he did a good job, but as a surrogate, he's unbelievable. Those are two candidates who you could say like Doug Bergam are good, don't have many negatives, even if they're only small side on the positives. Byron Donald's, somebody who's created something very special politically. I like diversity. Diversity, as you would say. I like diversity. Donors worth millions of dollars all want a piece of Byron, telling you, best play-by-play man in politics. And then Wesley Hunt, another friend of mine makes the best commercials, beautiful family. I don't know who it will be,

but in my estimation, it should not be Christy Knoem. It should be Doug Bergum as the leading candidate for vice president under Donald Trump. The roast of Tom Brady. Boy, I'll tell you who could do a roast would be Donald Trump. But who are the winners and who are the losers? This was quite a three-hour event live on Netflix. The greatest quarterback of all time was absolutely raked over the clothes. Nothing, and I mean nothing off limits. From former teammates

and professional comedians. So who lost and who won on the roast of Tom Brady? Next on the Will Cain Show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his all-star panel

and much more. Available now at Fox News Podcast. Or wherever you get your podcasts. Ooh, it was something. It was something. Can't imagine why you would choose to do this. But he did. The greatest of all time, Tom Brady subjected himself to a roast

on Netflix by the world's greatest comedians. It's the Will Kane show streaming live at foxnews.com. Fox News YouTube channel, Fox News, Facebook page. Subscribe at Apple, Spotify, YouTube. leave a comment, leave a five-star review, turn on notifications for the Will Kane show. Tom Brady roasted for three hours live on Netflix from the likes of not just former teammates like Rob Grankowski and Julian Edelman and former coach Bill Belichick, but also professional comedians like Andrew Schultz, Burke Kreisher, Nikki Glazer, of course Kevin Hart.

So who are the winners and who are the losers? Who did the best? I'm going to break it all down for you. But first, I want to bring in the Willisha, the crew of the Will Kane show, So two days, Dan, young establishment James and tinfoil Pat, who I don't know if you can join us today because we're still working through some kind of unprofessional technical issues here on the Will Kane show. But hey, it is what it is when you're an internet show, you know, when you're on the Fox News D list. Hey, we're doing our best, man. We're doing our best here. Yeah, no, I know. I know.

Yeah, it's just sometimes your best isn't good enough. Wow. Savage. Is this the roast of me now? Is this the roast of me now? No, it's not the roast. two of days. What did you guys think? That was a show assignment.

I just want to go around the horn of who's capable of chiming in here. No monologues, young establishment, James. What did you guys think of the roast of Tom Brady? It's like a nine out of ten. That's high. You sound like

you sound like a young meh emoji. You want a nine and a half now? I want a little something in the voice besides a corpse. I think it was probably the best cultural kind of collective moment that we've had in a very long time. Wow. That is saying

that's saying a lot. We've had in a long time. I mean, it's so big a statement that I need to step back and take inventory. What do you think, two days? I'm not going to go that far. I thought it was fantastic. I thought it was something that TV needed right now. It's been a while since we had a good roast because

they kind of like fell off the cliff a little bit in the past. So I'm really glad it happened and I'm curious to see who's next. Because if they can keep going like this, I think it's a great thing. And Tom, I don't know how he sat there and did it. But good for you, buddy. How? Why is the question.

Why sit there and do that? Now, I've seen people say it humanized Tom Brady. And by the way, a lot of people commenting on the appearance of Tom Brady and Ben Affleck that they're starting to look a little too perfect, that they're inhuman. And there's a lot going on there that's worthy of some analysis. The cheekbones, the jaw line, the skin. There's a lot going on there. And so it humanized.

Tom Brady. It humanized to Bill Belichick, that's for sure. I mean, relatively, made him more human, I should say. Even Robert Kraft. Now, James is our resident, resident meh emoji. Tinfoil Pat is our resident Kermudgeon. And I don't know that his audio can come in, but I can see him. And you can give me thumbs up or thumbs down tinfoil on what you thought of the roast of Tom Brady. Let me get him on. You can get him on? I think he gave it a thumbs up. He gave it a thumbs up.

Interesting. Interesting. Yeah. It was too mainstream culture for... I would think so, too. I think I would have thought he wouldn't have liked it. You know, not being a Tom Brady fan, I guess. But...

I don't think he likes things that other people like. Like, if other people like it, then it's got some deep cultural problem that's at the rot of America. Deep in the rot of America. Oh, no. Oh, there he is. The wrong guy. Yeah, we can't replace Will. A full screen of tin foil,

who gives it a thumbs up. All right, here's, I'm going to give to you guys my thoughts. All right, and then I'm going to let you have a quick reaction here and there. I have a lot of thoughts, some deeper than others, on this. And I'm going to give you my winners and losers. And I'm going to start with this. The jokes can be somewhat repetitive in a three-hour roast. And that's a problem, I actually think.

because it's a competition of who can say the same joke or the same thematic joke in a better way. So for Tom Brady, the jokes were about that he looks gay, that he's aging or evolving or morphing into a gay version of Tom Brady, that he has abandoned his wife and kids for football, that he invested in cryptocurrency and just sell. Oh, and by the way, white receivers, which is actually a decent like rotation of five to six repetitive jokes. but over three hours, you get to the same kind of thing. So it becomes, there's two things that I come away with this. Like, what did you offer? Were you better at delivering kind of those same jokes?

And did you offer different energy? Let me explain. So first of all, here's the best. The best, the far and away winner, not even close, not even a close second. The best of the roast of Tom Brady was comedian Nikki Glazer. She was amazing, amazing. And I would not have gone into this saying, hey, the female comedian is going to win. but she won. I mean, I would have predicted Andrew Schultz. I would have maybe predicted

Burke Kreisher. Nikki Glazer was awesome, awesome, incredible. She made jokes about Jacelle, about Tom losing or getting, what did she say? He started with eight rings. He's down to seven because Jacelle gave her ring back. The funniest thing was probably when she said, Tom, what would you do in investing in cryptocurrency? Even Gronk. You know, like, me know that, not real money. Everybody died laughing. Here was an under the radar joke she made. She started roasting her fellow comedians.

And I like when she got to Burke Kreisher, and she goes, Bert, Bert, I'm a big fan, a big fan of your joke, implying he's a one-joke guy, take your shirt off. Shirts are supposed to stay on. It's funny. Nikki Glazer, I mean, just gave her the ring, give her the championship. She was the best. Kevin Hart, the host, thought he was really good.

Kevin is really good. He kept the pace. He kind of, in a lot of ways, was the voice of the audience when other people were talking. He had an advantage, and so did Nikki Glazer. If there's going to be some repetitive themes over three hours, they got to go first or early. And when you do that, it's like, whoa, I can't believe. When you get to make the first joke about Giselle or abandoning your kids, then you're the funniest. The fifth guy to do it. It's not that funny. Those are the two in my mind. Kevin Hart. and Nikki Glazer that ran away with it from the perspective of telling jokes. But I really like, here's two other winners, Bill Belichick and Rob Grankowski. Now, here's why. You need different energies over three hours. If everybody comes up and does a stand-up bit, I think it just gets kind of monotonous. So Will Ferrell came out, and he did Ron Burgundy. He did it as Ron Burgundy.

And at first, you're like, well, this doesn't feel right. It's not the same. And Will's not a stand-up comedian in that way. But after a while, I'm like, it's working because it's a change in energy from the same thing happening over and over. And Belichick was a huge change in energy. And he leaned into it because, of course, he's flat-toned, monotone, humorless. But he was actually really funny, making jokes about, you know, it's hard to butt heads with Tom when his head is so far up Alex Guerrero's ass. I mean, it was really, really funny.

And Bill's presence created a dramatic arc. Like, this is why I like reunion shows when it comes to. reality television like love is blind i want to feel and see the tension in the room and bill introduced that tension the only other tension is how does tom react to the jokes and there was a moment where um jeff ross made a joke about patriots owner robert craft going to massage parlors and tom gets up and says don't say that shit again and i'm like whoa everybody whoa and then i debated like was that scripted did tom do that more i think about it i think it was authentic I think it was kind of real.

I do think Brady has his limits, and I think he is devoted to Robert Kraft. And what became clear when Brady gave his big, you know, battle back at all the comedians and former players, is he can be edgy and he's got his limits and he can be alpha. I don't think it was real when he told Jeff Ross no more of that. But Belichick injected different energy. So did Granc.

Kevin Hart said it right. He said, I've met Gronk, and it was at a party, and, you know, I interviewed him on stage. And I got one energy level of Gronk, which was, like, at a nine. But what's scary about Gronk is when it goes up and down, like, when he did his thing, which felt the most unscripted of the night, his felt very unscripted. I mean, it kind of feels like, is he mad? Because he was the, outside of Brady, he was the biggest butt of the jokes.

And it was all the same, that he's stupid. And I don't know. I was just like, if this was a locker room, I think the community. millions would have needed to pull back because gronk clearly has an edge and it was going to come out one more thing introduced dramatic arc introduce some different energy and introduce a sense of expectation although i don't think they were the best i kept watching because i wanted to see andrew shultz and he came later and now i think Andrew's great i'm not sure he was the best on this night. But that shows how big a star he's become. Like, I'm waiting around because I'm waiting

for Schultz to come up on stage. And he's just sold out Madison Square Garden. He's just gotten huge. Now, here are my losers. Randy Moss. Randy Moss was not that funny. And he couldn't deliver his jokes well. But here's the thing. I sympathize with Randy Moss because it's in a way game. Can you imagine not being a comedian in that environment? And they help you write your jokes. That's, I'm sure that's true. And like Edelman and Gronk showed you can pull it off. Moss just didn't pull it off. But I feel for him because it's in a way game. It's like all those comedians going on to a football field and having to play a game. Like obviously they would be embarrassed. So I'm grading on a curve for Andy Moss. But the biggest loser of the night, the biggest is without a doubt, Ben Affleck.

He comes out like he's a grand finale almost. Well, Peyton Manning was the grand finale before Brady. But he's right before Peyton Manning. And I don't know what he did. It wasn't jokes. He was like mad at Bill Belichick, mad at random internet commenters. It just reminds me that video when he was on real time with Bill Maher. And he's mad at Sam Harris and they're going back and forth. And it's so embarrassing for Ben Affleck. And I don't know what that was. I don't know who he is. It's the guys who I'll bring in in just a moment now for some of their final thoughts on I had to say about the roast. And I were talking pre-show, his characters give off this everyman vibe like you'd want to hang with Ben. But then when you see videos like this,

you're like, no, he's not normal. Something's off with Ben Affleck. And I don't know that I'd want to hang. Not that he'd want to hang with me. But I don't know that he's a dude. I don't know about Ben Affleck. He was the biggest loser at the roast of Tom Brady. Let's go back real quick. What do you guys think? Did I get it right or did I get it wrong? What do you think about my analysis of the roast of Tom Brady. I think you got to remember that Ben Affleck is just a theater kid. Yeah. It's a good point.

It's a really good point. You always got to remember that with actors. You got to remember with actors. They were theater kids. Yes. Was he a theater kid? Yeah. Yeah.

I saw an interview with him and Matt Damon. They were talking about they did plays together and that's how they became friends in high school. And so they kind of like just were the weird kids to other people and they were like, hey, we're going to make it together. Let's do this. So yeah, they were total theater kids. You know, I'm mixing him up with his character in Goodwill Hunting.

Like, I end up thinking that's who Ben Affleck is, who he was in Goodwill Hunting. And it's like, no, he's not just a working class dude from South. Art reflects life, man. Art reflects life. No, but I think you're right. Ben Affleck was tough. And people don't realize how hard it is to deliver these jokes because you could have the best writer in the world write you A plus stuff. But to deliver it, the delivery of how you do it is just, impossible. I could never

ever even imagine doing it. So good for them. Yeah. Tinfoil Pat, resident Kermudgeon. Do you agree winners? He had to jump off because he was taking over your session over here.

Oh, when he came on screen, full screen? I don't mind. I don't need to have I think I just burped. I don't think I need to be the center of attention. That's okay. Well, we, you know, he's here in spirit, and he gave the thumbs up, so I think he liked it, too. All right.

Real quick, am I right? Nikki Glazer, biggest winner of the night, both of you? Yeah. Yeah, she's really funny. Hey, speaking of delivering, Youngstalleman James, this is a big step forward for you today. Like, you've got really sharp, coherent thoughts out in a not unnecessary amount of words. I mean, they exist.

It's just, I like to say more sometimes. Well, he's been telling me. I was just about to accomplish. the fact that you're not choking on that frog in your throat but there you are it's there you can hear it he's ribbiting throughout I think he's been taking some acting classes

or something because you know something's different theater kid what thought yeah theater kids run the world all right maybe you should check out the roast of Tom Brady but just don't just watch it around the kids it's not not gonna work not gonna work around

not around the inlaws either I'd say keep it they don't keep it clean so you might want to it private. There's my reaction, my review, the winners and the losers of the roast of Tom Brady. That's going to do it for me today here on the Will Cain Show again. Join the community. Comment, leave a rating, hit notifications, subscribe, hang out with us again tomorrow right here on the Wilcane Show. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members. listen to this show ad-free on the Amazon music app.

I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.