Will Cain Country - Trump Wins Bond 'Witch Hunt' Showdown

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

Story #1: Election 2024 will not be won at the ballot box but in the court room. Former President Trump goes on the offensive and sues George Stephanopoulos and ABC for defamation. Story #2: Actor Clifton Duncan joins the show to talk about his upcoming one man play centered around the famous economist Thomas Sowell and the disconnect between politics and the arts. Story #3: What can we learn about society from inside a jury box? A conversation with Business Trial Lawyer at Call & Jensen, Dave Sugden. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, election 2024, not at the ballot box, but in the courtroom. Donald Trump sues George Stephanopoulos and ABC for defamation. The quote-unquote hush money trial in New York delayed until April. But today is the deadline for a $454 million bond for Donald Trump. Two, a one-man play by a fascinating actor on one of the most fascinating minds of the 20th and 21st century, a hero, Thomas Soul. And three, the courtroom. What a fascinating little window into the minds of how we make up our decisions, as in individuals, as a group, and as a society.

What can we learn from inside a jury box? It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook page and always on demand in audio format. If you like listening to podcasts at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Just go hit subscribe. always on demand in video form, on YouTube, the Will Kane Show. Right under this live stream, if you just expand the description, as a little button, you just have to hit subscribe.

And you will always get shorts, exclusive interviews, or the show in full. Just subscribe to the Will Kane Show. I have a tendency to think thematically. I have a tendency to think, what ties this together? I like to look deep, but I like to understand, and I like to see what current run consistently across what we do as individuals or how we behave as groups. I think I'm not forcing it to say that is the theme of today's Will Kane show. It is a big day for Donald Trump.

There are various ways this $454 million bond could be satisfied, but none of those are really good outcomes for Donald Trump. Well, not good outcomes except in any arena, except the arena of politics. And unfortunately, in 2024, politics is playing out in the courtroom. And that takes us to our theme for today, the courtroom. I have a little bit later in the show coming up, one of my lifelong friends. And he is one of the best trial attorneys, in my humble estimation, in America. He specializes.

And when I say specializes, I mean, he almost exclusively works in the courtroom, which that doesn't happen really anymore with attorneys. And I think that was on full display. in Georgia when it came to Fannie Willis and even the defense lawyers for the various friends of Donald Trump. They just weren't very good. They don't understand how to cross-examine. They don't how to think logically. But then on top of that, they don't have the humility to understand that wisdom is more important than logic. In other words, how do people make decisions? If you lock 12 people in a room, how do they come to a consensus? It's a scary

proposition. But it's one you should understand. I mean, if you're ever on a jury or, God forbid, your life is ever in the hands of a jury. So my friend, Dave Sugden, an attorney with Carl Jensen, will come up a little bit later in the show, and I think it will tie into what's happening with Donald Trump, but also what's happening in our personal life? How do we use or how are we susceptible to persuasion? Do we make decisions logically or do we make decisions emotionally?

Do we make decisions individually or do we make them as part of a herd? That's coming up a little bit later in the Will Cain show. but again maybe i'm forcing the theme because i think thematically but i'm into the wisdom and the folly of crowds and i had a great weekend i had a really good weekend this is despite the fact that i had insomnia on friday night which left me with four hours of sleep before fox and friends on saturday morning the most frustrating thing about is insomnia is there's no ever answer to the why why can't i fall asleep you know did i not take the right vitamins did i not eat right. Am I stressed out? Is it just physical? Why can't I fall asleep? And then it builds on

itself and it cycles into this horrific insomnia. And then that was doubled down on Saturday night because I stayed up to watch Texas lose to Tennessee in the NCAA tournament. So that's two nights in a row of four to five hours sleep, but it didn't get in the way of an awesome weekend. First of all, one of the benefits of having this career is I get to meet a lot of quote-unquote celebrities. And I've long since let go of being, you know, impressed by unearned celebrity. I don't get I don't get fan-boid out. I don't have stars in my eyes. And I've met a lot of my quote-unquote heroes, you know. I've met Troy Aikman. I've met Tony Romo. I've met every stripe of politician. But I rarely anymore fanboy. I did on Saturday. I met Cody

Jinks. Absolutely one of my favorite country music artist who was on Fox and Friends on Saturday. I'll talk a lot about that more tomorrow here on the Will Cain show, but it was awesome, and I'm working on becoming best friends with Cody Jinks. We both like to duck hunt. We both like Ein Rand. We both like the same area of Texas. I think we are like stepbrothers. We are new best friends, me and Cody Jinks. But I had a great weekend because when I I got back home to Dallas on Sunday night, my wife, my two sons, and the entirety of my oldest son's soccer team, went to AT&T Stadium to watch the Nation's League final, the Concaf Nations League final of the United States versus Mexico. As a side note, AT&T Stadium holds up. I told you, I went to the Super Bowl. I saw the brand new sparkling stadium in Las Vegas. It's got nothing on AT&T. It's got nothing on the Cowboys.

And that's not blue and silver-shaded goggles. Man, that stadium just is awesome, even when it's under renovation. And we had seats right up in the corner, like front row right up in the corner. Here's one I want to talk to you about the wisdom and the folly of crowds, forcing my theme into a soccer match between the U.S. and Mexico. So the Mexicans are rowdy. Very rowdy. Okay, we were outnumbered Americans, and I knew it would be the case at a game in Dallas. I knew it would be the case.

It would be the case in Southern California. Hell, I've been to a U.S. Mexico game in New York, and you're at best 50-50 in New York. In Dallas, it's 70-30. A lot of green, a lot of Mexico in the stadium. Now, I've been to a couple of U.S. Mexico games, and you learn a couple of things. First of all, Mexicans like to have a good time. They're there for some fun. They're there early, and they stay late.

And they chant, and there's an enthusiasm and a passion where in their national anthem, when we do our national anthem, it's more reverence and solemnity. There, it's almost a party during the national anthem. And they're cheering throughout the game. At one point, Christian Pulisich America's best players right in front of us, taking a corner kick. And Mexico guy, fan, decked out in green, he chunks an entire beer right down on top of Christian Pulisage,

who wasn't phased, didn't even turn to the crowd, just took his corner kick. Which means, look, he's been here before, man. This ain't my first rodeo. My wife, though, first rodeo. I mean, Cowboys games, Mavericks games, Longhorn games, Texas Tech Red Raider games, which can be rowdy with some tortillas flying. My wife's like, I have never seen anything like that. And I said, honestly, I don't know that I've seen that either. Like, just dumping a beer on a player.

Now, that dude from, that Mexican fan was booted. He was booted from the stadium once everybody started pointing, here's your guy, here's your guy. Security came and got him. But it was rowdy. At the end of the game, U.S. 1, 2-0. U.S. celebrates in the corner and bottles are flying, which I don't know how that happens because in anticipation of this, they didn't let, when you go buy a beer or even a Dr. Pepper, they don't give you the bottle.

They pour it out into, you know, a solo cup for you because they know bottles are projectiles. So the U.S. team, though, showered with bottles. And in the stands, fights. I saw a picture this, I saw some fights, but I saw a picture this morning. on the internet of a guy just showered in blood, he said, I don't know if I was hit by a bottle, beer can. Again, they don't let you have a beer can or a battery. But look, the Mexico crowd, rough. And that's got to, you know, we got to get that tightened up. We got to get that tightened up. Now, are we ever going to get that tightened up? Because this is, this is the

way they roll in Mexico. And one of the ways they roll is chanting a derogatory term at the opposing players. There's one in particular. And I don't know if I can use it here on the Will Cain Show. It's in Spanish. But it basically translates into a homophobic slur. You pick up what I'm putting down. I thought it translated into, you know, a female dog.

But it translates more into, you know, a target that is we would translate into English, you know, at homosexuals. But I don't know the intention of the crowd, because that's the point. It's a crowd. And this chant, it's not like a single or a couple groups of guys and you can boot them out. It's 50,000 people chanting it at the same time. Normally when the opposing goalkeeper, in our case, guy named Matt Turner, takes a goal kick, and you can see a goal kick coming. You know, he has a wind up, and then it's a...

And then when he kicks the ball, they all yell in unison, this slur. and absolutely nobody in the stadium is offended. Not Matt Turner, not America. But FIFA and Concaf, which is the regional governing body of soccer, have made it so that every time that happens now, a big warning comes up on the Jumbotron, both written and spoken aloud in English and Spanish, and the game stops.

Discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated, yada, yada, yada. and the crowd is only provoked to do it more. They laugh, they boo at the corrective mechanism of Big Brother over the PA system, and then the next time the opportunity presents itself another goal kick, boom, there they are again. And then they all 50,000 yell this one particular word. And all it made me think about is, first of all, everybody in the stands like, this is so stupid. Not the chant, and yeah, the chant you could say is juvenile and stupid, or is, If you want to say, it's discriminatory, which, by the way, I don't know that 50,000 people have a homophobic thought in their mind.

What they have in their mind is trash talk, is trying to get in somebody else's head. What they're trying to get is revenge for losing to nothing. But they're not going to listen to an overhead announcement. They're not going to obey Big Brother. And everyone in the crowd thinks this is so stupid. They stop the game for like five minute periods at a time. they give this announcement. I bet we heard the announcement at least half a dozen times.

And it just made me think about society and, you know, sheep versus wolves and how you control behavior in the theme of the day. Like, how do you talk to people and try to persuade? Because the answer is not, I promise you, it is not Big Brother. I saw on the internet today. Ban Mexico, ban fans. At some point, forget what not. This is not an endorsement of certain words spoken.

By the way, 60 minutes last night, full-on investigative piece basically staking out their claim they are anti-free speech. It's just insane the climate that we live in of antagonism to free speech. The way that you're going to persuade and incentivize and lead people is not through censorship and hectoring and big brother. I just encourage you, go to a U.S.-Mexico game and ask if your heavy-handed approach is working. You can't control the minds or the mouths of 50,000 people. I think it's an interesting window into what's really happening across social media, across America, across the world, is basically the world is yelling, either from a PA system at a soccer game or from Washington, D.C., shut up and fall in line. And even if the crowd is wrong, because crowds aren't just full of wisdom, crowds are full of folly. Even if the crowd is wrong, ask yourself, are you actually leading that crowd to a better place?

Are you persuading? Or might you think of something else than the Iron Fist? That was my weekend. It was awesome, once again, to hang out with the boys and the wife and the teammates and the dads. And to see America, USA, win, do nothing. USA. Let's get into it a little deeper today about not just how we persuade, how we incentivize, how we talk to one another's individuals and groups and society, but how it affects the courtroom. And then ultimately, how it affects Donald Trump. Let's start with story

number one. Donald Trump and his attorneys are suing ABC Disney and George Stephanopoulos for defamation. This could have land. ended off of your radar, as there are cases all across this nation and all across the dockets against Donald Trump. But this one is Trump on offense, and it's not the first time he sued a major media organization for defamation. This time, though, he's suing George Stephanopoulos. He's suing ABC. He's suing our parent company Disney. Because a few weeks ago, on this week with George Stephanopoulos, in an interview with Nancy Mace, something like 10 times, Stephanopoulos said that Trump was guilty of rape. Here, listen to the way this went down on ABC.

It's actually not about shaming you. It's a question about Donald Trump. You've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape by a jury. It's been affirmed by a judge. It was not a criminal court case, number one, number two. I live with shame. And you're asking me question about my political choices, trying to shame me as a rape victim, and I find it disgusting. Nancy May is turning the tables of victimization there on George Stephanopoulos, but what Jeff Phonopoulos had to say is false. It's not true. The beginning of a claim for defamation. Donald Trump was not found liable for rape. If you look back at that case and you see the jury's

findings, he was explicitly, explicitly not found guilty of rape. Given the options, check yes or no. They checked no on that. Now, he was found liable of sexual assault. You can say that's semantics or that's a gray area, but not when the two options are presented to a jury. And certainly, the word sexual assault carries a different connotation to public's mind than the word rape. And that's the point on defamation. Are you harming someone else's character? Stephanopoulos surely knew the truth, yet he continued over, like I said, 10 to 12 times to use the falsehood. Now, maybe Donald Trump is, is, you know, defamation proof. He's such a public figure, surrounded by so many lies that you can't ever win a case for defamation. But this

should be an obvious case. Here are the legal elements. First of all, is it false? When you are a public figure, you have a heightened standard. The speaker must be proven either to have a reckless disregard for the truth or actual malice. Those are the terms. Reckless disregard for the or actual malice. I mean, you're trying to harm someone by perpetuating a known untruth. I would think that right there would satisfy the elements of at the very least a reckless disregard for the truth, at the most unnecessary actual malice. Now, once again, what happens in real life in the way it should work is different than the way it does work, both in people's minds and in the court. And again, that's the theme today.

for the Will Kane show, should, versus how it actually happens in people's minds. Because here's what's happening to Donald Trump, cases after case across America, across the docket. It was supposed to be that this Thursday, March 28th, Donald Trump would begin his quote-unquote hush money case in the Southern District of New York, with prosecutor, federal prosecutor, Alvin Bragg. That's been delayed because there is evidence that Alvin Bragg, sitting on hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery did not share them with Donald Trump's attorneys. Literally, hundreds of thousands, and Trump's attorneys are making the claim. They need more time, obviously, to go through all of this evidence.

Discovery is the collection of evidence that will be used in a trial and it has to be made available to both parties. But not unlike everything that takes place with Donald Trump, and maybe in all prosecutions has some dirty, dirty pool being played, you know? and that case has been delayed until at least mid-April. But the dirtiest of Poole is the deadline today in New York Attorney General Letitia James's case against Donald Trump for inflating real estate values in a victimless crime where the banks don't even want to seek resolution for $454 million today. Today he needs to satisfy a bond. how could that go down as we sit here today? Well, A, Donald Trump could come up with the cash.

He has said he has the cash. His attorneys have said he doesn't have the cash. He said he wants to have that cash for his campaign. Now, which, by the way, I think, gets to the heart of the matter, the heart of the truth, the whole point of these prosecutions. The whole point is not justice. It's not even the outcome. It is the putting hurdles in the way of the the re-election of Donald Trump for president. And that's what all of these cases represent. They don't represent handcuffs. They don't represent even, even the seizure of his properties.

Here's why. It's very unlikely that would happen. That brings us to be, it's very unlikely that Trump Towers is taped off today, or there's chains around one of his golf course, you know, entry doorways. Why? Because each of these properties probably have various stakeholders, you know, equity interest, lien holders, and that has to be litigated, who's in line first, including the state of New York. So how does that play out? It plays out in a courtroom, over time. Trump now is

apparently a new multi-billionaire on top of whatever he had before because of the recent valuation of truth social, but that money can't really be marshaled to satisfy this bond who has a deadline, which has a deadline today, because you can't immediately sell stock. You have to hold it for a certain period of time. And Donald Trump, despite having his net worth through the roof, that doesn't give him liquidity for the cash to satisfy this bond. So we'll see what happens today. But the point, getting back to this, is that justice isn't the point.

The process is the point. The process is punishment. being in the court, being tied up in a lawsuit, being subject to a criminal prosecution is punishment in and of itself. It wraps up your money, it puts your assets at potential seizure, which is what we're looking at potentially today. It wraps up your time in being involved in half a dozen dozen different court cases throughout the country in the pursuit of interrupting your race for the presidency. What you're looking at is lawfare, is law fair. What you're looking at is the point of the process. And that takes us back to the media's role in this.

I want to share with you a little clip from MSNBC this weekend where they've apparently hired former RNC chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, to be a contributor. But that income without a big protest from Chuck Todd. I think our boss has owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe. She is now a paid contributor by NBCN. news. I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn't want to

mess up her contract. She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the R&C when the R&C was paying for. So she has, she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who's paying her? What a joke. Moral courage and a backbone because Ronna McDaniel's been hired to the network that employs Jensaki, that I believe signed Jensaki to a contract while she was still working for the Biden administration, for a network that has political operatives from the Democratic Party across the board, including Chuck Todd, who's been a part of fundraisers for Hillary Clinton. What a joke. What a joke is the mainstream legacy media.

Breaking news here. The judge in New York has reduced Donald Trump. Trump's bond from $454 million down to $175 million. He has 10 days to pay the bond now set at $175 million. If he pays, this will stop the clock on Letitia James, New York Attorney General's efforts to seize his assets while he appeals the judgment under Judge Ingeron. From 454 to 175, 10 days now to satisfy $175 million. Election 2024, in the courtroom. So let's begin the process of understanding the way people make decisions. Individually, in a courtroom as society.

Again, coming up in just a little bit, my buddy, Dave Sugden, an expert trial attorney on what he's seen in jury boxes, in mock trial jury boxes, what he's seen from how people make decisions. But next, actor Clifton Duncan on one of the most fascinating figures of the 20th and 21st century, Thomas Sol. That's next on the Wilcane show. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show.

Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the questions.

quiz. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. Breaking news, Donald Trump's bond in New York lowered from $454 million to $175 million, a 61% decrease. has 10 days to satisfy that bond in New York. We'll be talking to trial attorney Dave Sugden a little bit later here in the show. We'll talk about that decision in New York and all of the various cases against Donald Trump. Coming up on the Will Cain show, streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page.

Hit subscribe at Apple Spotify or Fox News podcast or on YouTube. It's in the description. Underneath this video, you can subscribe Will Cain show. He's an actor. He's a writer. He's performing in a one-man play about Thomas Sol at soulplay.com. He's also the host of the Clifton Duncan podcast and Ryder at the State of the Arts on Substack. And he's on X at Clifton A. Duncan. Clifton, great to meet you. Great to have you on the Will Cain show. Well, thanks for having me on. Not a lot going on today. So I'm happy that you were able to slide me in. What do you think about it? I mean, you actually have thoughts. I see your your ex profile. I saw you recently tweet. I'm so glad things have calmed down now that Donald

Trump's not in office talking about it. The promises versus the reality of a public that voted out or that no longer embraced Donald Trump. I'm curious what you think about as we're just wrapped up, not so much in the way people might vote, but the way things will play out in a courtroom against Trump. Well, you know, I have to say that as an artist, I've removed myself, a bit from politics and current events, but what I will say, as someone who did not vote for Donald Trump, but who was in the entertainment industry when he was elected, I mean, you know, I've never seen adults lose their minds in quite that way. I've never gotten past it. And I think one of the biggest things about Trump for me, that's educational, is that for, I mean, for one, there's so

many things you can criticize about him. You don't have to make anything up, but they keep doing it anyway, not that it does himself any favors. But on top of that, you know, it's the classic tale of when you're trying to slay some monster, you become a monster yourself. And I think he's served as a useful mirror for the ugliness and depravity on the other side. And we're still seeing that today and the corruption as well. What a fascinating. And I think a perspective that comes not not exclusively but uniquely from from i think the mind of an artist i mean you know i saw a tweet this weekend um clifton i can't remember who put this out but it was about keith olberman the former espn and msnbc host and the way he behaves on twitter and it was um it was actually

jimmy jimmy door the comedian who said you know oberman has turned in his mind trump into this monster but in order for him to reconcile who he is he kind of becomes the same monster and all the things he accuses Trump of doing and being and talking the way he does, he actually dealing with his shadow self, whatever is deep inside of him, actually ends up displaying as a way to reconcile with who he actually is, talking about Oberman. Because he's completely crass and he's horrible on Twitter and calls people names and doesn't make logical arguments, he curses.

And it's almost like he's becoming, he embodies who he projects on to Donald Trump. He's becoming what you said, that monster. And you're exactly right about society at large, becomes exactly what they feared about Donald Trump. Well, I think what you're also seeing play out is that I do think that people have a strong sense of fairness and justice. And I think that the more that the machine or the regime, whatever you want to call it, moves against Donald Trump, the more they look like bullies. And it's just so, it's so strange. I mean, to me, Donald Trump is one of the most fascinating public figures

that I've ever seen. And his ascension is really quite remarkable. It's like everything that should be wrong about him, everything that should hold him back, seems to work in his favor somehow. And it's just, it's really fascinating to see that as horrible as we're told that he is, the people going after him seem to be, at least in the assessment of America right now, even worse than he is.

and so they I just I I think the I think pretty much the consensus now was that he's going to be reelected in November and so you know if we thought that 2020 or 2016 was a massive meltdown I mean I I look forward in sort of a subversive way to see what happens in this November because I just don't see any other outcome at this point I mean the biggest public free catch you've ever seen but then the part that's really scared me, the whole martialization of the entity that is Washington, D.C., marshaled against Donald Trump in a way that I think we haven't even yet seen in 2020, if you were elected in 2024. One more

on this, because I agree with you. I think Donald Trump, people will hear this and they'll think, oh, you know, I'm waving a pom-pom. I'm not. I think he might be the most fascinating person of the last century. And the reason for that is because of

how he affects everyone else. Like, he is the ultimate Roar Shock test. And, and, I mean, I think books and books and books should be written on his rhetorical style, his persuasion appeal, his, but also how he inspires hatred. And it's like this mass psychological moment. Like, the whole nation's been put on the couch. And we're all, like, letting out our deep thoughts or something and letting out who we really are devoid of all the niceties that were there before.

I don't know, but I just think whatever, the way we've reacted is what makes him, we as a public, it's what makes him so fascinating. And you coming from the world of art, like, I probably, I can't think of a world, actually journalism may be close, where you would have seen it like at its most acute point. Like everybody that you're friends with or work with probably embodied the height of this like emotional reaction to Donald Trump. Well, it was funny because I was doing a show in Hartford, Connecticut in 2016, around the time of the election. And nothing better symbolizes the disconnect between the general public and what the arts world was thinking at that time.

The first person who ever told me that he was voting for Trump was our barber. We were working on this show. And it was our black barber who was a multiple small business owner. And he and his black friend, as a matter of fact, were telling me, they was like, yeah, dog, Trump will make a, so we can get some money. And it wasn't some knee-jerk, un-informed decision. He was talking about how under the Obama administration, he had difficulty as a small business owner and entrepreneur with the regulations that Obama had placed in the way, which is a complaint

I had heard multiple times. So his concerns were purely economic. And then I would go over to the YMCA and the white guys over there were also talking about the election. And what they were talking about was jobs and taxes. So again, there's these economic concerns that were going on that transcend race. But then I would go into rehearsals. And it was like, man, if you voted for Trump, you can unfriend me now.

Man, racist this, racist that. White supremacy this, white supremacy, that. So right away, I said to myself, this is completely, they're completely off. Because MSNBC is telling them one thing about what it really is about. And then the actual people, you know, regular working class or maybe upper class people, upper middle class people are saying, well, look at it is policies on jobs and taxes and business regulations. And that's what they were looking at. And so already I had a very broad sense that there was a huge disconnect between the arts

and entertainment sector and the general public as far as their feelings about Trump. So we'll come back to Donald Trump here in a little bit here on the Will Kane show. We're going to talk about the mechanics of the new $175 million judgment lowered from 454. as of in the past half hour here we'll talk about that coming up on the will cane show with what i think is one of america's best trial attorneys dave sugden here on the will can show but to continue with clifton uh duncan here um so you've got a one man play coming out against about one and you've crowdfunded this thing which is incredible i think one of the most if it's not donald trump which we just nominate him for one of the most fascinating people of the last

hundred years. I definitely think while he flies under the popular culture radar, he is one of the most fascinating men of the last hundred years. And that's Thomas Sol. So why? How'd you get inspired by it? And how'd you want to focus on Thomas Soul? Well, you know, a few years ago, I saw this wonderful one-man show off Broadway called Satchmo at the Waldorf. And this wonderful actor named John Douglas Thompson embodied. It was a one-man show about Louis Armstrong. And throughout the course of the show, you see this actor not only embody Louis Armstrong, but also Miles Davis, as well as Armstrong's white manager. A few years before that, you can still watch this particular show on Amazon Prime, but Lawrence Fishburn did a play called Thurgood, which is about Thurgood Marshall. And it was

filmed for HBO. It's a pretty successful production. Years before that, the great James Earl Jones did a one-man play about Paul Robeson. And so I was thinking to myself, and it's an idea that's in my head for a few years, you know, who would be, who would be the subject of a great one-man play that I could write and create and perform myself? And, you know, and Thomas Sol had already been on my radar for a few years. And I said, well, it seems like a no-brainer to me. I have to write a show about this person who, who I think is very fascinating and who, frankly, would not get this, the same kind of treatment in our regular mainstream cultural institutions. So it just sort of, it came from there, and then I was urged to share my idea with people. And,

you know, the success of the crowdfunding campaign is something I could ever have imagined. It's really unbelievable. It's sitting at 140,000 right now, as a matter of fact. On Indiegogo. That is awesome. By the way, anybody watching if you want to contribute? So first of all, Clifton's doing this play, which I think he wants to workshop it across the country and then release it on streaming later. this needs to be made. Like, I think this needs to be made. So, for a moment, if anyone listening or watching

isn't familiar with Thomas Soul, just, I think, go to YouTube and look up clips of Thomas Soul, and then you're going to want to buy his books, and he's legit genius. And you know what's interesting? I think he would call himself a conservative. He's black.

You know what's interesting about Thomas Soul, Clifton, is that there's other, like, first of all, let's forget whether or not you're conservative or not. guys like Thomas Sol and Clarence Thomas are interesting in and of themselves because they are different, right? Because they're individuals. And I think that nominate you on its own to be the subject of art and exploration. Like, why do you think the way you think? What was your life like? What led you to this place where, look, 90% of blacks vote Democrat, at least it was been that case in the past. We'll see what it is in 2024. But, you know, guys like Soul and

and Clarence Thomas, they're zinging to the zag when it comes to intellectual thought. And that in and of itself, agreement or disagreement is interesting. And art should be the subject of something that's interesting, you know? And what I was thinking about is that's made Clarence Thomas, although he's more high profile, really a target. You know, he's called an Uncle Tom, he's called this or that. They don't do, people don't do that with Thomas Sol. I don't know. Maybe they're afraid, you know, like, because if you ever watching these TV clips, don't mess with Thomas Soul.

like he is never at a loss for an intellectual argument it's like he's considered everything i'm just i kind of find it fascinating there's not this big anti-thomas soul um i don't know group out there attacking him well i think i forgot who it was it might have been stephen pinker who said that at a certain point people just had to start ignoring him because uh he he's so effective in terms of clinically taking apart, a lot of left-wing talking points. I mean, I think what's the interesting thing about men like Seoul and Clarence Thomas and the late Walter E. Williams, the economist, any black person faces immense, immense social pressure to conform to one particular ideology.

And I'm reading Seoul's memoirs right now. This is a man who, as a child, faced discrimination. nation. He grew up during the days of Jim Crow. And he was not immune. Soul was not immune to these ideas about black and white and this sort of left-wing, dare I say, Marxist worldview that's been pumped into generations of impressionable black minds. So to go against that in and of itself and to reject that social pressure is an immense act of courage for any black person because everywhere you turn, whether you're, I mean, you can't even watch ESPN these days without getting some of these racial, cultural Marxist sort of talking points. You can't escape it. But the music we listen

to, the celebrities that we enjoy, the news that we consume, the algorithms that we that we employ, they all kind of steer you toward one method of thinking. And one of the things I think that attracted me to soul is that he, like I, as I did myself, spent his life thinking one way. And then he had to shift his thinking another way. And so that to me makes him a compelling figure A, not only to have the intelligence to be able to shift and change your mind, but also the courage to do so. And on top of that, the courage to just be unapologetic about this is what I think. This is how I came to these conclusions. Here is my evidence. Here are the facts.

Here's the data that I've used to reach these conclusions. And that, to me, is a really compelling aspect of his character. Oh, he makes rock-solid arguments. That's the thing. Impenetrable, like you said. And so the result is you just have to start, the opposition has to start ignoring him because it can't defeat what he has to say. I think I have my history correct.

Soul was on the left. That's what you're referencing, right, early in his life. And then you said that you were as well. I'm curious about you, when and how did you make that? change. And I'm not presuming, by the way, I don't know your politics, Clifton, but even your interest in Thomas Soho and your appreciation of him suggests you're not at least wholeheartedly on the left anymore. So I'm curious where that change, how that change might have occurred for you. Well, it's sort of a long process. I'll truncate it a little bit. I mean, I still

describe myself as pretty fairly liberal, but it depends on what topics you're talking about. And so if I, for instance, we're talking about, I think conservatives have a great point to talk about, say, the strength of the family and family values, but you never see me preach about that because I'm a libertine. So I can't, so I would be a total hypocrite if I were to say, hey, you know, you all should be getting married. I mean, I think that if you're going to get married, you should live, you know, you should honor that marriage. But, you know, as an artist, I don't think it really behooves me to wholly embrace conservatism. But at the same time, I distinguish leftism from liberalism, and I think leftism is a destructive, cynical, nihilistic force that is anti-art, anti-life, and anti-society.

So as an artist, I can't embrace that either. But for me, you know, I wasn't always like this. I was a default liberal, and like I said, especially as a black person, you grow up with these mindsets, sort of, this mindset pumped into your head. And, you know, you're a child, so you don't really know anything else. But around 2014 is where a really big shift happened, but it was on top of these other shifts that have taken place. One, I decided around 2008 that, you know, whether you're talking about some right-wing Nazi or some far-left pasty, white progressive, if you can't see me as a human being before my demographic, i.e. a black male, then I have no interest in having any kind of relationship with you. I'm a human being before I'm a black, before I'm black, before I'm male. I'm a human being first and foremost.

So that was a big shift for me. The second shift came a couple of years later when I basically decided to stop apologizing for being a man. The entertainment industry right now is a very, very caustic environment against males, against masculinity and against male achievement. And I internalized all of that, especially again, we're talking about black America. It's a very, very, the term is gynocentric. They sort of uphold our black queens to the detriment, I think, of our men.

And there's this idea that, you know, men are, excuse me, women are better than men and yada, yada, you're a male, you're toxic, you're trash, this, that, and the fourth. Once I began to reject that, that was another major shift for me. So now, I'm in an industry now where racial politics and sex and gender politics have, you know, are heating up. And I have, I have self-affirming views which run counter to that. But then 2014 happened, and there was a huge kerfuffle called GamerGate, which the sequel is unfolding right now, as a matter of fact. And that's way too complicated to get into. But I basically saw the machine for what it is. I saw what was actually happening and I saw how it was being reported on.

I saw how progressives, quote unquote, progressives shut down conversation. I saw how quote unquote progressives either ignore or denigrate minorities and sexual minorities, racial minorities and women who do not go along with their. program. I just, I saw the corruption, the lies, just blatant lying for what it was. At the same time, all the Michael Brown stuff was happening, Hands Up Don't Shoot. And the Washington Post of all outlets had extraordinary reporting where they even had diagrams from the autopsy by the medical examiner hired by the Brown family. There was no way that the story we were being told about Hands Up Don't Shoot could be true, not based on the forensic evidence, not based on the physical evidence, nothing. Everything supported

Officer Darren Wilson's version of events. However, we're being told by celebrities, by politicians, by everybody, these pundits, the same story. I said, these people are lying. They're straight up lying. They're lying. They're either ignorant or lying. And I also went to the BLM website at that

time as well, and I said, these people don't care about black people at all. They don't care about black people. They think that they're... You're aware this has all made you a racist. Well, you know, it's just, again, it's left-wing ideology coming back at you whenever you say these things because, you know, for instance, I go to the BLM website and people thought that they were protesting against excessive police

brutality. But when you went to the page, it was a bunch of intersectional queer gender theory buzzwords, which, you know, black people are more socially conservative than Democrats seem to be aware of. And they're not really about this stuff. But they specifically skipped over protecting. or supporting fathers in that website. There was a section that said, you know,

we support mothers, parents, guardians, caregivers. Somebody wrote that section and deliberately left out the word father. And that's when I said, these people do not care about what really ails the black community. And so all these things happen all at once. Which is what? Say what?

Which is what? What really ails the black community? You're alluding to fatherhood. Well, it's just the disintegration of the family. the denigration of these strong families. And, you know, we talk about these deadbeat males, but we never talk about, you know, mate selection. Why are these males being chosen in the first place to be fathers?

But you can't talk about those types of things. But on the ground, people know what the issues are. You know what I mean? Like, it's just a very, it's a very weird thing. But when you see this organization, which is a piece or a subsidiary of a larger political ideology, which runs so counter to what, the true needs are of the people.

You know, once you see all these things at the same time, there's no way that you can honestly say, I'm still in line with these people. On top of all of that, I realized 2016 that if you're a happy, self-actualized and self-possessed black person, the Democrats have no use for you. In fact, they despise you. And that was a big, a major break for me. What I love about your story, though, is while it's individual, while it's your path, I don't think it's necessarily one that you've blazed alone.

I think it's something that a lot of people experienced. Every way you walked me through that, from the rejection of identity, politics, and the requirement that you accept me as an individual, from the requirements you see me as a man, that men should not be denigrated, from the lying on individual cases that if you pointed to the truth, on any number of these cases, and Michael Brown was one, but it followed with a whole host of cases in suing years, if you cared about the facts, you were called a racist. That's why I made that joke, you know, now you're a racist. Clifton. All of that, I think, is a path that has affected many, many people over the past

decade. And it doesn't end up in you having to say, now I'm on the right, or now I'm Republican, or now I'm conservative. You're still capable of your own individual thought as we all are, right? But it also lets you just see, see the original crackerjack box formula you were handed as a child, like you said, that now you've learned how to reject. I want to go here in the end, though. You have done Broadway, Shakespeare, NCIS. You're in the acting community. So now you've made this, this, you know, transformation personally. And then professionally, you're embracing a guy like Thomas Soul. What's been the reaction of your community? Well, you know, I would say that I'm no longer in the acting community. I don't consider myself of the acting

community. Because for those who aren't aware, I was one of the few entertainment professionals who in 2021, when all of the COVID mandates came down, I said, I'm not, you know, I'd already have this disease. Like, why should I be taking this injection for something I've already gotten? So I, there's a term I use for, but I won't use it for your viewers. It starts with the word in. But I got purged from the industry because of my stances on the, on the pandemic, which I was right about, by the way. So I still have spies on the inside. And it's interesting because, for one, the theater as a whole right now is failing. Broadway reached record highs, record box office numbers.

In the 2018-2019 season, they have not repeated. They have not gone back to those numbers. The theater industry, about 20 to 30 percent of the audience has not returned post-pandemic. There were experts predicting that by months from now, the industry will have contracted by about 50 percent. My friends tell me that they're having much. more trouble-finding work now than they did before the pandemic. There's fewer jobs out there. Same thing happening in Hollywood. So these industries now have contracted themselves,

but what's funny now is that even though I got, I feel like I got pushed out and blacklisted, now all these broke unemployed actors are looking at me who just made $140,000, which is more than most of the people will make over the span of the year or next five years. years. And they're presiding in industries which are losing relevance and losing their stature and their structure and their power. And I think the new way to go is to forge your own path and to leave these failing institutions behind because they're poorly managed. They're dysfunctional. They're run by people who have no clue what they're really doing. And they just told the American people that they're not essential for two straight years. And now they're shocked

that Americans happen to agree with them. And yet now I propose this idea to say, hey, let me write this play about this person. And over 900 people said, you know what? This is a great idea. I'm going to support this. So it's not that Americans are not interested in the arts. It's not that they're not interested in seeing culture created.

It's just that they're not interested in whatever the mainstream institutions are putting out right now. And as far as the acting community goes, you know, these are people who said that they didn't even want to have unvaccinated people in their audiences. And they call people like me plague rats and and granny killers. So, you know, there's a handful of people that are like me and went through the same experience and each of us is of the same mindset. We have no, no desire to ever include ourselves among these particular people, aka the acting community ever again. The good news is that there's Avengers assembling now outside of that arena who are very, very high caliber, you know, ex-Broadway, ex-Hollywood talent who are coming together now and saying

there's a problem. We see what the problems are and we need to create something that's outside this system. And the response I've gotten from many people in the acting community is they're looking up to people like me because they believe I'm showing them a new way forward, which, you know, I never asked for any of this, but, you know, I'll take it for now. Well, make it 901. I can't wait to see Seoul, your play on Thomas Soul. I'd love you to come back once you have it produced and ready to go. I'd love to be in the audience.

I'd love to help people stream it. And I'd love to have you back on the Will Kane Show. If nothing else, I want to follow up on the black community being gynocentric. What a fascinating thing you said that I did not escape my attention, but I don't have the time today to fully explore. So I hope you will come back here, and we can have further discussions on the Will Kane show. Thank you, Clifton. Of course, Will, thanks for having me. You can go to soulplay.com if you want to donate.

Solplay.com. There you go. Crowdfunded, Indiegogo Soulplay.com. Thanks to Clifton, Duncan. All right, let's return to Donald Trump. And the breaking news today that his bond in New York has been lowered from $454 million to $175 million. What does that mean? What are the actual mechanics that will take place in the next?

10 days, and what actually happens inside a jury box with one of my lifelong friends, I think one of the best trial attorneys in America. Dave Sugden, next on the Will Cain Show. Donald Trump has pulled in to 40 Wall Street, one of his properties in New York, and he's expected to address the public, address the media here. Shortly, we'll keep you up today on what Donald Trump has to say about the breaking news that his bond in New York has been lowered from $454 million to $175 million, something he will have to satisfy within the next 10 days. It's the Will Cain Show, streaming live at foxnews.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page.

Hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify or right here on YouTube. It's underneath the description, a little convenient button. You can hit subscribe to the Will Cain Show. Dave Sugden is a lifelong friend of mine. He's a business trial attorney at Dave. hold on man i've got the firm i only think of you call in jenkins call and jenkins jensen jensen look at you you got a whole suit on oh my gosh super professional i've known dave my entire life or not my entire life since college he played baseball at pepperdine he's one of

my good friends um we get together for breakfast every once while and when we do i say ah man why don't you come on my show we should have some of these same conversations and i mean it when i say this dave is like in my estimation pioneered a unique career that all of us wanted to have whoever went to law school. You know, we grew up with either dads that were trial lawyers, we watched, we're all too young to watch Perry Mason, but we all watched drama about the courtroom. We wanted to be in the courtroom, and very few lawyers are actually in the courtroom. And Dave is on a continuous basis.

He literally tries cases, takes them up late in the stage of litigation, and he's in the courtroom. And so, Dave and I, what we end up talking about all the time is, you know, the nature of cross-examination, the way juries. think, the way people think, and his window into how people think based upon seeing them make decisions in a courtroom. So when I say, I think he's one of America's best trial lawyers, it's not just because I've known him for 20-some-odd years, because I really mean that, and I've had the opportunity to hear his thoughts over steak and eggs. So, Dave, first of all, awesome to have finally done this. Tell me what your thoughts are on this news. First of all, that Donald Trump had a $454 million bond today that's now been lowered to $175 million.

Yes. Well, what we're seeing in this bond issue is sort of a continuation of what seems like almost an upside down case. And when you look at the theory of Lettisa James and her team, and now you look at the bond issue, what you're seeing is, in terms of her theory of the case, the idea was Trump isn't as wealthy as he says he is. He should not be allowed. to deal with banks. He should not be allowed to engage in any more real estate transactions at all. She sought a lifetime ban. And then when you look at the briefing as to why he should get a bond, what she says is he can go to a bank. He can get a loan. He can sell his properties. And so she's saying, in essence, our lawsuit was designed to stop what we're saying he should

do now. And so now we have the Court of Appeal saying we're going to reduce it, which doesn't, I don't think, change much for 10 days, other than it's probably more easy for Trump and his team to get a bond. And so, by the way, and just to revisit the facts of the case, the allegations are that Donald Trump inappropriately inflated the value of his various real estate properties in order to negotiate a more favorable loan to a bank. Now, every real estate friend I've said says, so does everybody. Like, that's the normal course of business.

Like, get the highest valuation you can in front of a bank for your existing properties to increase the value or the ability of you to get the loan you desire. But then there's the bank on the other side, and they go, no, we don't think it's worth that. We don't think it's worth X. We think it's worth Y. They do their own due diligence. It's a negotiation, which happened in this case, and none of the banks feel like victims. But so, Leticia James takes a normal business practice of the negotiation of value of an asset and turns it into a crime. Well, it's so strange because when you think of the priorities of a state attorney, General protecting banks and insurance companies is usually not high in the

priority list in other words they're designed to protect consumers protect the public and it's not as though these banks are super unsophisticated when it comes to giving out nine-figure loans they do their due diligence and so it's a bit of a head scratcher when you see a state attorney general say I'm gonna go after this private transaction and seek a civil the equivalent of a civil conviction. And you think it being reduced to $175 million, he has 10 days? The thing is none of us know what his real asset sheet looks like, how liquid he is.

We don't know any of that. So like you said, the only real takeaway from this at this point is, well, it's a lower number, so it's easier for him to satisfy that judgment. Do you think anything else would happen the next 10 days legally to affect his necessity to pay $175 million? I don't anticipate much will happen legally in the next 10. days. I mean, the briefing is essentially done. I imagine they may file some additional briefs asking again, but I imagine that now that the Court of Appeal has spoken, this is the number, this is the

deadline. The question becomes, if he doesn't post a bond by that date, what happens next? Right. And the same question we were asking today when the number was $454 million. All right, I want to ask you, I just want to bring the audience into some of our conversations. And it's always hard to recreate a conversation. But it was last week we were having breakfast. And you were telling me about one of the things you guys do to prepare for trial is you do mock trials and you impanel mock juries. And we were talking about the way it goes down in a jury room after the case is over and how a jury makes up his mind. And it just blew my mind. But it also didn't make me think about us as individuals and us as society.

So just like share with us that story you were talking about of how quickly a jury comes to a conclusion. Sure. So what we'll do is that we will do a sort of mock jury exercise. And what we do is we present the case, a case that we're going to have and we're going to try it in the future. What we want to do is see what is a jury going to do with our case. And so what we will do is we will get, it's essentially a focus group, but we'll get anywhere from 24 to 30 people, and we'll give a presentation, a plaintiff presentation, a defense presentation, and a rebuttal by the plaintiff. And each individual will have an iPad. And he or she will sort of give their thoughts on the case and they will render their verdict individually. And then what happens next is you divide the group into two rooms and then with a two-way mirror, we're able to essentially review and watch how the deliberations go down. And what I was sharing with you, Will, it's fascinating. The way it's not really a deliberation, but rather what you see is the strong personalities

sort of dictate what's going to happen. And so it's not uncommon. We've had this recently, where in room number one, we have a defense verdict. In room number two, we have a plaintiff verdict and it's multi-millions in terms of what the verdict is. And these two groups saw the same thing, saw the exact same thing.

And so what you see is how that decision gets made and what you often see is, as the dialogue begins, the strong personalities, the leaders in the room sort of emerge, And then as a result, people sort of follow along and they want to sort of fit in and they want to have connection. And so in room number one, you have someone that says, oh, I think it's a defense verdict. And here's why I think it's a defense verdict.

What do you think? And all of a sudden, people start sort of gravitating towards that verdict. And in the other room, you see the absolute opposite take place. And it's not unlike your prior aggress, Clifton Dunkton, where he talks about how, because he was sort of thinking a different way on certain issues, he sort of feels excluded. And what you see in these deliberations is the fear of exclusion, where someone has said, I think this, here's why. And once people start sensing there's agreement, consensus happens pretty fast. You tell me like in five minutes. Like you told me a story of one of those rooms, the first

person to speak was sort of, I hope I'm not divulge anything you didn't want me to tell you. But like, You know, kind of purple-haired, nose ring. And you told me that her major desire when she was speaking was to not be speaking. That she did not want to go first. She didn't want to stake a position. And then the second speaker was a strong personality guy. And you said to yourself, literally five minutes into deliberation, you turned to your friends or colleagues. You're like, game set, match.

It's over. Second dude spoke, and everyone will go that way. Yes, yes. And so what we saw is sort of a personality where this person, was asked to go first and you could tell there was profound discomfort this person did not want to sort of stake her position and so she sort of gave me waffled the answer on the one hand this on the other hand that what do you think and so she's sort of not wanting to take a position again for in a cynical way fear of

rejection in a less cynical way desire for human connection and so then what happens is you see the individual who's much stronger who says I feel strongly this way, this is why I think that, and then all of a sudden I sort of joked and said game set match. And what you're going to see is most of the folks sort of following along. And then what happens is that each room continues the discussion and what they're doing is they're not looking to poke holes or weaknesses in their deliberation, but rather what they're sharing are things that now confirm what they believe to be true. And so when you watch each room, if you were just an observer who hadn't watched the presentations, you would think this is, you would have thought

these are totally different cases because in room one, they've got a memory that confirms the bias of their defense verdict. On the other hand, in another room, they're saying, oh, this is clearly a strong case for the plaintiff, and here's why. And I'd ask you, in all your years of doing this, and I'm going to get to why this is important in a minute. Like, I'm fascinated by this. Yeah, because I'm, you know, I'm interested in rhetoric and logic and persuasion. I'm interested in the law and trials. But also, I actually think this is what we're talking about is not just a focus group for a trial, but a focus group for all of us as society and how we coalesce and how we make decisions. So, and then I think you could even apply it individually to how we interact

individually with one another. Like, Dave and I've talked about how you persuade your kids based upon understanding what people do here. So I just think it's applicable in any walk of life. And I asked you, in all your views you're doing this, have you ever seen a 12 angry men situation where it's like 11 people ready to go and one holdout? And your answer was never. Never.

It doesn't happen, at least not in these focus groups. It just does not. And it's not to say there couldn't be a situation where someone is sort of an independent thinker and truly wants to not fit in. I don't want to be overly cynical, but what you do see is the strong pull of people wanting to connect, wanting to share things in common,

and what you see is a lot of following. It just sort of inevitably happens. And what we, you and I talked about, Will, is also the idea of how do people come to decisions? And, you know, Will, you went to law school, so did I, and we spent three years sort of learning how to think with our minds. In other words, how to think logic.

And we sort of exit law school thinking, well, I now know how to argue logically. That means I must now, I must now be persuasive and I'll try to persuade through logic. And what my experience has been, I think we see this in politics everywhere, is that people make decisions first off how they feel. There's sort of a gut reaction to something they hear, something they feel, and then after that, they sort of use their mind to rationalize the their decision, rationalize what they're feeling. And so people aren't consciously in a deliberation saying, I want to fit in, therefore I will follow this person. But rather, there's sort of this idea of what do I feel?

How do I feel about this argument? And then to sort of reconcile that, they'll use their mind to explain how they got there. And so oftentimes after trial, we will talk to jurors afterwards. And what we will get is really good explanations that sound logical and sound all, they follow the evidence, follow the law and they explain how they got there. But the real question is, how did they first

decide in their gut which way they are going? How do they feel? Because a lot of times that can trigger how they're going to rationalize their ultimate decision. So you're exactly right. And in that, you know, for most of my career, and for anyone watching, like, I think the hard thing to do is to separate the world and the way it is, from the way that you think the world should be. And you're right, for a lot of us to come out of law school, and certainly for me, I think the world should operate by reason and logic. But that can't push me into a situation of thinking that's the way the world does work,

just because I think it should work that way. And so, you know, I've become much more humble in, I know that sounds ridiculous, but I've become much more humble in making arguments and understanding, like, I told you, Dave, when I was at CNN as a consistent, contributor, and even in my early days at ESPN, I was just a jackhammer for logic. Like, I mean, it's just like, you're wrong. Boom, bum, bum, bum, boom, here's why. And I think I just become more humble on the limitations of that as a tool of persuasion.

It doesn't make you wrong, but you also aren't as effective in convincing people you are right. And so what I'm getting at, and I'm pretty honest with my audience, like, I don't do things in a calculated nature, or at least not consciously. I don't know about subconsciously, but I don't sit there and go, how can I make this argument most persuasive? I just kind of do what comes naturally. You have to think that way a little more because your job is more overtly to persuade 12 people. How do you use that, Dave?

Or even, you know, you and I talk about our personal lives. We talk about our families, you know, and wives and children, anyone listening, like bosses. Like, I don't even know if you're trying to actually use this information and use this. I don't even know how you begin to say, all right, well, Well, if it's not logic, which one can understand, and now I have to understand the way people feel at all times and how logic fits into how they feel. I don't know how you turn that into,

and it sounds cynical to say a tool, but yeah, into a tool for persuasion. Well, I think it's a matter of sort of understanding human nature. In other words, we can, as lawyers think, hey, here's why I'm logically right. Here's why the facts and the law match, and here's why I'm going to win. But the reality is that the decision, decision maker, whether it's a jury, your boss, your spouse, they have to want to have

a reason to find in your favor. And so a lot of times you have to, as a lawyer, think of, okay, I understand what the facts are, but what's the story that I can tell? There's always true that aligns with the evidence, but when I tell this story, it's going to make the jurors feel a certain way where they want my side to win. A lot of times in these civil cases, there aren't that many facts and districts. dispute, but what you do see is sort of the competition of ideas, where the plaintiff will have one certain narrative. In other words, once upon a time there was this plaintiff who

until the defendant did this bad thing, this happened, and now you as the jury can fix all of that. Now, if the defendant gets up there and says, well, there's no causation. In fact, what you're going to see is that there may have been a number of different causes as to why this person's injured or whatever. What you have is, is a narrative by the plaintiff that tells a story. And the jury's going to hear that and think, I feel something. I'm very sympathetic to what happened to this plaintiff.

Meanwhile, this defendant has sort of a technical argument that's just not going to stick. It's sort of like your CNN days. In other words, if a person wants to think something and you're going with logic, they're not going to, you're not going to sway them away. Whereas if a defendant has an alternative to narrative, This is what the case is about.

This is about a plaintiff that could have been more responsible or whatever. You're at least providing competing stories so that you can get to the sort of gutten hearts of the jurors so that you've at least given them a chance to feel a certain way. And then they're more likely to listen to your logical arguments. If you lead with logic, they won't be listening at all.

There's some ancient metaphor about that. Like it's easier to steer an elephant by the nose it is by the head or something like that that's that has to do with you know reason versus emotion um i don't know man i love i love every conversation we have you know that at some point i want to share it with the audience as well and um i think there's so much to learn about about the way we as individuals make decisions as you said the desire to fit in i've come to believe that fear is the biggest motivator and i guess that's a fear of ostracization that people are fighting um they just they want to be accepted in part of the group but then it's also just like

i don't know politics life how you how you communicate like how we communicate with one another and try to convince each other of of objective truth um all right call jensen is his firm dave suggden business trial lawyer one of the best by the way he educates lawyers at evidence at trial dot com i'll meet you for breakfast and let's do this again on the Will Kane Show, man. Love it. Thank you, buddy. Stay well.

All right. There he is. Dave Sugged in. All right, there you have. I think the breaking news, the technical aspects of what happened with the deadline for the bond for Donald Trump today, being lowered from $454 million to $175 million. But also I think the deeper thematic takeaways is I want to do on how we coalesce the wisdom and the folly of crowds and how we make decisions as individuals. here today on the Will Cain show. All right, that's going to do it from today.

Hit subscribe, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and I'll see you again next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime. You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon Music app. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along.

Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.box. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.