Will Cain Country - What To Know About Former President Trump In Court - PLUS Iran On The Brink

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Story #1: The first criminal prosecution against a former president started today in New York. What to know about the case against Donald Trump with Fox News Legal Analyst and GW University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Story #2: Can we avoid World War 3 that begins with Israel and Iran? A conversation with Congressman Michael Waltz (R-FL). Story #3: Sometimes good guys win. Scottie Scheffler wins The Masters.   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 five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, the first criminal prosecution against a former president starts today in New York. What to know about the case. against Donald Trump with George Washington Law Professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley. Two, sometimes good guys win.

Scotty Sheffler wins the Masters. And three, how to avoid the next step on the escalation ladder. What is the next rung and can we avoid World War III that begins with Israel and Iran? With Congressman Michael Waltz. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, on the Fox News Facebook page. You can go to any of those outlets and hit subscribe to watch the Will Kane podcast in full or in part YouTube shorts or exclusive interviews by just hitting subscribe at Facebook or on YouTube. You can also listen to the Will Kane podcast whenever you like in audio format. Apple or Spotify. Just hit subscribe. Sometimes the news crawls and sometimes the news runs. Sometimes

you're drinking from a fire hose. Today is a historic and shameful day as we begin the process of the first criminal prosecution against a former president. It's a confusing and by most estimations, weak case against Donald Trump. Jury selection begins today and we're going to break down for you, what you need to know, the charges, the witnesses, the characters involved in this case against Donald Trump. And over the weekend, Iran launched over 300 drones and missiles at Israel. Was this the beginning of an escalation that can inevitably lead to World War III, or was it a choreographed, performative dance that requires both sides to ask, what's the next move? What's the next move that allows everyone to play politics domestically without avoiding war internationally?

How do we avoid World War III? We're going to talk about that with former Green Beret, the first Green Beret, to serve in Congress. Congressman Michael Waltz. All that's coming up. But let's start and let's get after it with the biggest story of the day, a historic and shameful prosecution of Donald Trump. Story number one. He is a Fox News legal analyst. He's a professor of law at George Washington University, and he's Jonathan Turley here on the Will Kane show. Great to have you, Professor. I'd love to start here with the true false with you. True or false, among the cases against Donald Trump, this case brought by Alvin Bragg, the district attorney in Manhattan, in New York, is the weakest case against Trump.

True, but I want to emphasize that it's not weak in terms of chances of conviction because the jury, pool, the judge could not be better for brag. But in terms of law, the answer is true. That led me, and you began to answer the second true false. Although it is the weakest case, true or false, it is the most likely case to end in Democrats capable of yelling from the mountaintop convicted felon, Donald Trump. Yes. I mean, the fact is that this jury pool couldn't be any better. You only had about 12% of people that voted for Trump in the last election. And so finding someone with an open mind about Trump is quite a challenge. If that proves to be the case, Bragg's not going to have to do much beyond introduce the defendant to secure a

conviction. We're hoping that's not the case. So we've established that it is both the weakest case and the most likely case to end in a conviction for Donald Trump. So let's dig in now, professor we can to not just what we expect to happen today, but let's at least set the stage together for how we got here. And I would love if you would indulge me to see if I can set out the facts and you tell me what I miss or if I get anything wrong. The charges here against Donald Trump stem from checks that he wrote to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. The Trump team alleges these were retainers for the legal services of Michael Cohen. The prosecution alleges it the checks which amounted to, I believe, roughly $150,000 were reimbursement to Cohen

for payoffs to people like Stormy Daniels, another Playboy Bunny, and I believe the publisher of the National Enquirer to silence stories that would be negative about Donald Trump. So the allegation is Trump bought silence and funneled those checks that bought the silence through Cohen. And that led Bragg to bring charges of business fraud, of concealing your business and not properly filing as to what you were spending your money on. Is that a fair estimation of the charges against Donald Trump? It is fair. And as you know, there are other rather wicked twist to this, because what you just described is usually a misdemeanor under New York law for someone who's never been charged before, it'd probably be papered over or

pleaded out. But in this case, the misdemeanor was dead. The statute of limitations had already run. So this is a real Frankenstein case. I mean, they're bringing to life a dead misdemeanor. And the way they're doing it is they're bootstrapping what they say is a federal crime. So they're saying, look, when he did all of that, it was really meant to hide. the fact that he was committing violations of federal election law. And therefore, this is not just a live misdemeanor, it's a live felony, and we can bring this case. Now, to make this even more wicked, even the felony ran in terms of sexual limitations, but it was extended through to COVID. So it's sort of like a double dead indictment,

but was revived. Now the final wicked aspect to all of this, is that there is no federal crime. This does not appear to be a violation of federal election law. The Department of Justice did not opt to prosecute it. So everything about this is absolutely absurd. Okay, I want to dig into each and every one of those things that you just said, both the misdemeanor and the felony allegations for just one moment before we pivot to the news of the day, and that is jury selection. So, the official charge, the misdemeanor, Professor Turley, is so that I start referencing it correctly, is what? What is the misdemeanor charge? The misdemeanor technically is falsifying business records, right? It is making a false report, essentially, on business records under state law.

Okay. And for all the non-lawyers watching right now, let's explain what it means. I don't like taking anything for granted. Statute of limitations. I went to just enough law school to probably characterize this with you affirming it or telling me I got it wrong. But a statute of limitations in a criminal charge professor is that you only have a certain amount of time as a prosecutor to bring a charge forward. And it's that the charge is somehow unjust if it is beyond that. The idea behind a statute of limitations is you shouldn't have to live 10 years past a potential crime.

for, I guess, new evidence to come forward. The statute of limitations in these misdemeanor charges had expired. So theoretically, and by the way, I think murder is one of the only crimes out there that doesn't have a statute of limitations. But the statute of limitations on these misdemeanors was what? I believe four years, and it had expired. Right. And the irony here is that the reasoning of statute of limitations is to avoid cases like this.

I mean, the whole idea of sexual limitations is to tell citizens that they can go on with their lives that there's not this domically sword that just dangles over your head. It's supposed to avoid cases like this where a prosecutor can go back and dig up a former alleged crime and pull you back into court. And when he does so, time has passed. Recollections have dimmed. Witnesses can be more difficult to find. So it's not just that sexual limitations have passed, but this is the ultimate case of why we have statute of limitations. All right. And then even if the statute of limitations had not passed, Professor, the misdemeanor charge of fraudulent business records, that would in and of itself be, in terms of prosecutorial discretion, what I mean by that is in terms of a prosecutor choosing to charge that type of crime, would still be somewhat unprecedented. right? Like, we have various examples, which I think it would include Hillary Clinton of similar

type of incidences, falsifying business records, writing checks, passing them through a conduit, where prosecutors don't choose to prosecute these types of crimes. Right. I mean, I've written about the analogy to the Clinton campaign, because in that case, you had Mark Elias, who's the general counsel of the Clinton campaign. Now, the campaign had denied to media that they had funded the steel dossier when they were trying to get the whole Russian collusion thing going. It turns out that was a lie. And they buried it as a legal expense, very similar to what's being alleged here. They were fined for that as a campaign violation, but no one was criminally charged. So you're right, Will, in the sense that this is not a big-ticket

item. In terms of a misdemeanor, there would never even be a suggestion, of jail time, but you also wouldn't have years of time and millions of dollars spent by all the parties to build up what is essentially a state misdemeanor case. Okay, so what we've established so far together, Professor, is we have a weak state misdemeanor case that most prosecutors would not choose to charge unless the defendant's last name were Trump. Not only do we have a weak misdemeanor, we have a weak misdemeanor that has passed its statute of limitations. It has expired. Now, the tool, as you laid out for us a little bit earlier, that Bragg uses to get past the statute of limitations is he charges it up to a

felony. Now, the way that he does that is he says that these checks, these fraudulent business records, were written not just to falsify business records, but to falsify business records to manipulate an election. So they were used for election interference. essence, to pull the wool over the eyes of the voter. Now, this, first of all, as a felony, I believe you just established for us. You just told us the statute of limitations on that in and of itself, on that felony. That had also passed, Professor? Right. The essential limitations had been extended because of the pandemic. But the other problem, and this is what's so weird about the case, when the indictment came down, it didn't even state what the crime was. So

So the way they're bootstrapping this is they're saying, not only did you falsify business records, you did it with the intent of concealing crime. But when you read the indictment, it's not clear what that crime is. And when Bragg was pushed on this, when he filed, he actually sort of got miffed and said he doesn't really have to say anything more. To this day, it's ambiguous as to what that crime is, which is bizarre when you're about to try someone for a crime. that is that is that is I think I'm leading you up to that point because I think that is as you point out beyond bizarre okay so the statute of limitations for the felony is extended because of COVID that's part of the Frankenstein project you just said to keep this alive but the as you point out brag and the prosecutors haven't defined the underlying crime that makes this a felony it's just this vague interference with an election how does if if you don't have to you know if you're

don't have to explain or even lay out in a legal filing. More importantly, lay out in a legal filing, what's your underlying felony is. I'm curious, how does this survive to the point of trial? This should have, the point, and we're going to get to this in our conversation is this, as you said, it's so weak legally that, A, you don't think it would survive appeal, but B, how does it even get to the stage of making its way to a jury? Well, I think that is exactly why some of us are critical of the court, the court could have at least asked for greater specificity as to what the crime is. But there's a reason why Brad wasn't specific, because it doesn't appear to be a crime. That is, it's not clear. And most many people believe you don't have to report money

of this kind. The last time the Department of Justice tried anything like this was in the John Edwards case, another presidential candidate, who did a very similar thing. There was a money that moved from campaign donors to a woman that had had a child with him out of wedlock. The Department of Justice threw everything at John Edwards, and it collapsed. And the general view in the Department of Justice was we really don't have the foundation to say that this is a clear federal offense. So that's why Bragg was ambiguous, that he doesn't want to come out and admit that not only did he revive a dead misdemeanor, a half-dead felony, but he's trying to bring to life for the

first time a new federal crime. Yeah, I had forgotten about John Edwards. It's almost on the nose where he had a mistress. He hoped that wouldn't come out in the public. But in that case, the DOJ, despite trying, falls apart. And that's similar, or that's a lesson learned in this case, right? Because I believe the Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice at large, the Federal Elections Commission, all looked at this potential case with Trump, and they passed, right? They said, no, it's either not there or we have precedent with John Edwards to say this will end up in failure, but that didn't stop Alvin Bragg. Right. Unlike the Clinton campaign, there was no finding of a federal election violation, but the Department of Justice was highly

motivated to charge Trump and, in fact, did so. on this one because they didn't believe they could get a conviction or they didn't believe it was well-based. And they had experience with this. What they didn't have was a New York jury, a motivated judge and a district attorney that doesn't really care. All right. And now that's perfect. That's the perfect transition to the news of the day. Okay, we're going to dig into why Alvin Bragg doesn't care that his case is so weak. And let's talk about a New York jury. That's what begins today in this case against Donald Trump. And Texas professor, we call it Vodier, up in the Northeast.

You guys are more fancy and you call it voir dire. But it is a French term for essentially selecting a jury. So today, I believe it's going to be roughly 100 people, something like that, that are brought into a courtroom. And the attorneys for both Trump and the prosecutors will go through the process of trying to find, I don't even want to use the word impartial, the right jury. for their case. And so everyone is pointed out, as you have today, it is in Manhattan, a place where I believe

the voting base went 85% for Joe Biden over Donald Trump. Now, why is that important? Because the point that Judge Merchant should be trying to help accomplish with the attorneys is to find an impartial jury towards Donald Trump. I just have to think, Professor, that's an impossibility. We all walk around in the world. There is nobody. Those that love them or those that hate them, I think there's nobody in America that's impartial towards Donald Trump.

Well, I think that's true, although we don't usually have a jurisdiction that is this one-sided. Remember, the New York voters elected James, the attorney general, on a pledge that she would bag Trump on something. She didn't even say what? She just said, I'm going to get Donald Trump. And they elected her. Many of us considered that deeply unethical, but they elected her because that's what they want from the legal system. Those are the vote. That's the voting roles that these same names appear on.

And so the question is not whether people hate Donald Trump, but can they separate themselves from that hate? How intense is it? In this jurisdiction, it's pretty damn intense. Now, what you really want to try to do here is you only get 10 strikes. So you want to try to reserve your strikes for stuff that you can't show as clear absolute bias. Because the bias is sort of freebies. If you could show a direct bias, then that limit doesn't apply. So that doesn't mean that they go on the veracity of these questionnaires.

Because the worst jurors, the ones you're afraid of, are the ones who desperately want to be on this jury, and they'll lie. I mean, we had that happen. In past Trump cases, we had jurors that were found later after verdicts, this involved Trump associates, had lied about their political activities. The judges refused to reverse the verdicts, even though some of us vociferously objected and said, what's the damn point? I mean, if Wadir means something to a defendant and they lie about their politics, clearly they should get a new trial. And these judges, two of them said, no, we're just not going to do it.

So you have to nail it now. So what these defense lawyers have is they have the names, which we won't have. And those hundred people will be searched. So if they come on and say, look, I never attended a rally. I've never said anything against Trump. They will look on social media. Now, is that a complete protection? No, it's not. But what you're really hoping for is that, and there are good people, obviously, in New York, and good people who don't like Trump. And what you're looking for is not someone that doesn't dislike Trump, but somebody who likes the law more and is willing to give him a fair hearing. All right, so it's my contention that you can't find 10 people in America that don't already have an opinion on Donald Trump that could truly describe themselves as impartial. But to my point, you add, look, you're talking about a district, not only the 185% Joe Biden, but that elected Latisha James.

as Attorney General of New York on the promise that she would get Trump, making it all the more absurd and impossible to achieve impartiality. These are the types of questions. Here's one type of question that will be asked of these jurors. Do you have any political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or opinions, which might prevent you from following the court's instructions on the law, which might slant your approach in this case? They go on, by the way, and some of these other questions to ask more specific things of the jury pool, like have you ever attended a Q&N movement, proud boys, oathkeepers, have you read books or podcasts by Michael Cohen? But in your estimation, were you, so you pointed out, if you can establish impartiality, that's a freebie. You only get 10 strikes, so that means both sides say, without explanation, we strike that potential juror, and they're out. So in your estimation, were you sitting in there helping the defense of Donald Trump, what other things would you be asking of these jurors to try to understand who they are that they either can't or won't explain honestly to you about their underlying beliefs?

Like, how do you dig into that in Vodier? Well, unfortunately, there's no way to take out the clever juror. I mean, if you've got a dishonest, juror who just wants to hide their bias, they'll succeed. I mean, if it's very hard when someone says, are you so biased you can't say as a juror to say, yeah, I'm that biased, right? I took this trip downtown. I waited this long, got on the stand to say, I'm the last person you want on the jury. A lot of people don't want to get dressed up for nothing, and they will be tempted to sort of brush over it. The only sobering aspect is that most people, who feel strongly, leave a evidentiary trail.

Social media is the most common form of communications today. And even if you delete your social media, you can use way back and other ways to look at them. So it might be possible to find them. But is it likely that you're going to have some Trojan horse jurors? Yep. And they'll be carrying a lot of bias. But remember, you only need one juror to say,

gosh, you know, this is pretty weird. You know, it doesn't feel like a crime to me to bring this to an end. I was just going to ask that. For Donald Trump, all it takes is one. You know, I have a good friend of mine. I've had him here on the Will Cain Show professor, who is a trial attorney, meaning he takes them late stage and he argues cases some eight to ten times a year, which you and I both know how rare that is for an attorney. Most of the time when someone says they're in litigation, that means. they do briefs ahead of a court case. And he and I talk a lot about a jury and what a jury represents in the deliberation room. And he says how, you know, and I don't know that it applies to this case because this is so unique. Most jurors do not want to take a strong stand. They don't want to lead. They don't want to have their opinion displayed before the other 11. So what ends up happening is the first strong personality wins. The first strong personality, that lays down a claim, we'll get the remaining, however, nine, ten, who haven't yet spoken,

to fall in line. I asked him, Professor, in all your years, have you ever seen a 12 Angry Men scenario? He said, never, because people are inherently agreeable. They want to be liked. They want to fit in. They want to be a part of the herd. So no one sits there and goes, you know what, guys, this just doesn't make sense. So if you're Donald Trump's attorney, I would think that adds up to you're going to need to find somebody with a very strong constitution or personality that can withhold their own opinion despite the pressure of nine or ten others. That's got to be the entire game for the Trump team. Frankly, I think that's true. Now, you have jury selectors or advisors that look for those types of traits, but I agree with that. I'd be looking for someone that has a record of being a bit defiant,

a record of independence, of going their own way, because that is the person who is not afraid to stand up. And, you know, it's maddening for, I'm a criminal defense attorney, and it's maddening for those of us on the defense side, because often in close cases, you do get a hung jury. But then the judges give them an order. So they send them back and say, try again. And usually the language is pretty stern, saying, basically, you've come a long way, we've come a long way, you have a duty to try to resolve this, that almost always works in favor of conviction. And defense attorneys hate it because usually what's happened is the jury's had a really difficult time. And there's a few people in there that may be just one or two who are holding the line. And then the judge gives them this order.

and a lot of these people end up breaking down and saying, all right, I don't want to hold up the show. All right. So the last thing I want to ask you is back to, you know, Alvin Bragg. So we've established how much he's had to Frankenstein up this case to even keep it alive. We've established how weak it is, which I think you and I could spend some time, but I think we both agree at some point, whether or not that's a New York appellate court or all the way to the United States Supreme Court. At some point, its weakness is revealed in justice.

It's overturned on appeal. But none of that really matters, right? Because Alvin Bragg is not here for justice. He is here, I believe, and this is my statement for you to agree or disagree with. The finish line for Alvin Bragg is to be able to say Donald Trump convicted felon. And even if that's overturned on appeal, that line will be established if he gets the right New York jury in time for a presidential election in 2024.

Well, I think that's clearly the case with a number of these prosecutors. That's why they're fighting to get a trial before the election, including the federal special counsel, Jack Smith. He's absolutely obsessed with getting a trial before the election. Well, why? Just because Trump is convicted wouldn't mean that he couldn't be elected president, but politically it has that impact. And Smith has also said that he is not inclined to follow the policy long held by the Justice Department, not to bring cases or trials just before an election.

So he's made very, very clear that he puts the timing of the trial as his priority in going against Trump. And you're right, you know, after you get this jump scare of a verdict, it'll take it through the election. The problem is, I think starting with this case, case is a huge mistake. You know, if they start with Mara Lago, that's a case that has a lot of established law. It's not as much of a reach legally. It'd be harder to really say that that was purely political. This one just stinks to high heavens. It's wrong on the law. It's very suspicious on the timing. And most people see it for what it is. So we'll have to see how much a conviction could possibly yield. And then finally, keep in mind, at the end of the

arguments. The defense counsel can make a motion asking for a special instruction for the jury to be able to decide on lesser included offenses, in this case misdemeanors. That is a real possibility. Last question for you, Professor. So let's talk about mechanics for just one moment. If this results in a conviction for Donald Trump, that doesn't necessarily mean he goes straight to jail. He receives a jail sentence. It's a criminal case. But he could be out pending appeal, right, with bail. So he'd be running for president. He'd still be able to. I'm sure the court could put some limitations on his travel schedule. He would be able to run for president. He would be saddled with the moniker, with the label of convicted felon. And he would be out, though, to run for president without

sitting in jail? That's correct. I would hope the judge, given the weird nature of these crimes, would say, I'm not going to sentence you to jail because that's a possibility. If he did, the assumption is it would be a brief jail stint, but still, he has obviously secret service, other protection that has to be applied. It would create conflicts with the federal system. It would obviously yield to some pretty emergency appeals being taken.

But in the end, being convicted of a felony doesn't mean you can't be a president. You can even incarcerate Trump and he could still be president. But it depends what the institutional fortitude, I'm sorry, the intestinal fortitude of this judge is. But I would hope that after this farcical trial, that this judge would not compound it with an actual jail sense. All right. Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington, Fox News Legal, I think just a phenomenal conversation. phenomenal conversation. I think laid the groundwork for understanding what's about to take place at most over the next six weeks in the case against Donald Trump. Thank you so much, Professor. Thank you, Will.

I think that is what you need to know, heading into this historic day of the case against Donald Trump. This, I want to interact with you, the listeners and the viewers of the Will Kane show, and you're already chiming in on YouTube and on Facebook. So I want to take a few of your comments, see what the folks are saying. Pauline Pardue. I'll be voting for RFK Jr. if Trump goes to jail. Well, Pauline, I don't think, as we just established with Professor Turley, there is much likelihood, at least before an election, of Donald Trump going to jail. He can, by the way, pardon himself from federal crimes should he be elected president, but this again would be a state crime in New York, adding a different wrinkle to that. The question for Pauline and others is whether or not that would change your vote, not going to jail, but being a convicted felon.

A lot of polling suggest this is exactly what Democrats want because it would change how people vote those, I guess, swing independent voters, those like Pauline who are also considering RFK. Christy Golden says, how much is this prosecution costing taxpayers? Well, it's taxpayers in New York, and that's a great question, Christy. I don't know. I don't have that figure. I will try to track that down on how much this has cost. But as Professor Turley pointed out, this is exactly what the taxpaying voters of New York apparently want when they elected, although this is Alvin Bragg, a district attorney in Manhattan, but when they elected Latisha James, Attorney General of New York, on the promise of getting Trump. Abe Lammy says, he won't do a day in jail being prosecuted for the exact thing.

Hillary did, Trump 2024. Yeah, Abe, that's what makes sense, but we're not talking about what makes sense. This isn't taking place in the world of common sense. This is taking place in New York. And Patricia Hayden says, Trump, 2024, all the trials and prosecutions are lies to stop our voting for Trump. It's a lot of lies about nothing. No one will ever convince me that Trump has done anything. He's accused of. The Democrats accuse Trump of what they have done and always do. That is a fascinating thing. I do believe in projection, Patricia. I really do. I have come to be a huge believer. And I even ask myself that. I walked with my wife the other day and said, I believe in this so much that I want to establish some self-awareness. I believe that human beings accuse others of what they are guilty, both collectively and individually. We hate in other people, that which we hate about ourselves. And parties, especially to Democrats, accused. Republicans of the sins they are guilty constantly. And I think that's illustrated here. It was Hillary Clinton. Rick Kagan says Trump won't go to jail, but he'll be flat broke by the time

this is over. What we need to understand is none of this is about justice. We just talked about the prospect of justice with Professor Jonathan Turley. It's all politics. It's about running out his money, affecting people's voters, votes, by getting a statement that even it doesn't survive appeal, it survives long enough for an election. If they can just say convicted felon, Donald Trump. We'll keep you up to date on this fascinating and historic and shameful case against Donald Trump right here every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time at Fox News.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe right now if you're watching on YouTube. It's in the text description on this live stream. Hit subscribe. We'll keep you

up today every step of the way throughout this case. But coming up, we had other big breaking news. We're drinking from a fire hose over the weekend when it comes to information in news, and that is 300 missiles and drones launched from Iran to Israel. The first direct state-on-state action, no proxies, no Hezbollah. Direct action, Iran to Israel. What does it mean? Is it the initial steps to a world war, or is it a choreographed dance? Let's read into the actions with Congressman Michael Waltz next on The Wheelcane Show. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Tray Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at

Fox Newspodcast.com. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive? creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. What just happened between Iran and Israel and what does it mean for the United States?

United States. Let's break that down as well. Here on the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com. That means at 12 o'clock Eastern Time, you can go to Fox News.com, find the Will Cain Show on the homepage, click through, and watch. Or if you're a YouTube viewer, you can click in every Monday through Thursday, 12 Eastern Time, right there on the homepage and watch Will Cain Show. And then hit subscribe because then it'll just pop up every day remind you. Or what a subscription also does is you can go back and you can watch. I mean, we have big interviews that you don't want to miss. Jordan Peterson

Dwayne the Rock Johnson Dave Portnoy of Barrowstool Sports Tony Robbins And then if you're on Facebook Make sure you tune in every day at 12 o'clock Eastern Time And by the way, leave a comment We've already integrated you into the show If you have questions about

And I think you should About what's happening with Iran and Israel It's a serious day here on the Wilcane show Usually we're a little more laid back But serious news over the weekend So let's break it down We'll take your questions here now with story number two.

He is the first Green Beret to serve in Congress, and he is a congressman from Florida, Michael Waltz, here on The Wheelcane show. What's up, Congressman? Hey, good to be with you, Will. Great to join your show, man. And, yeah, it is a serious day. I'm not Joined the Rock,

but we got a lot of serious stuff to talk about. But you're the right guy. The Rock isn't the right guy today. You're the right guy to talk about this with. You and I were on together this weekend on Fox and Friends, and we began a conversation that we texted afterwards that said deserved a little more attention. And that is what is going on between Iran and Israel. And I think in the three minutes that we had together on Fox and Friends, you said some things that I really wanted to follow up. So here are the facts first.

300 drones and missiles launched from Iran to Israel. It is unprecedented. It's historic. Because Iran has historically used proxies like Hezbollah to attack Israel, not this time. This time, they go directly, undeniably, overtly from Iran. And let me just emphasize Congressman overtly, because that's the odd part of the story that I think has to be where we start. Joe Biden, for days ahead of time, was warning this would happen, which is odd. You know, it's odd on several levels. You know, we have incredible intelligence, okay, but then we're public with that intelligence, okay. and then we tell Iran don't, I guess, okay, and yet it happens anyway.

And so all weekend, Congressman, I'm sitting there going, this just is weird. It's weird that they telegraphed it. We knew it was happening. Joe Biden went to the beach. Then we shot down 99% of the drones, we meaning the UK, the U.S. and Israel, shot down 99% of the drones and missiles. And it just felt odd, Congressman. Well, it looked and felt like kind of global performative theater, right? On both sides, at least when I say both sides, Iran's side and the Biden administration.

And I think it's for domestic political reasons on both sides. Look, the Israelis took out the leader of the IRGC, that's Iran's kind of special forces that are all over the Middle East, that actually plotted and planned the October 7th attack, the main liaison to Hamas that provides them the weapons, the guns, the training, and got them militarily to where they are. The Israelis took him out as he was having a very serious meeting for the next phase, but they took out part of the Iranian embassy in Damascus in doing that. And so Iran had to, for its own domestic reasons, look tough, look strong, and respond forcefully.

You're right. This was a historic sea change that they dropped the facade of their proxies and did it from Iranian soil. That's an act of war. They are directly launching missiles, drones, and cruise missiles at Israel from their soil. And then Biden's doing, you know, talking out of both sides of his mouth, yeah, we stand with Israel. But we're going to restrain them and we're going to trash Beebe because he's talking to the Democratic Jewish voters that they're worried about. And he's talking to the Arab American voters that are walking away from him in droves from their base, particularly in Michigan and Minnesota. So, yeah, that was all performative theater.

And now he's telling Bebe Netanyahu and the Israelis take the win. Well, yes, they shot down, fortunately, 99% of the drones, but five. ballistic missiles got through and hit Israel. Well, if five ballistic missiles hit the United States, even if our great military shot most of them down, you bet your rear end we would do something back. We'd have to. Right. And the Israelis are going to have to respond because at the end of the day, they can't allow this to become normal. If Iran gets away with doing this, I guarantee you they're going to keep doing it because they push as far as you let them. They're the schoolyard bully that will keep taking more and more of your lunch money until you punch them in the nose. And sometimes

you have to escalate to de-escalate. Okay, I want to dig into the politics. But first, let's start with this, your statement, it's an act of war. So here's what I think we both agree on and we're laying out. So the way this goes is there's the October 7th attacks that everyone acknowledges were helped coordinated and planned by Iran. So Israel, as you point out, I'm sorry, the Biden administration tried to muddy the waters, if you remember, and say, well, we didn't see them directly order it. Well, come on. I mean, they led the horse of the water. They made sure he was out the river. They did everything but pull the triggers themselves. But the Biden administration did try to kind of back off of that as part of their appeasement strategy to Iran.

Yeah, I think it's clear the Biden administration has not just been wrong, but has been a joke when it comes to Iran, sending them money. I mean, but I still, I want to wait on the Biden administration for one moment. I want to try to get in the minds of Iran for just one second. Sure. So then Israel, as you pointed out, takes out the general within the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. But he's in Damascus, Syria. And I don't know if he was in an embassy or not. but he's somewhere in the vicinity, right?

And it does, I believe the strike by Israel does impact an Iranian embassy. Now, the international view of things is that's sovereign territory, right? So essentially, an attack on an embassy is an attack on a homeland. And it's certainly how we would respond and what we believe. So the question then is, and by most accounts, Congressman, the Biden administration didn't know that was going to happen. Israel didn't tell the Biden administration they were going to do that. they were going to take out that guy. So we were caught off guard a little bit.

But you laid out for us, that puts Iran in a position where they have to do something to save domestic political face. And so they do this. But what they do is, I don't know if back channel, call up Biden. I don't know if they let Netanyahu know through Biden. I don't know the different ways. They telegraph it, but they certainly telegraphed it appears, hey, we're going to do this. We're going to send all this stuff, right? so you know because it seems like what they're saying congressman i'm not defending iran i'm trying to

understand the game that's being played that's performative they know all their stuff's going to get shot down they're inviting it to get shot down it doesn't seem their desire in this act is to kill israelis they want to look strong to to their people at home and that's the way it unfolds right now to your point they said one percent got through so if it's 300 that's three if it's a a more than 300 that's as you point out i think you said five got through no one's killed in israel so and then iran immediately says we're good we're done like through the united nations they go this is all over and they're trying to tell it's all over okay let's stop here we try to save face but your point is Israel can never let that happen again no attack on the homeland like this from

iran so they're going to have to take another step on the rung of the ladder right and they're going to have to do something to say iran you can't just do what you did even if you told us you were going to do it. Yeah, that's right. Although more information is coming out well, and in full disclosure, I haven't gone down and looked at the intel myself, but U.S. officials, you know, according to the reporting, are saying that we have information now that Iran did intend to inflict Israeli casualties. They did inflict, they were happy to kill as many Israelis as they could.

I think they would have been perfectly fine if all 300. Maybe you had a, you know, a cyber failure, or if out of their 300 drones, the Israelis only had 100, you know, missiles left in their Iron Dome defensive system, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They're trying to project to the world, particularly to the Europeans and the UN, where they've got the most allies, that we're responsibly stepping off this de-escalation, off this escalation ladder. We just had to check the box and do this. But you know what? If they had killed two, three, five hundred Israeli civilians, they would have been perfectly fine with that, too. So this is about what they project in diplomacy and what they really intended militarily. Either way, Israel has to respond.

And you're right, at what point does one side or the other step off the escalation ladder? I believe, first on my list, would be an island called Karka Island. Just kind of make a mental note of that. Ronald Reagan hit it in the 80s. Saddam Hussein hit it in the Iran-Iraq war. This is where 90% of Iran's oil exports flow through the terminals at this island. It is not on Iran proper. So you have a little, you know, you have that symbolic difference.

But you get, you know, you hit Iran back, number one. And then you cripple the lifeblood of their war machine, which is their oil exports to China, number two. And I think that is symbolically. important enough for the Israelis to hit, but it actually has a real effect. So you're saying Karkov Island, that would be the next step on the escalation ladder that Israel could take action without escalating this into an all-out world war. Without going deep into Iranian territory that is heavily protected by their Russian missile defense systems, which, by the way, they've also been buying and upgrading with the cash.

ash from selling their illicit oil because Biden is not enforcing the sanctions. And then that would put the, that would put it now back on Iran to get off the escalation ladder after they got hit, after they got hit at this oil depot. Two things don't make sense to me, okay? If we both agree that it's performative, it was telegraphed. It was telegraphed to the extent that there were fighter jets in the air waiting for these drones to come by, to shoot them down. That's what most reports were over the weekend. I don't know if those were American, Israeli, British, fighter jets, or all three. They were in the air waiting to shoot these down.

Two things don't make sense to me, Congressman. How can Iran do this and then at the same time kind of admit that it's performative, which they are admitting that it's performative? But if their goal is to look strong at home, doesn't that information filter back into Iran? And people in Iran who would be like, all right, we're strong, we hit them back, would read all this and go, we lost 99 percent, we told them it was coming, we weren't being strong, we were being manipulated. Well, if they had a free and open media environment, then it would. But I wouldn't underestimate how curated and managed and the Iranian propaganda that is going out to the Iranian people. Same. Yeah, same. I mean, they have some, you know, some VPNs, but their intelligence service, you know, virtual private networks, to where you can get some real news, but their intelligence service is pretty darn good at clamping that down. And that leads me to my next thing on the list. With the thing the regime fears the most is its own people, we are only a year away from another round of mass protest. If you remember, the young girl's name was Masa Amini.

She was killed by Iranian police for not wearing a hijab, a head covering. And there were protests across Iran, the likes of which we have never seen. So the next piece would be for Israeli intelligence to really rattle their cage internally and hid some of their internal security services that keep a lid on the oppressed Iranian people. So those would be the top two things in terms of response on my list. But once again, you see Biden more worried about containing Israel than he is about containing Iran. I only have a minute or two left with you, and I want to save a minute to talk about the Jackie

Robinson Ballport Commemoration Act, which you're introducing into Congress. But the other thing that doesn't make sense to me is Biden, to your point. So I hear you on politics. What I don't understand is this, and I'm not being jokey here, but I'm being serious. I don't understand, don't. That was Biden's message. Don't. Like scolding a child towards Iran.

So he gets message they're going to do this. He says don't. They do it anyway. So he knows it's going to happen. Why does he say don't? Was he really trying to stop Iran from this act? I don't know what don't was about. I think it only, at the end, it only makes them look more

feckless and weak. They've done this to Russia and they did it. You remember Kamala Harris going down to some. Central America and saying to the migrants, don't, and they did it. They said it about the Chinese aggression, and they put a spy balloon over our nuclear command and control sites. So look, in their mind, this is about putting diplomacy first. This is about de-escalating the situation and doing everything you can.

But at the end of the day, it only invites more aggression because you only make yourself look weaker. It's just a fundamental flaw in how this team approaches the world. And look, you know they're going to do it anyway. Yeah. You know they're going to do it. Don't ask me to explain any more than that will. I mean, if your enemies don't respect and fear the consequences of don't, then they're going to do.

And that's what they're doing. Yeah. So don't waste political capital saying don't. And by the way, one last point on this. President Trump said this performative dance is what happens. After we took out Soleimani, the Iranians basically told him, we're going to have to hit this remote air base. There's going to be nobody there. We're going to land the missile outside the air base.

face. No one's going to get hurt. And President Trump says, I know what you got to do. Do what you got to do. He knows that this dance does take place. The question is, how do you keep this dance from spiraling into World War III? Today, Congressman, you are introducing bipartisan legislation to Jackie Robinson Ballpark Commemorative Cite Act. Tell me about that. So, Jackie Robinson, in 1946, broke the race barrier in baseball with a minor league team in Daytona, Florida. stadium, which is now named Jackie Robinson Stadium, is still there, this would be the first step and a series of steps that have to happen to make it a national historic landmark. That's significant of itself.

You know, Will, that a year later, playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers, he broke the race barrier in Major League Baseball, but the difference is that stadium no longer exists in Brooklyn. Obviously, the Dodgers are now in L.A. So this is the stadium, I think, that would cement his legacy. And just in 1946, he broke the barrier, but African-Americans in the community still had to watch the game from segregated stands. Just to show you how far we've come. I have a historically black college, Bethune Cookman University, also in my community. Taggy Robinson was the man.

He was the bomb. He was a great player. and I'm thrilled to be leading the charge to really cement his legacy in this stadium. It's fun, and we get to do something besides talk about World War III up in Congress. Yes, yes. And you get to say something perhaps on the House floor like Jackie Robinson was the bomb. Although it'll be bipartisan, you can just make that argument, and everybody will sign up to make it a national historic money.

We don't agree on much, but the entire Florida delegations on this one. So it's a good news story. I appreciate you spending so much time with today. like we said, it's an important story. I think understanding is important. Obviously, anytime we're talking about metastasizing into World War, potentially, this is important to understand. Congressman Wallace, thanks so much for being on The Will Kane Show. All right, thanks, Will. See you soon. All right. Take care. All right, let's head over to Facebook and YouTube. Let's see what you have

to say. What questions you have coming in. Crypto Knight, not our war. I'm very sympathetic and appreciative to that point of view. My point of view, especially when it comes to war, not so much understanding. We've got to understand the world in which we live. But when it comes to action, it's just pivoted so strongly towards America First. America First, everybody's to talk about its historical connotations and whatever feelings they want to attach to the concept of America First. But to me, it's pretty simple. When you elect leaders by Americans, their first prism of analysis should be how does this impact and how does this serve the interest of America first? I'm unapologetic

about that, especially when it comes to war. That doesn't preclude me from wanting to hear the arguments about why something might serve America's interests first. And obviously with an ally, which we are an ally by treaty and by relationship with Israel, or impacting world oil markets that impact us here at home, I'm open to the arguments of, but it needs to be made through the prism of how does this serve America first. Bill Froelich says this most likely would never have happened under President Trump. Well, President Trump certainly says so.

I think that the analysis of this, where I like to think about this when it comes to President Trump, is that moment with Soleimani sits down, you can watch this video. online with Maria Bartramo, and he tells you how Iran called and said, we got to do this, we got to hit this air base, we have to save face. And he intuitively understands the political necessity for someone to do something in response to something we did. The difference is, President Trump is such a dealmaker. It's like, okay, you know, I take out one at your top, Soleimani, you hit some missiles into the desert outside of a remote airbase. I believe it was in Syria. Deal. Fair trade. Launching 300 plus drones and missiles from Iran into Israel,

seems like we have to sit back and go, even if 99% was shot down, and even it was telegraphed, fair deal to taking out the Iranian Revolutionary Guard General in Syria? I think everyone's having to ask themselves that that's what the escalation ladder is. It's not necessarily who acts last, but who acts biggest. And that's what they're asking themselves right now, I'm sure, in Israel. and then Emmanuel says Trump has no diplomatic experience, zero, someone explain how he would do better, L.O.L. Well, Emmanuel, I don't really know where you were from 2016 to 2020, but serving as the President of the United States for four years might be the ultimate and diplomatic experience. And by the way, the situation I just laid out with the killing of Soleimani might be on the nose experience. And also I would just point out that every single thing that was ever said would happen under Donald Trump, that we would spiral into wars, and we would see Iran create a war, and we would see the start of World War III. Every single thing, back to the point made by Patricia a little bit earlier, every single

thing has come to fruition under Joe Biden. War in Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine, NATO on the brink, war in Israel, Iran and Israel on the brink, historic inflation, vast attacks on the First Amendment, all of this things were prophesied dystopically the result of a presidency of Donald Trump from 2016 to 2020. I say we have the experience, Emmanuel, not just me, not just you, not just Donald Trump, but we as America have the experience of understanding the world from 16 to 20 and seeing the world now from 20 to 24. And finally, UxBaha says, they know that people's support is more important than Russian support to get into any war. So Iran cannot really afford to get into any war,

and that is clear particularly towards Israel. I actually think you're right. I think Iran, someone talked about this, this is constant debate? Is Iran a rational or irrational actor? Well, at the highest levels they're irrational. They believe in some type of jihadist utopia. They believe that everyone else is, you know, an infidel headed to hell. But on the way to being an irrational actor, they can be a rational actor. And the most rational mechanism, the most rational prism that anyone has is survival. You know who's an irrational actor, a suicide bomber? You know who is rational?

Somebody goes, I want to live to see tomorrow. And the Mullahs want to continue not just to see tomorrow, but to remain in power in Iran, which I think makes their calculations on the way to irrationality, rational. That means you can't ever let them have nukes, but you can't let them have the power that answers those first questions with, I'll continue to survive as I continue to pursue my jihadist utopia. They don't want war with Israel. They don't want war with America.

They don't want a war they lose. They want to survive, and they want to remain in power. All right, sometimes good guys win. Scotty Sheffler wins the Masters. You have to hear why. Let me play the sound for you. Why? I think

Scotty Sheffler is such a nice guy and a master's champion. That's next on the Will Kane show. 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. Sometimes good guys finish first. I give you master's champion, Scotty Sheffler. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. If you ever want to keep up with the Will Kane show directly, just subscribe. The YouTube page is called Will Kane Show.

And the subscribe button is in the text description right under this live stream. And that way you'll get reminders every day at 12 o'clock Eastern time, hey, we're about to go live, but also you can watch it whenever you'd like and go back and watch full episodes or some of our big interviews whenever you would like. You can also do the same when you're riding right in your car, you're walking on the treadmill by hitting subscribe on Spotify, Apple, Fox News, podcasts. You always get the Will Kane show. And if so, you would have heard me last week, nailing my prediction, just dunking all over the host of Special Report, Brett Bates. I think this year is going to be Rory's year. I think Rory is playing really well. He's coming into it in the right headspace.

If he doesn't win, I think Dustin Johnson could surprise. And he's playing really well on the live tour and hits it a mile. So does Rory. The NCAA tournament taught me maybe sometimes it's just good to go chalk. So I'm going to go, Scotty Sheffler. Boom. Scotty Sheffler. Chalk.

Number one golfer in the world. I think he led the Masters from the minute he teed off in the first round. And he wins his second green jacket Masters champion. Now, listen, I'm a big fan. Okay? Why am I a big fan of Scotty Sheffler? Let's deal with the superficial first. Texan.

Longhorn. Dallas, but also awesome dude, the return of humility in a world that now seems to paint braggadociousness as a virtue. Here is a dude that's humble and people think humble is boring, right? But I think humble can be interesting, not can be, is, especially when it's accompanied by depth. So I want you to listen to this. This is from before he won the masters. when Scotty Sheffler was asked, hey, how much does golf at this point? It's a selfish sport. How much does it define you?

This answer is awesome. In fact, it's the second best answer he gave that day. Listen. How would you say golf, where does it fit in defining you as a person right now? Hopefully it doesn't define me too much because golf definitely is a self. selfish sport. You know, you're out there by yourself. And when you're at the peak of your of your game, you know, people need stuff from you a lot of the time. And you have to be selfish with your time. And it's not easy to say no, but you have to learn how to say no to certain

people. And because ultimately when you come out to a golf tournament, you're here to compete and you're here to do your best. And you can't really get caught up in all the stuff that's going on around you. And so I'm hoping it doesn't define me too much because I feel like I say it a bunch golf, something that I do. It's a tremendously huge part of my life, but it doesn't define me as a person. It's just something that I do, and I happen to be good at it some weeks, and, you know, I come in here and you guys ask all nice questions, and then the next week I'm bad at it, and then some of the questions are viewed more negatively, and that's just kind of the, you know, the ebb and flow of competing in front of people all the time. Yeah, I love that. It's something

that I do, and it takes up a lot of my time, and it's inherently selfish, but it doesn't define who I am. So here's why I love that, first of all. It's an acknowledgement. It's a self-awareness and a humility. I think after Tiger Woods, we thought every next great champion was going to be around for 10 to 15 years, and it just hasn't happened. I'm a big fan of Jordan Speath. Jordan Speath was hot, and then he's not. And it's been that way for almost every top golfer, Brooks Kepka, Roy McElroy, Dustin Johnson. Everybody has a turn at the top, but it doesn't last long. And if you let it define who you are, then who are you when it's not going well for you. Not everybody can be Tiger Woods. And this is the Scotty Sheffler

moment. This is his moment. Like in his last four tournaments, I think it's three wins and one second place. It's two-time Masters Champion. I think he's one of the only masters, besides Tiger Woods champions, to go in as number one and come out as the champion. He's won two before the age, I think of 27, putting him in an elite company. But he understands this comes to an end. This isn't who I am. It's something I do. And right now, I'm doing it really well. So then he's pressed. Okay. Well, then what does define you? Listen to this answer. Can I follow up? What do you think defines you? Gosh, I don't know. You probably fast my wife. No, I, I'm a faithful guy. I believe in a creator. I believe in Jesus. Ultimately, I think that's

defines me the most yeah I feel like I feel like I've given a plot been given a platform to compete and you know show my talent it's not anything that I did you know I think I sat up here a couple years ago doing the the interview after the 22 masters and it's like yeah I was underprepared for what was about to happen I I didn't know what was going to happen I didn't you know I was very anxious that morning. I didn't know what to expect. And it's hard to describe the feeling, but I think that's what defines me the most is my faith. You know, I believe in one creator and I've been called to come out here, do my best, compete, and glorify God, and that's pretty

much it. Man, well, first of all, I think what we should, that is increasingly less rare. It's awesome because it feels rare for the world's best at something to sit up there and I'm defined by my belief in Jesus Christ. I'm defined by the fact that I'm a Christian. He said his buddies told him, by the way, your victory is secured on the cross no matter what happens today. But I think it's increasingly rare.

You hear more athletes saying it. And what's interesting is they say it when they're not asked. They take their time. I need to say this ahead of time. I need to thank God. I think athletes and coaches, I don't know.

You know I'm a sports fan. I don't think it's hard to see people with their priorities straight. But to hear the world's best say that, not cloak themselves in pride, not be their own biggest hype man, not be braggadocious. But at the same time, let's glorify God, but at the same time be a nice guy and an assassin. Good luck beating Scotty Sheffler, especially on the final 18. Emotionless. Robot. Assassin. Nice guy. Devout Christian. Longhorn. Texan. How do you not love? Scotty Sheffler? All right, that's going to do it for me today here on The Will Kane Show. Again, please hit subscribe, Apple, Spotify, YouTube. Find us on Facebook every day at 12 o'clock Eastern Time. And I will see you again next time. Fox News Podcast Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show,

ad-free on the Amazon music app. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox Truecrime.com.