Will Cain Country - Why No One Believes Anything Anymore… And It’s Getting Worse

Episode Date: May 1, 2026

Will and The Crew debate the "conspiracy vortex" that has swallowed the American information economy, taking a frame-by-frame look at the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting footage.Plus, Will also pulls back the curtain on his most contentious debates from his career and dismantles the JPMorgan "cannons" hoax.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@silicanes⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When the weather cools down, Golden Nugget Online Casino turns up the heat. This winner, make any moment golden and play thousands of games like her new slot Wolf It Up and all the fan-favorite huff and puff and puff games. Whether you're curled up on the couch or taking five between snow shovels, play winner's hottest collection of slots from brand new games to the classics you know and love. You can also pull up your favorite table games like Blackjack, Roulette, and Craps, Or go for even more excitement with our library of live dealer games. Download the Golden Nugget Online Casino app,

and you've got everything you need to layer on the fun this winter. In partnership with Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem call ConX Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600. 19 and over. Physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See Golden Nugget Casino.com for details. Please play responsibly.

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and Game Sense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Debate. Let's debate. Has information gotten out of control? Have we been just sucked in to a conspiracy vortex? Or were we being sold? A pack of lies. Tinfoil pad, two of days, Dan.

With us here today on what is always. A wide-ranging, freewheeling. Rollercoaster of a ride of Wilcane Country. Let's debate. Our friend Douglas Murray has a new column up at the New York Post.com, suggesting that we have a real problem. We have a problem when it comes to the rise of conspiracy. I read this column this morning because Tenfold Pat sent us a column. Interestingly, I got a text from Douglas.

I haven't spoken to Douglas in quite some time. I got a text from a little bit earlier this week. He was at that White House Correspondence Dinner. In the column, he lays out that within hours of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and his cabinet at the White House Correspondence Dinner, the word staged appeared online several hundred to several thousand times. Within hours, that narrative was taking off. and not just on the left, primarily on the left. As Douglas points out, a lot of accounts that would be best described as influencers also began to explore the conspiracy and the details around the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump.

Yesterday, I interviewed the director of the United States Secret Service. It's great. I want to review that interview. I want to talk about it. And I want to talk about this idea that we have a problem with information. And I want to start this debate with tinfoil Pat, who said that he's got a problem with Douglas Murray. He wants to fight Douglas Murray, right? You want me get Douglas on the phone?

Yep. I don't know. I don't. I guess I have his number. I'm going to call him up. Why don't you just tell us ahead of time so we can vet you here. Do you, what do you have a problem with in what's being said here by Douglas? I don't.

When somebody says, let's debate. that's what they mean. Like, let's, that you start to make your case. Oh, yeah. I thought you said you wanted to call him up. So, okay. No, what I'm saying is that part was a joke. Okay.

Douglas is right. We do not have a shared experience or shared reality anymore. But I do disagree with him in that we don't need to crack down on speech in this regard. Because, you know, if we, if we had pushed this, this official, narrative that we've done for for decades before then we would have been trapped in COVID we would have been trapped in George Floyd stuff we would have been trapped the fact that we had free speech and we were able to discuss all kinds of issues means that we weren't stuck in the Overton window but I don't think that he is saying that we should go back

to the age of censorship that we should re-impanel the board of disinformation what was the disinformation lady's name the Disney villain that was going to be in charge of all of our speech. She was like a off off Broadway type personality. She was like the scariest, honestly, she was like the scariest government creature that you could ever imagine. Do you remember that lady? Biden was going to put her in charge of the Board of Disinformation, and she was going to gut your free speech with a smile and a song. Nina Yankowitz.

Yes, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, but he's not saying that, Patrick. He's not saying go back to censorship. But he's saying the big tech should crack down on it. In a way, that is what they did during COVID. Okay. Let's dig in here. Okay, so first of all, I want to get to the details of the White House correspondent's dinner shooting in just a moment. Does I do think there's some things we need to talk about? But first, let's kind of walk down this path together. We have a problem. Do we not? Can we all agree that we do have a problem? And it is basically somewhat of a whiplash effect. Look, you're either going to be able to say, if you're on the left, you're going to be like, told you so. We told you so. This is why we were trying to get ahead of it.

Or what you're seeing is a whiplash effect to the attempt to bottle information for several years, like you pointed out, from COVID. It wasn't just COVID. It got so bad. There was a in number of topics that were. Yeah. I mean, if we were on the clock to what was that? The height of that was probably, was that 2022? Probably the height of that. Yeah, I mean, I think the era was like 2018 to 2023, you know, essentially until Elon bought X.

And they started seeing it go away. And look, a lot of people, including myself, have credited Elon with in some ways saving the Republic. Like, that unbottling. of the censorship era allowed free information to flow, and we got the truth on things that we've been lied to about. COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop, a lot of other things. But I will say that I do think X is one of the worst perpetrators right now of bad information, just bad stuff. And I'm going to tell you why. No, well, it is the one I use the most. Instagram does it too.

Instagram does it. I don't use TikTok a lot. I can only imagine that TikTok does it a lot. That does it a lot. So, man, there's literally no subject at this point wherein there is not skepticism would be too light, cynicism on whatever the story is, right? Okay. We could just, from the White House correspondence dinner attempted assassination to the missing scientists, you know, it's, it's, it's, the information around the Iran war, just on and on and on. There's not a subject. I don't think there is a subject. Maybe boring subjects that are actually important, like the Supreme Court striking down racial gerrymandering through Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That's like a really important. That's like a really important. story that people are bored by. But you don't understand. I think that people don't appreciate how big that story is. That is gigantic. Now, that doesn't mean there won't be left and right

debate on it, and the left will say things about it that are untrue. But there's not the virality incentive around that story. You see what I'm saying? It's got to be a more, well it's almost got to be around a story not an issue you see what I'm saying it's got to be around a story that all of a sudden people start questioning the details of the story and here's what I've noticed specifically on X okay so there was a time when I started a lot of self-reflection where I'm like well you can't be mad at the algorithm because the algorithm is giving you what you want like you linger you hover you created this You pause, you watch, it's going to give you more.

So it's your fault, Will. Like, if you're getting this stuff, it's your fault. I actually think we've moved beyond that now. The algorithm is so obvious. It's just so over the top and obvious now. And they must have something, and I would be really fascinated to get into the inner workings of one of these social media companies to see. Because I think it's undercutting itself. Like, if I pause on a story, let's take a story.

Let's take the J.P. Morgan's sexual harassment story, right? If I pause on that story and read it, in the old days, I might get three, four other possible stories underneath that, but it would be in a feed of things. Now, it will overwhelm my feed. It will be the only thing I read about for a while. You know what I mean? It's over the top obvious. And honestly, it undercuts my even interest because I'm thinking, well, this isn't the only thing I'm interested in X. Like, I'm interested in a lot of things. Now it's all I'm getting for a while. You know, you know, and so it's clearly saying more, more, more, here, here. And it'll just keep amping it up, amping it up on whatever that given story. And so you'll just get more and more and more and more. And so if you're like, well, you know, there's some really weird details around the White House Correspondence Dinner shooting. like, well, let's talk about one right now. Yesterday I interviewed the director of the Secret Service.

He told me there were only two shooters involved in the incident. The suspect and one Secret Service agent, one Secret Service agent. And the one Secret Service agent that shot is the one that was also shot, right? And he missed. The Secret Service agent missed five, six times. and the director says to me that he missed because he was shot and that he is falling backwards and he shoots high as he's falling backwards. And no other guns were fired.

And he's like, and Janine Piro said this as well. The agent didn't shoot himself. So he was shot by the suspect. Well, I do have some. things now that I wish I would have asked in the moment. And I'll always be transparent with the audience on that. I don't think I conduct anything perfect. I think it was a good interview.

I think I got a lot of details out of it, a lot of play-by-play. Here's one of the questions I have coming into it. So you can see the officer, I believe on the video, you can see the officer that is shooting. And he is facing the guy, right? And the guy's running towards him. and he pulls his gun out and this officer wheels as the guy runs past him and fires. I think you can see the muzzle flash on the video. I don't say that with 100% certainty,

but I think you can see the muzzle flash on the video. I don't see him falling backwards while he's firing. I don't see that. I just, so like the falling backwards thing, I just kind of, while the video, I'm having a hard, I'm not saying it didn't happen. It could be much more slight than I'm picturing in my mind, you know, but I don't see that. Maybe it wasn't a cartoonish falling backwards.

Maybe it was, you know, he lost his balance slightly and that impacted it, you know. Right. Right. And there's a lot of people on X now going back to this algorithm thing that are like, how buffoonish of the Secret Service to miss five to six times. Well, I will grant you that. They're trained, and that's, five or six is a decent amount of suppressive fire to put down, you know. But the dude was running.

Like, and he was, have you ever shot? Like, I shoot shotguns more than anything. Like, and you shoot shotguns and you go to a trap range and the sporting clay or sporting clays. And it will, you know, it'll come out in various directions. The easiest one is when it's going away from you, right? That's the easiest shot that there is. the hardest is when it's going across your face, right? Because you've got to catch up to it, get ahead of it.

This is with a shotgun that leaves a pattern, a big pattern. Have the video if you want. I would have to assume this guy running across this agent's face, that's a pretty hard shot. You know, you've got a blur going sideways across your face. Now, before you play it, Dan, can you pause while we're watching this? Yeah. Now, I believe that the officer. Okay, by the way, here's another question I would have asked, wished I would have asked.

Why were they take, just based upon this freeze frame of the video, keep it up there, Dan, where nothing else is happening. Why are you breaking down the magnetometer still already? I'm curious about that. I don't know the answer. I'm not suggesting conspiracy. I just don't know the answer, and I wish I would have asked that. Why are the vent is ongoing. It's just beginning, right?

Granted, most of the attendees are already in the ballroom. Is the security threat over at that point? Like, why are, it looks like that's what they're doing, right? Or they're breaking down at least one metal detector. Maybe you don't need it because the box is out. You just have the choke point for one. And they all look very lax. It looks like an after work situation.

Like, oh, we did our job. Things are quieting down. And granted, I'm baking in assumptions. Everybody is. This is the point of X. And just pause here for a moment. This is what Murray is also saying, and he's right about this. The attitude on X is total certainty with very limited information, or total skepticism and cynicism with very little information.

So there may be a good answer as to why that magnetrometer is being, there's two there and one of them is being taken down. And you can see the box out. So they could be adjusting it to your point, Patrick. We don't know. They could be packing it up to take it home. We don't know. I don't know why this is happening at this point. I wish I did.

I wish I would have asked the Secret Service Director, what's going on there? It makes them look like, well, I'm going to get to that in a moment. It makes them look like they are relaxed and guard down. That's what it sort of makes it look like in that moment. Now, so that's one question I have. Put the video back up. Don't plus play yet. The other question I have is one that people are pointing out on X.

as well, which is, and this is at the far end of the video, the freeze frame, past the metal detector, there is an officer with a dog. And the dog does seem, I don't know. Again, I don't know. I think everyone on X knows. That's the problem. He seems to be alerting to something. If you're watching us on Fox 1 or YouTube or Facebook, that door and that dog are highlighted

right there in the circle. It is a door that is the second door down from the metal detectors, right? And the shooter will come running out of that door. He's going to turn left and come into the terrace. The dog seems to be paying attention to at least two people that come out of that door. Because I think as you play this, somebody else actually comes out before the shooter. So the dog does seem to be... Okay, so it's just a shooter.

the dog does seem to be paying attention our view is a little obstructed by the metal detector but the dog does seem to be paying attention to something that's going on and the handler's kind of like we're good here and I'm talking seconds past that a second two seconds past that this dude comes running yeah maybe one second it's like it's like that guy is walking towards the door

and I don't know what those dogs are trained to notice like he knew something probably he did I mean so the dog is another interesting note here that I wish it would have asked about

did that dog play a role and was he ignored in some way the dog on what happens there okay so then that brings me now to the video now the guy turns the corner

and runs before you push play damn the officer that ends up firing his weapon appears to be at the bottom left of our screen. I can't say at this point which one it is, but he's one of those three that are the bottom left of your screen. Yeah, I think it's the closest one. Yep.

The one. Okay, so he is the one that will fire his weapon. So by the story that we're being told, he is also the one that is shot by the suspect. Okay? So press play real quick, Dan, and let's watch this unfold. They're taking down the second metal detector. Here comes a suspect. He runs through.

Yes. Okay. Now, you can see what I think confuses people. Leave it right there, Dan. Two other officers at the top of your screen draw their weapons. I am to, or three, if you count the guy back by the metal detector. I guess I'm to understand those three did not fire. They all have, they're all standing in firing position.

They did not fire. It's the officer that we cannot see now presumably maybe he fell backwards Patrick like we were talking about that fired his weapon. Now can you back it up so we can see it again. I've seen. I want to do this two more times. I've slower.

It was a secret service agent who was shot. So now I'm confused. Do you want slower speed? Because the guy's thing says police on it? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Here's slower.

All right. The guy who's vest on the body. as police, it appears to be. I'm not certain, by the way. We think that's muzzle flash we see coming from his gun, but I'm not 100% certain that is what we see. And the other thing, we should see one from the shotgun. Right there, pause.

Okay, the suspect was just highlighted. I did not see a muzzle flash from his shotgun. I will say also, it's been pointed out to me, that a shotgun has a blast radius. It spreads. It does seem like if you fired his shotgun. at that point, it would hit that grouping of three officers. Do shotguns have muzzlesles? Instead of just

one. Like a handgun would? Yes. Okay. I just watched a video. I'm not an expert on guns, but I just watched a video of a guy shooting what was it? Like, you know, those things you shake up for the holidays and the snow

globe? And he was trying to see if you could shoot through a snow globe with different caliber weapons. And one of what guns he used was a shotgun. And the spread, it did spread out, but it wasn't like a, it didn't spread out that much, at that close to range. Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Cain Country.

Square knows that in hospitality, efficiency is everything. That's why their system lets you take payments. Track sales, handle inventory, manage staff, send invoices, and keep up with finances all in one place. Fly through orders with zero mistakes. Get the data you need and keep everything working together. So you're ready for whatever's next. Learn more about their customizable plans at screwup.com.

Could AI help you do more of what you love? Workday is the AI platform for HR and finance that actually knows your business. We help you handle the have-to-dos so you can focus on the can't-wait-to-dos. It's a new workday. Amazon presents Jeff versus Taco Truck Salsa, whether it's Verde, Roja, or the orange one. For Jeff, trying any salsa is like playing Russian roulette with a flame thrower. Luckily, Jeff saved with Amazon and stocked up on antacids, ginger tea, and milk. Habaniero, more like habanier, yes.

Save the everyday with Amazon. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. Okay, you've heard them talking about buckshot. Burr shop. Right, you heard that. So I don't know what if everybody understands. what that means. So shotguns shoot cartridges, not bullets. A cartridge has in it a number of pellets. The idea is it doesn't have a singular point of damage because you're shooting normally things like

birds, right? When birds move so fast, you've got to create a pattern. That shotgun cartridge will range from basically slug. Slug is a solid piece of metal. It is like a bullet. But it's not like a rifle or handgun. It won't spiral. The point of rifling, rifling is a spiral in the barrel that makes the bullet spin. By virtue of the bullet spinning, it cuts through the air. And the purpose of it cutting through the air is to maintain a direct flight path. Okay?

A slug is not spiraled. A shotgun barrel is smooth. So it's going to come out on a flat trajectory, and when it hits air, it will begin to tumble at some point. That's a slug. Okay? From slug, you go to BB. You go, and that's kind of where when you're in buckshot is even smaller than BB. So once you get to BB, you're hitting like big, big birds.

You need more stopping power. But what you sacrifice is your pattern. You get a smaller pattern. Okay. So if you're watching on Fox One or YouTube or Facebook, I'm holding my hand. in a circle. Like, it'll, as, as it, the further it gets away from the barrel, the more it will spread. You follow? The closer you are to the barrel, the tighter it will be. If you go all the way to say, the biggest is eight shot. If you go to eight shot, now you're talking about

probably literally thousands of pellets in a shotgun cartridge, and they're all tiny. And the idea there is they spread quicker. And they have a bigger pattern. And so you're shooting at a smaller bird with that. Like a really fast dove. What do you see in the air? Like what do you see like what? Who knows? Like what bad guy? But like is there just a slug that is just for like directly in front of you that doesn't

have spread in a shotgun? That would be for a deer. That would be for shooting a deer with a shotgun which not a lot of guys do. But they do. Some do. You have to be really close to the deer to do that. So if you shot a,

anybody up close with any number of those shots, including eight shot, you're going to destroy them. You're going to destroy them. Now, guys laugh when they go dove hunting, like, it's not good, but you know, you will sometimes get peppered. Because like you go to a dove field and a guy's 100 yards away from you and he shoots and you can hear it and he shoots towards you. And sometimes you can feel it. But at 100 yards away, that's not coming with a lot of power.

You understand at that point? and it's kind of rains down on you almost. Now, if I'm five feet away from that guy, I'm going to die, right? But again, so I go smaller buckshot, is what this described as, buckshot, which is going to be smaller, much smaller than birdshot. And what I'm telling you is at that distance, you will have a smaller pattern, okay? So it may not hit all three of those guys. I'm not sure.

But it would also have a lot of stopping power, and it probably wouldn't be just one BB. You know, like, so unless he missed badly and he only caught the edge of the pattern, then it's a little surprising that we're hearing he was shot, you know, there was reports about his phone stopping it in his pocket as well. It is a little surprising you'd say just one BB. Although I'm not sure we've had that said that it was one BB. I didn't see a fire there. His shotgun.

I don't think you'd shoot a shotgun. like that, not see muzzle blast. I don't know. Right. Because you see it on the Secret Service agent's weapon. But the next thing is on this video is, okay, the contention that he falls backwards. Now play it, and you

don't, this is where I started this. You don't really see this officer that, I think right now you see muzzle flash on that guy, on the officer's gun. I think you do, right? I can't say with certainty, but it appears that's what I'm seeing. And he is firing, right?

and he misses. And if he misses, man, I don't know how he didn't hit anybody behind him because there's like... That, like... What is that? I thought you'd hit the guy in the suit.

Behind the suspect? On the right. Like, he was pointing directly out of him as he goes. He wheels. Right. But if this is muzzle flash we're seeing right here,

and he misses the suspect, I mean, he's incredibly lucky to hit any one of those five officers behind them. What's the training? Like, do you not shoot? What do you mean? Like, if you have people behind you, Like, are you, if you have an opportunity of casualties behind you, do you not shoot?

Do you take the shot? You know? I imagine you take the shot. He's probably surprised. I don't know the answer to that. Didn't think about it. All right. Surprise is an element in all of this for everyone involved.

All right. There's a second one now. Yep. The second, what appears to be muzzle shot as he's crossing the face of the officer. At this point, there's not anybody in the line of fire besides the suspect, I would suggest. direct line of fire. And the suspect's running. Go ahead and play a little more.

Third. And there's a third. Now on this third one, man, the suspect's ducking. And there is a secret service officer right behind the suspect. And that's when the muzzle flash is as well. And it makes you wonder, like, also the one, the secret service officer who's behind the suspect is kind of like crouching over almost. Like, I can't tell if it looks like he's ducking or he was just hit.

I don't know. But the shooter... I think he's going for his gun. Presumably would... He might be going for his gun. But presumably the shooter's already shot his shotgun, right? And we're told that the officer is falling backwards. I don't really know that I see him falling backwards, right?

I don't know. There's not four... Maybe. Maybe he's beginning to fall backwards there. There's a... What is this now? third fire muzzle flash. And he does seem to be kind of falling out of the screen.

Or maybe he's repositioning because the guy's running. At this point. I don't know. And back to the officer was behind him on the previous one. He looks like he was running for his gun. He doesn't look like he was hurt there. He's not on the ground. Long and short of it is, I don't know that the video totally validates everything that I'm led to believe by the secret. I'm not, I'm not saying.

I'm that there was lies. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I wish I would have been able to almost play by play this with him and go through some of this like this because I do think I do think there's some questions. But it's also it also doesn't help but like reporting early on is like hey the the shooter's dead or hey you know everyone thought he's dead got shot. Everyone I knew he thought he was dead like instantly. Hey there were two shooters. I mean that's I mean we heard this from like reputable what what do you mean reporting i didn't see that stuff um i saw it early on during the during the uh like saturday night saturday night yeah like right after it happened i saw that how would they know and i'm not saying i'm not saying it's from the aggregators i'm saying from like

you know the big news networks that's what they claimed well again even if it's a big news network i mean I don't know how they would know with any certainty. They weren't there. And now you're saying, well, I'm there, but I spoke to a Secret Service agent. I mean, at some point, you've got any type of situation. We've learned this over and over. The information in the first hours is bad. It's bad information, almost invariably, on any type of these situations.

And we use that bad information, and we back engineer it into the idea that somebody's now hiding the truth. But the problem is, he's. History has shown us just it's bad information. People are confused. People don't know. People are repeating things that they've heard. Even other agents, even overcomes. It's the fog of war situation. You know, like people don't even know what they saw in those initial moments. What I was told then is that the suspect tripped. He never was shot. He was tripped. He tripped up down the way a little bit, goes to the ground, and agents immediately dogpile him. him down. I asked the director why he didn't have a shirt on. They immediately stripped. He had a protective vest on, apparently. Stupid, tucked in time. And they stripped it off of him.

And they were concerned that he could have had an explosive on him, so they stripped his shirt off of him. People are using this video as proof that this was staged, right? Like, that they let him through and this whole thing, which is also ridiculous to me. Like, that's the other conspiracy.

Ridiculous. Yeah, it's crazy. Like, this is, you could clearly see this. The staged thing doesn't pass the smell test. Okay, it doesn't pass the common sense test. If you were going to stage something, presumably for the political benefit of Donald Trump, this is, first of all, then you've got to have a patsy. This guy's got to be willing to die. He's got to be willing to die.

Is the conspiracy such that the Secret Service agent intentionally missed him? And then, by the way, why would you leave your patsy alive? Yeah. So that he could one day tell the truth? He should be dead already. Well, presumably, if you were staging this, you'd want to kill the Patsy. And, by the way, the Patsy's got to be willing to sacrifice his own life for the political benefit of Donald Trump. Yep.

And this guy doesn't really seem like the kind of guy that was ready to do that. So the staged thing. So I think that the stuff I'm seeing more is that it was incompetence on the side of the scene. Secret Service and now that's being covered up. What I would say to that is, well, here's the response to that. One thing that we know for sure is this was a success. By every objective metric, this was a success. This guy got nowhere close to President Donald Trump. Exactly. Nowhere close. And he wasn't going to get close. Even if he had gotten down those stairs, there were more Secret Service agents than that before you got into the ballroom. If he

got into the ballroom, he would have been met by a swarm of secret service agents. Everyone had said that room was full of them, full of them. So, and the director told me, this is the, what you're seeing on the video, that is the choke point. And it is not a random place that they have selected. It is, what he told me is, what do you say, 350 feet, 120 yards away, roughly, away from the president, which they place at a precise distance considering potential bomb damage radius. That they don't just pick a spot. You've got to be this far away in case the guy would have a bomb and try to get to the president.

And while he said it'd be way better to have it at the ballroom or someplace that a completely secured outer perimeter, that this is where they were supposed to catch somebody. and this is where they did catch somebody right here. And so by every objective metric right there, that's a success. So if you're going to talk about incompetence, now you're breaking it down to why did he even get this close? Well, because there was nothing outside of this perimeter that would have stopped him. Nothing. By design.

And why did the Secret Service agent miss? Those are the two things that you would say about incompetence. Now, his explanation for why the Secret Service Agent missed, I do think deserves some follow-up questions after our analysis of that video. Protecting his guy. And the explanation of who also shot the Secret Service Agent is also worthy of some follow-up questions. I think they're basically, by the way, moot points. They're not evidence of some great conspiracy. The reason they're moot points is the guy was subdued, missed or not.

secondarily he was stopped where he was supposed to be stopped so I don't I don't I don't see the big greater conspiracy here do you have a map have you have you I haven't really honestly watched the TV show much this week but have you guys

had a map of like what the actual layout is because I think we don't actually know how close they actually got yeah no you should watch the Will Kane show it's actually really good with I do sometimes. I kind of skim it, but like, I haven't really gotten to chance to read. Yeah, third highest rated television show on Wednesday.

Yep. Yeah. Third highest? You know, it's the seventh highest rated third. Yep. Wow. Only beat by the five in Gutfeld. That's not bad.

That's the day we interviewed the vice president. So what? The Prince of Midday. It's what we'll call you. There you go. The Prince. The Prince. Who's the king?

Well, he's the king of late night. Gutfeld, you know. So his two shows beat you. I should do the King of Midday. The King of Midday. The King of Midday. The King of Late Night? King of Midday. I don't know if the other king that runs our country would like that.

Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Kane Country. This episode is brought to you by Defender. With its 626 horsepower twin-turbo V8 engine, the Defender Octa is taking on the Dakar rally. The ultimate off-road challenge. Learn more at landrover.ca. Welcome back to Will Cain country. No kings, Patrick, no kings.

But back to the initial premise. So X and social media, what's going on on this information issue that Douglas is talking about is what I'm saying is the incentives have become perverted. and and the currency is attention, okay? And if your currency is attention and not truth, all you have to do is say something, verifiable or unfarifiable, reasonable or unreasonable, it doesn't matter as long as it gets attention. And what the human mind is showing is,

unreasonable and unverified are somewhat more interesting than reasonable and verified. And therefore the incentive arc points more towards those, okay? Erica Kirk killed Charlie Kirk. That's going to get way more. Don't clip that. That's going to get way more, you know, clips or clicks or hovers or attention than Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. Do you understand?

And you say, okay, but that's the price we pay for free speech. we don't want to go to censorship. I agree. But how about this? Do you believe that the algorithm through those incentives is actually rewarding that stuff and boosting that stuff?

That's what rewarding means in it. You're boosting it. You're boosting it because it gets attention. And if attention is the currency, and it is, by the way, these are all businesses. And it's not that they're all like nefarious creatures that want to undercut

the concept of the truth. They're businesses whose business is attention. They're selling your attention. That's what they're doing. And so just like Coca-Cola, they want you to drink more Coca-Cola. They don't tell you that a case of Coke a day is bad for your health. They're not concerned about that. They don't care that it's bad for your health. They would prefer you to buy a case and drink a case of Coke a day. And the attention, economy does the same thing. And here's what I find fascinating about this. People always talk about, you know, corporate media or mainstream media and the financial incentives and the different things that go into why we would talk about why we, those same things apply to the social

media economy. Like, it is about money. And the money is pushing you towards a direction of information that is not good. Sometimes it is. I'm not dismissing all of it. I'm not saying don't trust social media ever and just try i'm not saying any of those things i'm just saying that i know on the macro what's happening and i can tell you through my own personal experience of using it and i would probably suggest i'm a pretty high user of it pretty high compared to the average american that i see it more and more pushing things to me that is simply bad information because now I do think that there are bad guys as well you know the bad guys are the ones who pretty obviously are doing this just for attention that's the content creators right I'm a

content creator you've got to have your own personal um moral compass on why you're saying something right and also AI yeah so like if you don't think about it so like if you take a video right i remember i remember seeing a video for example of this guy who who like try to form a relationship with his a i or he got really close to his ai and his his wife or his girlfriend who he had a baby with was upset about this and when you when you read the post it it said something completely different than what the actual video was because what they do is they run it through a i i spits out this verbiage and then they post it it's very comment. Patrick, I think it, so this is something that I get my Instagram a lot. The algorithm clearly

knows that I like movie clips. No, it's movie clips. I get a lot of movie clips in my, my Instagram algorithm. And it's funny, so I'll see these movie clips and be like, oh, maybe I should rewatch that movie. You know what I mean? Because, by the way, any movie can be made good in a 20-second, 30-second clip. Have you gotten to notice this? I'm like, oh, I never saw this movie. That was an awesome clip. and then you look it up and you're like, that's a stupid movie. Why would I watch that? They're pushing these terrible movies.

But one of the tricks that they do, I don't know if you guys have noticed this, is you'll get a movie clip from a movie that you know, right? So let's say it's like, let's say it's a movie clip from Killers of the Flower Moon starring Lirr Dacaprio, right? And you know that movie, and you watch the clip, but the text description underneath it is about a completely different movie.

also starring Leonardo DiCaprio? Huh? It may be about interstellar. Yeah, yeah. It may be about interstellar. And you'll be like, why are they writing a completely wrong text description for the clip that they played?

And I'm going to tell you something because they figured out something about attention. What they figured out probably, this is my guess, is that a bunch of people will jump into the comments and go, what's wrong with you guys? You're posting the wrong thing and they'll all comment on it.

And now the more people that comment, the more it gets pushed into the algorithm. They don't care if you follow them. See, like, if you got that enough, you'd be like, I'm not going to follow this account. It's stupid and it's always wrong. But nobody cares about you following them anymore. Now they care about whether or not they can get into your algorithm.

And so by doing that and getting more comments, the algorithm picks it up and pushes it into more people's feed and thus more views. Like saying the wrong actress, too. That's an example. So everyone will correct it. Yes. Yeah.

So now what they're doing is being intentionally wrong so that you will get mad and engage with it in some way so that more people will see it. It's so crazy. And on X, they don't even include what it's from. And then people go in the comments and go, what is this from? Name please. And then there'll be 15 comments being like the wrong movie. And then people will be like, no, you're stupid. This is the right movie.

Like, no, it's absolute insanity. It's almost on every other video. So what an illustration in that the incentive structure pushes you not only to being cavalier about what's right, but being purposefully wrong so that people will engage and the algorithm will boost it. And so this is what we're getting at here. And I think back to Douglas. That's reasonable. You know, the weave here. It's dangerous.

The weave here. We could at least talk about, and I don't know about government regulation as a, I don't think that's the answer here, but like, hey guys, you're boosting bad stuff. That's what you're doing. Forget censorship. Censorship is one end of the spectrum. Here's the free marketplace of ideas in the middle. And then there's boosting the bad stuff. That's like the other end of the spectrum from the censorship.

You see what I'm saying? And we're in a real bad space in the information economy on all of these stories. And what it has done is on the more serious issue, is not like the movie type stuff. It's like it turns everybody into disbelieving every single thing. That becomes the default mechanism of everything. You disbelieve everything. And there will be people that watch this and may jump into our comment section and be like, you know, I don't know what. Will is bought and paid for now or will is mainstream media or wills, whatever.

And I'll never forget this conversation that I had recently or it was a couple months ago. And it was about, you know, some of the stuff coming from Candace and other places and like that. And this person said, but we've been lied to about so much, so much talking about again, COVID and 100,000. Biden's laptop and everything and they're right. And then the response from somebody else sitting in the circle was, yeah, but just because you shouldn't believe everything doesn't mean you should disbelieve everything. And that's where we are. Where's that leave you? Right there. Yeah. Like, what do you do with that? I don't, I generally don't know. I'd like to see myself as a rational person. I don't know what to believe because things are very convincing online. It's crazy.

except the moon landing. You would like to believe that in the free marketplace of ideas that at some point, in the same way that people have sort of gotten into looks maxing, you know, or, you know, body optimization, that there becomes a market for information maxing, that good information, good sources become more valuable to people at some point. In some ways, we're kind of in that age of the 1960s when it comes to food and cigarettes. It's like, we're right there. And while the government regulated cigarettes, the arc on food has actually been a marketplace move, I'd say.

Not the government. The government actually has pushed bad food. But we've moved in a direction where people are like, I don't want to eat that. That's crap. That's bad for you. That makes you feel bad. and you hope that the same thing sort of happens

with information at some point. I don't want to read that. I don't want to give that at my attention. That's crap. That makes me feel bad. And it does do all those very same things. There needs to be like a pallet cleansing of content

and it just won't happen. I don't think any of these companies will. I don't know how you do it because like you have the groups like the SPLCs of the world and what was that one group? Snopes, you know, who they tried to go and they tried to tell you, oh, this is true and this is not true

and try to be those arbiters. And then they ended up being completely disingenuous. We have Grock now on X. Yeah, pushing an agenda. And that's right. And that's right. And I think if Douglas were sitting here with us, that's where I think ultimately,

there would be some level of disagreement on institutional credibility. Like he, I can't, I don't want to speak for Douglas. if you'd make this argument, but, you know, he talks about being employed by the New York Post and everybody there, and you have layers of editors and whose job is to verify and ensure that we're all telling the truth. And if somebody works at Fox, I can speak to those same layers in there. But the more institutionalized something is the more cynical people get about the institution itself being co-opted. And I've said this for a long time now. And, you know, ultimately, for anybody that chooses to watch or listen to this show, they are the filtering mechanism, right?

It's them. They have to decide is Will a trustworthy figure, is Will trying. And the answer, by the way, isn't is Will always right. I've never suggested that's the metric by which to judge. Because I will get things wrong. I will be imperfect. I will have questions that I wished I would have asked. I will lose a debate.

The question is, is Will an honest arbiter in trying to get to the truth on those things? And I, well, is he just, yeah, I mean, is he authentically, honestly trying to get to the truth? And that, I think, is the real check on these things. It isn't outsourced institutional credibility anymore. Do you know what I mean? Like, I trust the Wall Street Journal over the New York Times, whatever, like that. You know what I mean? Like, because the truth is, inside all of those institutions, there will people, there will be people that you should, and there will be people that you shouldn't.

That's the truth. Because, you know, forget, we really want to tribalize this politically, and you should. A lot of it is, like, ideologically driven. But honestly, as somebody who's been in the media for 15 years, the rare, the rarer. commodity is, well, I was going to say judgment, but I was going to say it's integrity. Judgment is so rare. Like the ability to have good judgment. And you're like, what is that?

What is good judgment? Making decisions based upon the right motivations and wisdom. You know, I have so gravitated to the concept of wisdom over knowledge, wisdom over intellect, over time. And I think that is a core component of good judgment. And that, you know, that takes us to another story that we were going to do today. I've told you guys my story about judgment. Well, I think this ties in because I've talked to you about some of my experience at other places. I've worked in the rarity of good judgment. I've told you about my time at ESPN when they tried to develop a policy around who could and could not and should and should not post things on social media. And I told them there's no policy. What you're talking about is judgment. You can't develop a policy that's going to make every single one of these people have good judgment about what to say.

This occurred last night on CNN. And Dan texted this morning and said, Will, I'd love to be. I'd love to be. love to know if anything like this has ever happened with you. This is Scott Jennings. And I can't remember this kid's name. I don't know his name. I think he works from Midas touch, which everybody in the left is saying is there is there Joe Rogan, whatever that podcast is. I think it might be their most popular podcast, Midas. And this kid is from that, whatever his name is. But here's this interaction on CNN. We all know that Scott Jennings is more than happy to defend a war with a country that starts with the letter is IRA that we are currently failing that is going to put us trillions and trillions of dollars more in debt. I was only a few years old while you were in the

administration defending prior endless wars. Now this war is failing. Eight weeks is endless to you? Okay, you said it was going to six weeks. Wait a minute. I debated you on TV four to six weeks ago and you said we were weeks away from it. Now you're making condescending remarks because you can't defend the fact that this war is not going your way. Wait, one more time. Not going. Not going your way. Name one political concession. Name one political concession. I'm going to have this guy's going to put on my face. Everybody hang tight. Honestly.

Okay. So if you can't tell what's going on there, Scott turns to him in the middle of that and says, get your effing hand out of my face. Yikes. And then I think he says something. Don't put your hand in. And then turns to Abby Phillips is like,

I'm not going to have him putting his hand in my face. Hey, should we break this down in the same way we did the Secret Service video a moment ago? Did you think is the kid's hand? I think Scott does incredibly. incredible work. Like, incredible. As someone who is sat in that seat at CNN, sat in that seat at ESPN, Scott Jennings is phenomenal at debating at a table where he's usually outnumbered. What is it? Four to one or three to two. Sometimes there's one other conservative on there. Canning the host, by the way, that would make it five to one or four to two. So Scott is awesome at this. Was the kid's hand in his face? That was the first thing I thought. Like, it's kind of hard. You can play it without the sound like you are now. It's a little hard in this video.

They're definitely seated close together for like the two shot. This is where he's, yeah, right there. Yeah, and the kid is raising his hand up to about chin level. And he is gesturing towards Scott a lot, but I can't tell that it's a super unnatural attempt to sort of physically intimidate Scott. That's it. Scott King is sitting over there. Just out of curiosity, you just nod, Scott. You're a guy that sets up the camera shots in this for the Will Kane show. You think they're super close together, right?

Yeah, there's like physically, sometimes TV doesn't, it's funny how you can be super close together in person and the TV you don't look that close together. You know what I mean? On TV, you often sit closer together than is natural. Like you wouldn't normally sit that close to. somebody, but they sit you really close together so they can get you in the same camera shot. So already you got that going on. It's really tense.

The kid is super sneering and condescending. I've seen this kid on there before. He's like one of the most unappealing people that you could ever put on television. Not the most, but he is like gesturing in Scott's general direction. Did you guys think, what did you think about Scott's reaction? Do you think the kid was provoking that? I think he got the reaction he wanted out of Scott. I don't think the hand in the face was necessary.

I think he was a little of reaction to go that route. But I think he was just pissing him off so he went with that. But I don't think the hand of the face was a real thing. I don't know. I don't know. It's kind of, I don't know, he's kind of getting obnoxious there. He's definitely obnoxious. I'm sure he's obnoxious.

But his hands kind of get, I mean, it feels. it's not like up in his face, but it's pretty close. If that happened at a cookout and someone did that to you, Will, are you saying something where someone's talking to you like that? I mean, you're getting pissed. It's hard because I don't think you'd be that close. I don't think you'd be that close physically. But if they got that close.

Well, yeah, but that's different because you would be encroaching. It would feel more aggressive. If at a party or a barbecue, somebody got that close to me, I'd already be a little. like, why are you getting so close to me, dude? But as a guest on TV. But they're seated that close to each other. Have you ever gotten that way, like on ESPN or anything else? We're another guest.

No, not at ESPN. I would say my most heated on-air debates definitely happened on ESPN. 80% of them, 75% of them were in person like this. 25% were remote. like we are together right now. Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Kane Country. There's something else here now. Something new.

From exclusively on Paramount Plus, it's the series Stephen King calls Scary as Hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi vision calls it the best show streaming right now. We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules. Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children. is how we all go home. From binge all episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus.

Welcome back to Will Kane Country. Maybe my most heated was remote. My most too heated were remote. You can see them online. They're sort of viral. Like one of them is debating Kevin Durant with Max and Stephen A. They're not in the studio with me that day. And I am mad-faced and I'm pointing at the camera, but they're not there.

And there was another one with Hugh Jackson about Hugh Jackson getting fired. I think they all made it, you know, that it was racial. I think he was one in 15 as head coach that year. He got fired. And they were making a racial. I'm like, he's one in 15, you know. Did he go winless? He might have gone 0 in 16, Patrick.

You're right. It might have been 0.16. Yes. There's no defending that. And I got superheated. but those aren't the same thing because they're not in person. In person, I'm proud of this for all of us. Stephen A, Max, me, we had heated ones in person as well.

And I'm not going to pretend to you that all of our relationships were always great. That they were always like the most buddy, buddy, chum, whatever. Chummy. I don't know where I came with chum. chum. Yeah, what the hell? The Texas thing? The king robbed off.

They were almost always friendly, and they were definitely always professional. And my favorite thing, with both of them, but notably with Stephen A is when it was over and it went to commercial break, it would most of the time be a deal where he would reach his fist across the table. and I would as well, and we dap and just be like, all good. All good. Other people don't. Well, I tell that story sometimes when people are like, does that mean it's fake? No, that doesn't mean it's fake. It just means like you can do this without getting super sensitive, to be quite honest.

Just getting super sensitive. Yeah. I think sports is different, though. And Max was the same way. You're right, sports is different. A lot of those debates were going beyond the realm of sports, if you'll remember Patrick. They were often on race. They were often on Trump.

But still, within the confines of sports, you're right, which is different. People personalize pure politics much greater. So I never, from my memory, really, really had a negative experience at ESPN. I did have one at CNN. And I've told you guys about that. And that's also, I'm sure, on the Internet. And that is, I'm sitting at a panel. Who was the host? This is terrible, but I'm going to say, I think it was a blonde.

I just can't remember. Maybe it was Ashley Banfield? I don't know. But on the panel with me was, I remember the middle person now, the blonde thing, because she's gotten famous in the other realms, is Mel Robbins. Do you know who Mel Robbins is? She's like a female self-help type. She's gotten pretty big. She's kind of not part of this. She's just in the middle. And on the other end is Don Lemon. And I remember the issue specifically. It was Michelle Obama. Do you guys remember the viral bring home? You guys might be too young for this, but bring home our girls. Boko Haram in Nigeria, Boko Haram in Nigeria kidnapped like 20, 30 girls, like a tribe or a school of young women, young ladies. And Boko Haram is the Muslim terrorist.

group in Nigeria and took off with them. And it became a thing, right? And her husband's president of the United States. And the hashtag, Bring Home Our Girls became a thing. And people would hashtag it on X and they would hold up white pieces of paper with Bring Home Our Girls and Michelle. And my argument that day was, what a worthless virtue signaling thing. And I was right then, I'm right now. It's dumb. It's not. Boko Haram's not going to see that and be like, you're right, guys. You know, Boko Haram, it wasn't impacted by the hashtag. So it was really about, we're all very familiar now with virtue signaling. This was probably in the early days of virtue signaling. And I was pointing out, this is about the speaker, not the subject. Here it is. It is Ashley Banfield. What happened with that? And I'm telling you that putting a tweet up. You want to play it?

Let's listen. You're right. There's a lot of cheap outrage on TV. I'm going to give you that. But when you look at a young woman who is 21 when she has said. We got to address that. We have to address. That's disgusting to say about 200 and over 200 girls who were, what do you expect the first lady to do?

No. The first lady happened. Don, I wasn't necessarily targeting the first lady exclusively. It's not disgusting if you think a slightly deeper. Okay. So then who are you targeting? Listen, you'll understand. Listen, and you understand.

Hang on. Let me, let me. who are you targeting because that's who that's who's that's on the photo that's on the front page of paper yeah but my words who are you targeting are you saying all right you ready to listen I'm asking you who are you targeting okay well have you got floor if they could rewind this tape 30 seconds you would see you would hear but I'm going this is amazing you can't hear what I say I said society has gotten cheap we do cheap outrage on television we do cheap hashtag activism on Twitter and you said putting up a picture I with the hashtag on it so who who put every single

person don't it's a mean okay tell you society has done just like every society has I didn't say anything about the first lady you did I asked you all you would say every single person holding up the hashtag I promise you I'm telling you everyone that's all you have to say that's all you have to say okay let me try to save you will hold on a second because I don't need saving well I think you actually do on this one because I think what you're saying which is correct is that the dialogue is cheap about a lot of things particularly when it's driven by the media and there's a lot of cheap things and there's a lot of

cheap things that are happening when people use hashtags as a way to be like, yeah, I'm in that. I keep going. I want to keep this one. But hold on a second. What we need to understand about the situation with the girls is that there was tremendous confusion for the first two and a half weeks about whether or not the story was even real. And given the fact that they were stolen from an area with no cell phone reception, with no technology, the families use social media and that hashtag that you just called cheap to get the world to pay attention. And what do you expect the U.S. government to do first of all when they were not invited in initially what do you expect the US government to do what would you like make its policy outside of

Twitter okay okay so what I was I'm gonna do guys what did you do for those girls what did you do personally guys if I just so outraged by it right now will I have a good answer what are you done what I'm sorry sit here on television and criticize other people's efforts if you're so concerned about it what have you done I'm pointing out something's important on the society that's right to point it out then do something to help but rather than coming in and criticizing other people do something to hell. Because Will is arguing that we need to do more.

I think what he says is in the odd soul for to say, oh, putting up a, you're talking about the person. You don't get on television. You know what? Let's say, he is not. You're the one that raised the first. No, you're talking about it. I'm hosting.

I think you are. I think you are. All right. So that last bit is the part. So I obviously didn't get as mad there as Scott Jennings did. So to your point, but I'll tell you what happened afterwards. That last bit where he said, you're dog whistling the first leg. So what you're seeing there, limb in the entire time.

By the way, I'm pretty proud of how I conducted myself. Sorry, I look back on that. I actually wish I'd been more aggressive. I wish I would have been more mad. I don't know, Lois Lane. Go ahead, Patrick. It'd get saved in there. Yeah.

There's a series of things, Patrick, that pissed me off. That came from Milrodham's. That was among the most that pissed me off. Let me save you, Will. I'm like, I don't need saving. On this, I think you do. I like that snap zoom into your face. These people, by the way, it's the same thing in Eddie's Pinnett would piss me off.

Condescension like that. And that's what Scott was dealing with, by the way. That kid was pouring on the condescension. It pisses me off. Among the things the most, that pisses me off the most. So, yeah, I didn't need saving, lady. Second, I, you know, if I have a regret, why was I not? willing to say, yeah, I'm targeting directly the First Lady, because the First Lady was guilty of virtue signaling cheap social media activism, as I was saying.

Don wanted me to say that. And by the way, what Hectoring? I couldn't get a word out edgewise. He kept repeating the same question over and over and wouldn't allow me to answer it. What a joke of a broadcaster. He's a joke. He's an absolute joke. And I know why he did it.

I know why he did it. Because he was effing terrified of my answer. He knows he's an intellectual lightweight. He's nothing beyond performative. If it actually gets into a substantive back and forth, he is nothing. He's fluff. He's in the wind. So the only thing that he can do is performative.

That's all he can do. And so he keeps going on and on and repeating the same question because he's terrified of hearing my actual answer. If I have a regret, it's the regret of not going, yeah, Michelle Obama specifically is guilty of this. which he wanted me to say. And I wish I would have given him exactly what he wanted, because all he wanted in the end was to get to that last line. It was a dog whistle. He wanted to accuse me of racism because the subject in this was black. The subject being the first lady, Michelle Obama.

And when he said the dog whistle thing, now I was really pissed. Ashley Banfield ends the segment. We walk off set. We go in separate directions. We reconvene in the newsroom, which is right off the set, and we start yelling at each other across the cubicles. Really? It continued. It's finger pointing. It's face to face outside of Jeff Zucker's office, literally outside of Jeff Zucker's office, the president of CNN. Jeff Zucker comes out. They separate us.

Oh, no. So that is the most heated I've ever been with anyone. You didn't drop him an F, Bob. And I couldn't be more proud of the target. You handled yourself for all. So that's it. Do you think? Oh, yeah.

It was Patrick. Here we are. That was 2000. I'm going to bet that was 2012, 2013, somewhere in there. We're 13 years removed from that. The political climate has changed. I've changed. I had five years of ESPN after that where I got much more combative.

And I would have been. If that same thing happens seven years later, I would have been even more combative with Lemon. My best line is like, he's like, what have you done here today? I'm like, if I tweet right now, will I have a good answer? That's so good. Like, I'm not the United States government. What have I done? The answer is the same thing you've done by tweeting.

Nothing. You've done nothing. Your hashtag has done nothing. Your piece of paper has done nothing. Look at me getting worked up on a debate that's 15 years old. And, and, and you know what? I haven't tweeted either. So guess what?

We're in the same boat. Now, the answer is to what they could do, and you want to know the answer to this, what could the United States government do? They're not invited in. Get out of here with your feckless weak vision of government. You know what Donald Trump would do? Freaking send them in and go get those girls if he's deemed it so important. What a different time. And I know that to be the case.

Yeah, because now we don't have a feckless. weak virtue signaling government. We actually have somebody that gets things done, who does things. And you know what now? They hate that person. They hate him for doing things. They hate him because he will do it. Donald Trump's a tyrant.

He's authoritarian. What would you have the government do that haven't been invited in? What a worthless group of people? What a worthless group of people? All right. Now play some ESPN clips and let me get reworked up about those. I had one ready to go with you and Kellerman, but I was turned away from it.

No, no. I had no idea this is where we would get today. All right, before we go, go ahead. You guys ask me a question if you want. How much longer were you at CNN after that? I have to remember. Somebody has to tell me what year that was. I can't remember what year that was.

You left for ESPN in 2015? I left CNN in 15. Yeah. I think so. Or 14 and joined ESPN in 15 or 1516. It says 2014. So not long.

So not long. Yeah. Actually, I wasn't there much longer after that. Yeah. You may not remember the dates of that's kind of interesting. You ever think about like these people that are accused of crimes?

Surely a crime sticks in your memory more. And then, well, how about if it's a false accusation, right? And they say, where were you? It's false accusation. I don't know how they would ever come up with where they were. on an exact date, much less than a year by year.

What about Tuesday a month ago? The older I get, I'm like, what year was that? I'm sitting here removed from this. I'm like, I don't know what year that was. How do they ever look back on these things and go, I know exactly where I was if you're falsely accused of something? Yeah, that's crazy on memory. I do want to revisit one more story that absolutely turned out to be false this week,

and we referenced it yesterday, and that's the JP Morgan Chase sexual harassment case for it. Because this is phenomenal. This is phenomenal. I didn't go into the details yesterday because I did feel like they were too salacious. I'm going to share with you a few here because I think they're interesting. And they're the story. The story is that a guy that worked at J.P. Morgan, whose name has now been revealed, accused his purported superior of sexual assault, I guess, right?

Not just harassment. Because he's saying they had sex against his will. he received oral sex against his will. They had full-on sex against his will and that she was holding pay over him. And she would, she turned him into a sex slave is what it sounded like, like in the office, whenever she wanted. And everybody kind of was like, sounds terrible, dude. By the way, it doesn't help. It doesn't help him that everybody saw the story and saw her and not unattractive.

You know? Everybody's like, yeah, sounds absolutely. awful, man. But then the details were even juicier because he had in his complaint specific dialogue from her, things that she would say allegedly. And there's two lines that I remember specifically in my head, and I think it's worth me repeating them. She said, he alleges that she said to him while undressed fondling her own top side that I bet you're wide. doesn't have canons like these. No one calls them canons.

What are you talking about? Speak for yourself, pal. That's not true, Dan. That's not true, Dan. No woman calls them cannons. No woman. Everybody goes, everybody's antennas goes up and goes, what woman refers to him as canons?

I thought she meant her arms. I thought she meant like cannons like guns. Like her arms were big or something. Nah It sounded like This dude was writing his own romance novel Steamy sexual novel It's exactly what he was doing Fan fiction or AI

Or AI helped him out And this is exactly what a dude would dream A woman would say to him You know You've ever seen cannons like these I can't even imagine the woman that would say that It's a turn off No I'm good

I don't think a stripper would say say that. I don't think a prostitute would say that. I don't think any... Sounds like something that happened in the office. Like a woman in the office, the show would say something like that. Like one of the awkward characters. I don't even think they would. The next

line, it's a little more serious. I don't know. I swear, I'm like, can I say it? I don't know. But she's accused of saying racist things as well, right? I don't know what this dude's race is. I don't know. There's stuff in there where she called him her little... Okay, she called him her little brown boy.

Is he Indian? Is he Indian? I'm almost positive. I bring that up because of the supposed racist thing that she said. It's the same line with the cannons. And she said, I bet your, she said a couple of supposed adjectives about his wife, right, that were racist. But one of them was she called, she called the wife, uh, is that what it was? Yeah. Well, here's the thing about that, Dan.

I don't even know if that's... It is. Like, I don't even know what that is. Yeah, but Dan, here's what somebody pointed out. Most people are like me. I don't think I've ever heard that before. I wouldn't know that. And you're telling me this white...

Apparently, the person I saw talking about this is like, that's like a thing that whatever race this is, Asian... See, I don't even know what race that references. So I don't know if that's racist. I don't even know what it references. He is Indian. But it's like an in, so whoever was coming, that's like, that's an inside the community insult. Do you know what I mean?

It's not a commonly known insult or a commonly used insults. Soldiers in Vietnam. Outside a community. Said that a lot. Let's just say that. Really? I've never, I've never heard it. Well, that's why I was clarifying, that's why I was clarifying Indian.

Vietnam wasn't, we weren't fighting India. I know, but his wife might not be Indian. Okay, maybe not. She might be some sort of Asian. So she knows that, she knows that, she knows. she knows the ethnicity of his wife, she pulls an obscure slur dating back to Vietnam, and uses that? It's super eyebrow raising, super eyebrow raising, that she would say that along with cannons. Canons.

And, as it turns out, all of this analysis is correct, because it was fake. apparently this guy filed his complaint with J.P. Morgan, tried to negotiate a multi-million dollar exit package. This complaint goes in. They quickly interview everyone around the situation,

and they're like, bull-s-h-h-tall-this-sonsense. And, as it turns out, she wasn't his superior. She had no control over his pay. She had no power over the things he said she had power. and he then exits, and I think he files a suit, but within a day or two, his lawyer's like, we're amending this immediately.

Like, we're changing all of this, because it's all BS. Nobody said cannons. Nobody said these things. By the way, if you're telling me that that was a racist insult, he's the one then therefore that said the racist insult. Right? He's the one. About his own wife. Yes

About his own wife And by the way You've now told me that the prospect That maybe the wife is a different ethnicity than him Yeah And so he doesn't He doesn't have that pass He doesn't have that pass

So he's calling his wife a racist thing Do you think they stay together? Does she put all that together? She's like So this didn't happen And you're calling me this racist insult That nobody knew about But us?

Yeah I wonder what I? Poor woman, though, that she got caught up in this. Like, this is horrible now for her. That's one of the terrible things about it. Right. You know? Like, you can literally accuse people of anything in a lawsuit.

And I heard that it doesn't count as defamation. Like, if you just said this on internet, that you get you for defamation. But like, if you say it in a lawsuit, alleged something in a lawsuit, it doesn't necessarily follow the same rules. I think. I mean, what's the, what's the, I mean, I know there's an easy answer to this, what is, I feel bad for her too, but what's going to happen? Like, what's the negative? That she walks in everywhere she goes and people kind of chuckle, even though they know it's false.

That kind of carries, follows her around everywhere in some way. And like maybe some people still don't believe that it's false. It's not going to hurt her professionally. There's going to be people that don't believe it's false. The conspiracy people, they'd be like, oh, that's a lie. She definitely did this. She is a POS, you know. They're going to be people like that.

Or it's in your head. It's like, so once you put something out there, it's hard to bring it back. Just like the Trump Fine People hoax, all people do is they put it out there and then it's like, now it exists. It goes back to our other conversation that it'll just keep being perpetuated

on X on Instagram. How many dudes are going to hit on this lady? How many dudes are going to hit on this lady because of this? She was... It was J.P. Morgan trying to get all these young guys to apply to work there for... Now that's a conspiracy.

One of seven days a week. Like, just expecting, you know, whatever. God. Yeah. Crazy story. So crazy that it wasn't true. And that's the theme of today's episode of Will Kane Country.

We appreciate you hanging out with this. It's been another fun one. Make sure you just follow us on Spotify or Apple. Patrick leaves more content on the cutting room floor. See you next time. Listen to ad free with a Fox News Podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members. You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon Music app.