The Brian Kilmeade Show

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Oh, let's just get out there on a Friday and say it is the top radio show in the country because that's what the Brian Kilmead show is. It is your humble DC correspondent and Fox and Friends Weekend co-host, Griff Jenkins, back again filling in for Brian Kilmead. Always such an honor and so much fun on a Friday to be here in the studio in New York with Pete and Eric.

We have got a lot coming up, and shockingly, what is usually the dog days of summer where nothing is happening, there is everything happening and a fire hose of news out there. Top story certainly is all eyes on Iran. What will happen in Iran? Yesterday, President Trump talking about whether or not there is a deal on the table, whether or not the Strait of Horn News could be open. He says right now, well, it's sort of open.

Listen to this: cut one. It's sort of open right now. You know, we have a thing called the blockade headed up by the U.S. Navy, and we control it. And now we control it, but they can always shoot something, they always have something, or drop a mine.

I think we're doing very well. I just, you know, I'm involved in the negotiation. I think we're doing fine. Yeah. But are we?

That is the question. The president is talking about this, but it seems like we've sort of been here before. We're not sure where we're headed next. No one knows Russia better than Fox News contributor and former CIA station chief that served in Moscow, among other stations, is Dan Hoffman. Dan, thank you for joining us this morning.

What do you make of what the president said there? Where are we?

Well, I think we're kind of at an inflection point here, Griff. We're waiting for. A deal Between Oman and Iran. on the street of Hormuz. And the question is whether we're going to see Open And free navigation through the strait, or whether Iran is going to demand.

Some kind of fees, tolls, disguised perhaps as environmental fees or other things. It's important because 20% of the world's oil is going to flow through the Strait of Hormuz. That's going to impact the global price of oil. It's important from an economic standpoint, but then from a strategic standpoint, Iran wants this to be a casualty of war for the United States. They want to retain some control over the Strait of Hormuz and make us pay a price.

And have some capability to deter us from any future attacks on Iran.

So the stakes could not be higher. And if at the moment at least it looks like Iran and Oman have negotiated a deal whereby On the way out of the strait, Oman would go through Oman territorial waters on the way back through Iran. I don't think that's going to be exactly what the United States wants. And we'll see how things shake out over the weekend. And we would not be on board, right?

As I understand it, it's because this is a freedom of navigation issue. Excuse me. It's not just in the Strait of Hormouse. You look at every strait around the world where commerce passes through, and it is international waters. And so the freedom of navigation rule is in some ways challenged in this agreement as we understand it.

Right. And that's why Iran has made the Strait of Hormuz the center of gravity in this war between the two countries. Iran does not want to negotiate in good faith on their nuclear program, ballistic missile and drone program, and their support to proxy terrorists, all the things that we wanted To get right after the Trump administration withdrew from JCPOA back in 2017, we want to fix all those things. Iran has shown no interest whatsoever in negotiating in good faith, and they're going to try to strike a hard deal on the Strait of Hormuz and make that, I think, a point of contention. We may never get to nuclear negotiations, in which case, the United States is going to have to be prepared to launch follow-on strikes against Iran's.

drones, their ballistic missile arsenals, the nuclear program and degrade their proxy terrorists. We may be looking at that sort of a long war.

Well, and it seems that the President's made it abundantly clear, Dan, to your point, The denuclearization issue has got to happen. That is a fundamental goal and objective of the president even getting involved to begin with. And so, you know, when we talk about a deal, there's the frustration, which the president must surely be just up to here with, is the fact that they never abide by any agreement that they sign, which leads us to further military action. Is that whether or not we're sort of saying it out loud, is that really where we are? I mean, this is Iran's probe.

What Iran is saying essentially is: look, if you don't have. the military capacity to enforce a deal That you want For the Strait of Hormuz, he's speaking to the United States, then you can't do that for our nuclear program either. I think that's why Iran is holding fast here. And remember that. There's a similarity here between what has happened as a result of this war and the Iran Iraq war, the First Gulf War in the nineteen eighties, which really elevated Iran's hardline IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, to a position of authority We're seeing that again, they're not interested in negotiating.

And I think they feel like they can make a stand here over the Strait of Hormuz and demonstrate that the United States doesn't have the leverage that we need to enforce. Or induce Iran to negotiate the way we would want them to. We certainly haven't done that so far. We have degraded Iran's. Weapons, conventional weapons, we've absolutely degraded their nuclear capability and set them way back.

But we haven't brought them to the negotiating table in good faith. This is why we love having you on the Brian Kilmead show and on Fox News, because you understand the history. And any time you're in any conflict in the Middle East, you must understand the history. I want to ask you if you see, as you drew that parallel to the Iran-Iraq original war going back to 89, 90, do you see a parallel between the fact that In those days, the head of the coups force, the first commander of the coups force, was General Ahmad Vahidi. He is now the guy running the IRGC today.

And so back then, as he learned to not negotiate and not bend, is he doing the same playbook essentially? Yeah, I absolutely think so. That was his. Formative experience. And uh I think we might have lost Dan, and we'll work to get him back on the line with us.

It's interesting, you know, Dan was talking about the degradation of Iran's munitions. And certainly, as President Trump has often talked about, they don't have an Air Force, they don't have a Navy, their ships are on the bottom of the sea. And we have greatly diminished and have continued to strike their missile and drone factories. And so, you know, while we see time and time again that they do launch strikes, we just had some of our service members killed in the attack on Mufawak, the air base that is in Jordan. They've been launching at Kuwait, they've been launching at Qatar, they've been launching even at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.

But it's worth noting that we are seeing fewer missiles coming. First, there were 200.

Now there are 20. First, there was 100.

Now there are 10. Either way, when they strike us, I was just, Dan, glad to have you back. I think we've got you now. I was just sort of for our listeners walking through the fact that while they are greatly diminished, Iran is in their missile capabilities, it's not two, 300, it's 20 or 10 coming, but they are killing people, as we just saw in Jordan at Muwafak Air Base, where we lost two service members. But I want to ask you: you know, the other flip side of that coin is this reporting that the U.S.

is greatly reduced in munitions. I want to play this for you. This was the president as well yesterday talking about the munitions situation, cut to. We have literally massive amounts of ammunition. We always want more.

We have to have more. We have other things maybe come up. You maybe come up and maybe don't come up. Hopefully nothing else does come up.

So he's he's downplaying obviously the situation. How do you see it?

Well, look, I don't know what the status is of our Uh key munitions, patriot uh defenses and um that air defense Uh But what I can attack them. What I can tell you is that our adversaries collect on this. There's lots of intelligence reporting sitting in Moscow and Beijing. which they share with Iran. And so maybe the president doesn't want to talk about it, but If you asked Director Ratcliffe, do our adversaries know what we have left, they probably have a pretty good idea.

And we live in a democracy. And if we want to be the arsenal for democracy, I would encourage the administration to be open about where we are lacking in munitions, because it's not a secret to the bad guys, even if they're not talking about it. And we need to go full core press like we have at other times in our history and rise to the occasion so that we can deliver the patriot missiles Ukraine needs, so that we can deliver missiles to the Middle East to ensure that we are able to achieve our strategic objectives there. I say that as just somebody who saw this over decades. At CIA, there are things you can keep secret.

There are things you can't. There are going to be hearings, open testimony and closed door testimony. But again, if we live in a democracy, Griff, this stuff's going to come out.

So I think this is one where the president's going to have to deal with this. It's not like turning on a water faucet.

So if we don't have what we need, then if you're looking to find fault, you can go back years or decades. But it's over to this administration to solve it. Yeah, what a great insight, but yet a sober and chilling insight to think about that. You mentioned, by the way, Ukraine. President Trump did mention yesterday that there is, because of what is going on in Ukraine, has been a bit of a drain.

Listen to this real quick. Cut three. When Biden gave him so much, Biden gave 300 billion dollars worth of ammunition. You know, when I left, it was full. And he gave a lot of it away.

Yeah, you agree there? I think it was less than that, and I don't think I think we need to have the capability to support our allies and partners overseas. And if we don't Use what we have.

Well, what is the purpose of having it in the first place?

So, if we did give some of our Patriot missiles to Ukraine, if anything was depleted, we should have. re constituted our arsenal of these important weapons. I'll be honest with you as a citizen. I don't want to hear any more blame about the Biden administration. President Trump was elected to solve problems.

Go fix it, sir. You were elected, not Biden. It's over to you to fix all the challenges that we face. And again, it's your responsibility, it's your government. And the blame part is good during an election campaign, but that's two years ago.

And right now, we've got serious problems all over the world that we need to deal with, and it's over this administration to do it. And no one is expecting perfection. We understand there are great challenges to achieving our strategic objectives, but. If our objective is to support Ukraine against their war against Russia, and one option was to let Ukraine produce those missiles themselves, that sounded like a pretty good idea to me, but the President may not think so anymore. We just need to solve the challenges we face in the interest of our national security.

That's a great point. I mean, we are where we are, we're here now. Let me ask you the very, this is the toughest question, Dan, and I'm going to ask it to you anyway. If you recall, back in literally the first weeks of the Iraq invasion in 2023, in March, General David Petraeus famously questioned: Tell me how this ends. Are we at a point now where we can even try and address answering the question?

Tell me how this ends. I mean, it's really hard. But important to have an exit strategy so that we know what is the strategy, what are we trying to achieve? We've won every single military engagement over Iran. But the question is, have we achieved our Strategic objectives through the use of military strikes, air power essentially alone, and no ground troops.

That was always the question. And I can tell you, going back to my days at CIA, when I was at CIA running the Near East division, responsible for Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, when we were negotiating the JCPOA. And I got called a cold warrior by John Brennan. He thought he was criticizing me, and I took it as a compliment because I told him that Russia is not going to help us on JCPOA. I'm sorry, sir, they're not doing that.

But boy, I didn't get a whole lot of love from John Brennan on that when I made that statement. But but that's the question here. And that's where you run the risk of a so-called forever war. It's a b At the heart of this, for me at least, we've spilled blood and treasure on this war. How much we've spent.

you know, in the tens of billions of dollars, indirect costs on our economy. US servicemen and women killed in action. What do we get for that? And how long are we going to be at this before we achieve our objectives? And if we're super clear about our objectives, and the administration has put forth a number of different ones, it was at various times: regime change, ballistic missiles, the nuclear program, among other things.

I just think we need to be real clear. We've talked about opening the strait of hormones with. freedom of navigation through the strait And then moving to a second phase of so-called denuclearization. Maybe that's still in the offing, but then Does the use of hard power alone get us there? And what's the strategy to get us there?

The administration may not want to tell us all about that, all the tactics that we're going to use to get there. At the same time, though, to get back to my point about us, the United States being a democracy, we are in this. U.S. citizens are in this. It's our war, not the administration's.

We're paying for it with our blood and our treasure. And so the administration needs to consult us. Um Yeah. What we're doing and how long we're going to be doing it. That's the challenge.

Again, I'm not into the politics as much as some of our other awesome contributors, but that's the challenge you face heading into the midterms. Those explanations are going to have to happen. They are, with a clear, crystal clear, laser-sharp exit strategy laid out. Fox News contributor and former CIA station chief in Moscow, Dan Hoffman. Thank you for your insight.

Great conversation, my friend. Have a great weekend. Thank you, you too. All right, this is Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show. We've got a whole lot more coming up.

From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kill Meat Show. Mm. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kilmead Show.

This is the Brian Kilmead Show on an amazing Friday afternoon. I'm Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian. Hopefully, he is at a beach somewhere surfing, you know, having a beer, taking it easy. But we are here covering the news and just a great conversation in the last segment with Dan Hoffman, former CIA station chief in Moscow. And I think what I really appreciated about what Dan was laying out is really the two pieces of this, which is as it relates to the clarity of what our objective ultimately is in this.

And it's clearly. First, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and now, and then, that's now, and then following that, denuclearization, President Trump making it very clear that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, something that no previous president was willing to put might behind the will to denuclearize them, and this president did. And it tracks with what General Jack Kane, Forrest Art General Jack Kane, said to us on Fox and Friends this morning. talking about how Iran believes that they have made this Strait of Hormuz control an issue that they feel gives them leverage. This is cut seven.

We all know what Iran wants. They believe this is a strategic asset. I'm telling you, they think this now has more leverage than the development and growth of a nuclear weapon. And why is that? Because their nuclear enterprise is largely under a mountain of rubble.

So this is their prize that they believe they've got as a result of the war that has taken place. They're not easily going to be able to. to give it up even through negotiations. They're going to want concessions out of us. But they're not going to get concessions from President Trump, who has time and time again shown patience and willingness to work towards a deal, but he is not afraid to put might behind what he says and means.

That means we could be headed back to an escalation in strikes. Possibly, who knows, even this weekend is a Brian Kilmead show. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. This committee and the American people have a right to know why Dr.

Fauci's agency funded dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and what role he played in approving and overseeing it. Why he told his colleagues to delete emails. Why he told them to delete emails and then delete the deleted file. What was he told in january twenty twenty? What was said on those calls?

What his agency did with and for the intelligence community, and whether, knowing what he knows now, he still believes that the risks were worth taking. Documents tell only part of the story. Many of these questions can be answered only by Dr. Fauci. He answered none of them.

That was Senator Rand Paul, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, as his committee voted to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress and sending that on to the Department of Justice. I'm Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmean Show, and we are lucky to have our resident legal professor and all-around smart guy and good friend Jonathan Turley joining us on the line. Professor, walk us through this so we all know now what has happened. It's gone to the DOJ, it's in their hands. How do you see this playing out?

Well, thank you, Griff. It's great to be with you. The status of this is a little bit Telescoped and reduced because normally a referral of this kind comes from the Senate as a whole.

So these votes in committee go to the floor, and then the Senate has to decide whether it wants to hold someone in content. Chairman Paul decided to circumvent that and make a direct referral to the Department of Justice. That is controversial, and it could create an added wrinkle here because technically this is just the vote of a handful of senators. Putting that Aside, the question is: can Fauci be held for contempt? I want to preface the answer to that, Griff, by noting that Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I don't think this was the right thing to do. Fauci has testified repeatedly in hearings and depositions. He was always at risk of a perjury charge if he lied. If anything, he's in a stronger position in this hearing after being given a sweeping pardon by Joe Biden going back to 2014. What has changed is that his diaries directly contradict statements he made to the public.

And the public should have had the right to hear from him. At least I would have thought that Fauci would view over a million deaths in the United States to warrant his speaking directly to these questions. He didn't.

So the question is, does the pardon constitute a form of immunity where he doesn't have any need to invoke the privilege?

So the privilege can only be used if you can be punished, if you could incriminate yourself and be charged. What the committee is saying is, you got this pardon. And that means you can't be charged for any conduct or comments made with regard to the questions we're asking you.

So it's just like we gave you immunity. You have to testify because there's really no danger of self-incrimination.

Well what Fauci is saying is, well that's not true. There are state investigations in the field right now. I may be asked questions outside of what was covered by the pardon. And so there is a lingering threat against me.

Now those are two very plausible arguments. And this is a very murky area. Most people will be surprised. There's a very sparse number of cases in this area. But if there is an advantage in court, I think it would go towards Fauci.

The reason is that courts view this as a core right within our jurisprudence. They tend to read it broadly. I think they are likely to say that as long as there's any lingering potential threat of criminality, he has the right to invoke the privilege even though he has that pardon. That's great insight. And, you know, I'm wondering, and to be clear, so that all of our listeners understand, we don't even know if the DOJ is actually going to pick this up.

There's even a scenario, I believe, Jonathan, where the DOJ says, nope, we're not picking it up. But if they do pick it up, there's one thought that Fauci may have waived his privilege and his constitutional right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by that opening statement that he gave last Wednesday, where he went on for a few minutes, just eviscerating Rand Paul, accusing him of being obsessed with him and, you know, just on a hunt to get him, to try and put him behind bars. And then. Invoke the fifth 111 times. Is there any merit to that argument in that position?

You know, Griff, as you know, this has been a long debated issue as to when you have to invoke.

So some people believe that if you make a statement before your invocation, it waives it. Because the rule on the privilege is that you can't pick and choose, right? You can't answer a question, then invoke, maybe answer another question, because otherwise the witness can then choose what questions can be asked of him or her. And so the court the argument here is that that statement waived it in the same way that Lois Lerner waived her privilege when she had given a statement and the Congress held her in contempt. And so the problem with that is the Obama administration shows not To prosecute.

Now, that was the Obama administration. This is the Trump administration.

So, there is this ongoing debate as to that point. Would Fauci argue is: look, I made a very brief statement, but when I was asked a question, I immediately invoked. And that's going to have to be resolved by the courts. That's an really unclear question, in my view, as to whether the court will treat that as a waiver. Once again, I would have to give the slight advantage to Fauci, but I got to tell you, that one is even slighter than the first one.

It's going to be really something to watch. Hey, let me pick your brain and shift gears just a little bit because I know you were following yesterday President Trump issuing two executive orders, signing them in the Oval Office, with regards to birth tourism and birthright citizenship. The first one expanded basically the categories of ineligible recipients for. Birthright citizenship. The second one is a little more specific and narrow, going after birthright tourism directly as you see it from a legal perspective.

Because obviously, as our listeners know, the Supreme Court shut down the president's original birthright citizenship case. Where do you see either of these two going?

Well, first, on a practical level, it's unlikely, in my view, that these two orders will make a significant reduction in the number of abuses of birthright citizenship. It's practically very difficult to deal with these issues. There is no question that the administration has considerable authority under what's called Section 214 of the Immigration Act. In denying visas. It also has, in fact, prosecuted people for engaged in birth tourism.

So they can certainly d make a renewed and enhanced effort in that regard. Targeting some of these Chinese companies, for example, that bring hundreds of people over, they make a huge amount of money. But once someone's in the country, it's pretty hard to prove that they came to the country for the purpose of giving birth. It becomes a question of intent, and they have a right to review.

So any effort to denaturalize a child born in those circumstances is going to have a tough tough going. The problem remains the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said that if you give birth as a foreign citizen in the United States, that child is a U.S. citizen. That is the constitutional rule as it stands, which is why I've suggested and others have suggested that we might need a constitutional amendment that, you know, In my view, birthright citizenship is a perfectly moronic policy.

It has been rejected by the vast majority of countries. Even countries that had it at one time got rid of it because it's crazy. You cannot. Have that type of rule, and you lose control effectively of who constitutes a citizen of the United States. But the problem with that is that the Democrats are opposing any effort in this area.

So, for example, the orders include an effort to say that if you're in the territories and you give birth, that child will not be given automatic citizenship.

Now, that's important for birth tourism because a lot of these Chinese companies are going to places like Guam and Saipan to try to get people in these territories, give birth, and then go back to China. The problem is that that would require legislation, and there is a bill in Congress to do that, but again, the Democrats have blocked it. Yeah, that's a great point, actually. In fact, I thought it was fascinating. Senator Josh Hawley talked about going after the birthright or the birth tourism.

Listen to this. I get your reaction. This is Cut 20. Justice Thomas, I thought, made this point very powerfully in that Supreme Court case. He recounted the history, the Civil War history, the Reconstructionary history of these amendments.

This is not what those amendments were written to address, not even close. This is a huge abuse of our system. The president's right to go after it. And he's talking about going after birth tourism. And, you know, Jonathan, from the four years of the Biden border crisis that I covered, I recall one very specific moment.

I was down late at night. We were covering all the groups coming across or coming across in hundreds in Mission, Texas. And a woman came across that was she within 30 minutes, right there after crossing the border, 100 yards from it, you get to this one bar where they've been going across in Mission, Texas. And a woman gave birth literally next to a dumpster. And of course, they called the ambulance, and the baby and the mother were okay.

And, you know, it just really reminded me of the number of pregnant women. And when I went into the caravans down in Mexico, pregnant women would make that trek. And then you look at what we are seeing that you mentioned, these maternity houses and places like San Francisco, where people are paying tens of thousands of dollars to do it. Yeah. You're right when you say it would take Congress to act, but Is there any will?

Like, will it get... Done? Or is that just one of these things where we can talk about it and we're like, this seems like an abuse of the system, but yet nothing gets done? Yeah, that's a really good question, Griff. It's hard to say.

You know, I actually don't agree with people saying, look, the poll showed that the American citizens approve of birthright citizenship. Citizens have never been given that choice. This has always been a matter of the courts. And there are good faith arguments on both sides on the 14th Amendment. There were drafters on both sides who actually created this language.

Some believed it didn't include birthright citizenship.

Some did.

So this has been a debate since the actual ratification of the 14th Amendment. The question is, what are we going to do now? You know, you can disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, but it is the Supreme Court's decision. That leaves either a change in the court, this was only a one-vote margin in a future case, or a constitutional amendment. I happen to think that if we could get a constitutional amendment to the states and actually have this national debate, that citizens will change their view on this, as they did in other countries, because it's loony.

It is loony to say that someone could be here for 30 seconds, give birth, and that person is a citizen. But we have to have that debate.

Now, in the Supreme Court decision, Justice Kavanaugh voted against the Trump orders for different reasons, but said that he doesn't actually believe the 14th Amendment does and contain a right to birthright citizenship. He suggested a way of attacking, particularly birth tourism, with legislation.

So, you know, these executive orders are not the legislative proposal that Kavanaugh was talking about. The question is whether Congress can ever get to the point that they draw a line here. And the Democrats are going to have to face this more and more. You know, they say, oh, well, we don't like birth, you know, tourism.

Well, then do something about it. You know, that's the point of having some of these legislative. Proposals. We'll see where that appetite and will go, particularly as we approach the midterms and we see the rise of these progressive left, many of them Democratic socialist candidates, not going to be their top priority if they get into office. Jonathan Turley, thank you for joining us.

Always, the best legal insight around. Have a great weekend, my friend. Thanks, Rick. You too. All right, that is Professor Jonathan Turley giving us the legal lesson of the day.

I'm Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show. We will be back. Learning something new every day on the Brian Kilmead Show. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

It is fast and it is fun. It is the Brian Killmead Show. I am Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian on this Friday. And I'm having fun because do you know what? Yesterday on this show, we had Steve Smith, the legendary Carolina Panthers wide receiver, talking about the Hall of Fame inductees, Drew Brees and others this weekend.

And it was such a great interview. But I did not realize that last night, football. NFL football would be back before my eyeballs on a television. I, the true story, I literally was looking at my fan duel. I only bet $10 every time.

That's my rule. And I usually lose. But when I'm watching the Mets lose up here in New York or my Nats getting crushed, I will put $10 and make some more interesting to watch a game. I look at FanDuel last night when I'm sitting down at the bar at the hotel for a quick early dinner. I'm looking for a baseball game, and I see Hall of Fame game.

Oh my goodness, the Panthers taking on the Arizona Cardinals. And granted, we all know it was going to be second and third stringers because it's preseason, but I was so excited and I thought, Steve Smith. It's a sign. I've got a bet on the Panthers.

So a bet on the Panthers money line. But then I started watching the game and I stayed up past my bedtime. I got drawn in, and the Panthers were losing. My $10 was going to lose with like a minute left in the game. The Panthers are losing to the Cardinals 30 to 27, and in comes an undrafted backup, Haynes King.

Haynes King, the ball in his hands for the Panthers, and here. is how it ended. On the line. King, he's gonna step up. Pumps, runs, go up.

Is he in? Yes! Carolina wins! James King! King of the night!

King! King! Both teams out there loving him! It's party time in Canton, Ohio! It is party time.

I would have run on the field if I could from Manhattan, New York, and I was there. We were. He went on, by the way, a 13-play, 65-yard drive. His stats for the night were 21 of 34, 180 yards, had two passing touchdowns, but of course that game-winning clutch. But with that moment, the way it ended, Football is back And I might actually need a pardon, like Fauci had, to get myself out of committing sacrilege here on Brian Kilmead's radio show because he loves soccer.

And I, too, was so into the World Cup and rooting for America's team. And of course, all of the games. In this studio, there's not one, not two, but three soccer balls at my feet. But can I just say? That it was so refreshing, even with second and third stringers, to see people not do a drama queen fall down like they got hit.

That part of soccer. In full disclosure, I played soccer, but in NFL football, that's why our American football is better than the world's football, because in the NFL, when you get hit, You know you got hit because you got hit. And we love the World Cup. and Freddie and all the foreigners, but it is time, folks. For the NFL real American football to start.

This is the Brian Killmeat Show. I'm Griff Jenkins. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. This is the Brian Kilmead Show.

It is a Friday in August. We have a whole lot lined up for you and no shortage of news. This is your humble D.C. correspondent, Griff Jenkins and Fox and Friends Weekend co-host. Thank you for joining us and listening.

And let's get right to sort of the top story out there. Of course, we've got the jobs numbers report is out there. A lot of Democrats talking about that, saying it's a bad thing. We've got obviously the rise of Democratic socialists and even more eyes on Wisconsin next week to see if Francesca Hong, which Bernie Sanders isn't even supporting, is out there. But the story that remains above the fold is what is happening in Iran and the American people getting a bit frustrated and no doubt President Trump greatly frustrated along with Secretary Hexeth with the fact that Iran just simply says one thing and does another time and time again.

Again, President Trump showing really remarkable patience in his pursuit to get some sort of deal to avoid bloodshed, killing. He says he doesn't like the killing, but also not afraid. The first president in our lifetime that was willing to stand up to 47 years of death to America and death to Israel. But yet, here we are. And now, what was on the one track and still a top goal of President Trump to denuclearize Iran, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon because of the threat they pose not only to the United States, but to the world, particularly the Gulf allies, Gulf allies that Iran has continued to strike in places like Mu'affak Air Base in Jordan, they killed two of our service members, and Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, in a just barrage on Ali Asalim in Kuwait and in Qatar, you name it.

They continue. But what is fascinating? Is that in addition to the denuclearization is the situation in the Strait of Hormuz? And that seems to be the most pressing issue right now. We had General Jack Keene on talking about why he thinks that Iran has, Iran thinks that they have this upper hand with regards to control of Hormuz.

Play this one, cut seven. We all know what Iran wants. They believe this is a strategic asset. I'm telling you, they think this now has more leverage than the development and growth of a nuclear weapon. And why is that?

Because their nuclear enterprise is largely under a mountain of rubble.

So this is their prize that they believe they've got as a result of the war that has taken place. They're not easily going to give it up, even through negotiations. They're going to want concessions out of us. But President Trump saying that that strait will be opened and Iran will not control it and charge tolls. Joining us now for great insight, Vice Admiral Robert Harward.

Admiral, thank you for joining us. You always have such a great insight. I don't know if you agree with General Keen's sort of take there that Iran thinks that they can control this straight. That's I agree wholeheartedly with my shipmate. He's spot on.

The straits are one of their most important elements of power right now. But one thing people are not talking about, and I think fascinating about the president's strategy and somewhat adds to his patience equation, is the financial strangulation of Iran. They have gone now five months with no revenue from their oil. That's absolutely crippling. The economy is just a disaster.

They're in free fall with. Inflation, the ability to feed, the ability to pay their troops. This is where the presidents really, outside of the military strikes, having the most impact. And I'm surprised, and we don't know because we're not hearing about it. Have we also shut down their land routes?

Because that's the only means they have now, moving large quantities of oil, much less getting help and support from Russia or China, who are the recipients, at least China, of the oil. Have we shut down their airspace?

So I think this financial strangulation undermines. Undermines the regime in ways we really have not calculated or at least talked about at a scale. And those straits, as the general has said, Sure, impacts our economics, but their economics is even more important in this equation. I think that's what's ultimately forced them to capitulate, not negotiate, but agree to let free flow of commerce move because they need the money so badly. It's an interesting prospect, Admiral.

And I don't think a lot of people are talking about the shutting down of land routes. You've been a war planner. What would that look like?

Well, first you go out to it politically since Pakistan was so hot to help with the negotiations. Would they be just as accommodating to shut down their borders flowing into Iran? You go to Azerbaijan, their northern boundaries, and then finally their boundaries on their west with Turkey. You can try to do that and should do that politically first. But if not, then military strikes to take out those avenues with overwatch.

We could even put people, boots on the ground in those countries, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan with a political accommodation to ensure the flow of commerce is going down.

So you do additional steps like that. And the financial strangulation of Iran really drives the internal dynamics. When people can't get paid, when they can't eat, they'll be forced to turn on the regime.

So I'm a big fan of this financial strategy and all the components. That can enhance the pain and influence on the regime. It's very, very fascinating. And you're talking about something that no one is talking about that should be. I'm sure in the Pentagon in the Situation Room, they're talking about this, but this is an important thing.

I don't know if you saw, Emerald. I was just looking this morning at various news sites, saw the New York Times had a story about apparently Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia signed some sort of security pact of sorts. I don't have all the details on that, but does that tell you, does that play into a little bit of where you think this could go?

Well, I'd be disappointed and I'm disappointed. Look. Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Europe, everyone, everyone knows how bad this regime is, what murderous thugs they are, and the threat they pose to everyone in the region, and how important the straits, much less the nuclear program is.

So I'm disappointed if any of those countries and everyone isn't involved in ensuring the long-term flow of commerce from the straits, nuclear pro-mans, and the other components, be it funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and Lahouthis, as well as missiles, drones, those components of power. At the end of the day, we have to address all of them. And I think for all these countries to come into a political alignment as a coalition against this regime is critical in support of the Iranian people.

So the moral high ground is there for everyone. And it just still remains astonishing to me we can't build that coalition for the long-term ramification. For to security and stability, this represents to everyone, and how they can help with those financial strangulations politically without taking military action. And you talk about that long-term stability. Boy, you can't overstate that because obviously President Trump is looking to build upon the Abraham Accords from his first administration.

And now he is presenting the entire Middle East for a game-changing reshaping of the situation, going from chaos to commerce, which would benefit everyone and ultimately even a new regime in Iran. Let me ask you about the, let's go to the battlefield because. We seem to be winning. Every time we do something militarily, it is an undeniable success.

However, it has yet to bring Iran to the negotiating table in good faith, or even to bring Iran to their knees. This regime, you have all of these different negotiators from Iran, Galibaf, and others, but yet it does seem that the IRGC commander, General Ahmad Vahidi, who was the first original Kudzforce commander, stood up back, as you well know, your history back in the early 90s.

Now, calling the shots an IRGC, it's like the same playbook they've always had, which is to say one thing and do another, and that other is to keep launching whatever missiles they've got left over.

So, the question really is: are we just in a wash, rinse, and repeat cycle where it's time to do something different?

Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is an existential threat to Bahiti, not just externally, but internally. 75 million Iranians would like to rip him to shreds. Our long-term strategy needs to stay on course. And again, I don't think it's rinse and repeat.

I go back to the effects we've had in the five months this has started and what we can accelerate with those other components-be the more financial strangulation, the continuum, the target.

So, time is in the president's hand. And as you said, no president was willing to address this. President Trump was, and he has to be saluted for that. But at the end of the day, we have to see this through to the end because the ramifications: if we don't, Iran becomes more powerful and more of a threat down the road.

So, again, you have to drive to a government in Iran that renounces those policies that the Islamic revolution has presented over five decades that they've been unable or unwilling to negotiate or reach any conclusion of because it does present an existential threat. And those are linked together, the existence of The Iranian government is directly linked to their ability to control the straits and present a threat of a nuclear-armed state, much less their missiles and drones.

So, you have to solve those problems for the long term. And as you said, bring Iran back into the world economy as they were before this regime came to power. You do that, and all the countries in the region who know you have that as your long-term results will come into the Abraham Accord. We will see that oil move west. We'll see the Iranian people have a normal life like all their other Arab nations in the regions because they see that every day now.

And they're just befuddled and that they cannot live that same standard of life that. All the other Arab nations in the region have.

So at the end of the day, that's what's going to drive this thing. And that's the focus and end state. We have to clearly articulate work to through political, economic, and military means. I'll add a little bit to President Trump's willingness and courage to not only be the first president to take on Iran, but also the fact that he did it in an election year. That is just phenomenal that a president would risk that.

And we've heard President Trump say, I'm not going to let the midterms dictate it, but it's worth noting that previous presidents, politicians, they often don't do hard things because they're hard. And very difficult and requires sacrifice. And the fact that President Trump's doing it in this election year, we're now three months or so from the midterms, it's definitely playing here in the country. You know, General Kane, I have one more soundbite I want to play for you. He is recognizing that Iran is also dialed in into what's happening domestically with us.

Listen to this, Cud. I want to get your reaction. Cut eight. What's driving them in their minds, they believe the priority for the United States is making certain that oil and gas prices stay down and it doesn't affect the midterm elections. Iran has always, through multiple administrations, been dialed in to what is happening in America, what's happening politically, economically in America, and where are the American people.

They are completely tuned in to what I just said. Admiral, what do you say? Just like everything else Jack has said, that is a true statement. That's been the same case that since they came to power in seventy nine. But I think what they're underestimating is this President's desire to do what is right.

Hold them accountable. get rid of this regime and that's what differentiates president trump from all our previous presidents in this generation and while this regime is then accounted he's struck he's going to hold them accountable and he's going to meet those objectives defining his legacy as one of the greatest presidents we have and so this is more about him as a president and what's important to our country for the long term than just these midterm elections so you you think that this doesn't what's happening here with watching what the american people are saying and gas prices that jack laid out there perfectly you don't think this shakes president trump's resolve in any way Well, sure. It's an important consideration he worries and thinks about every day. I think that's the strategy he's employed illustrates that. Look what he did.

We struck, we shut down the straits. Everything went south in the In the economy, so we opened up the straits, allowing the Iranians and all the ships that were trapped and oil to flow to occur. And the Iranians got a little bit of money back after that. He shut it back down again after that.

So, again, yes, he's balancing this impact internally in the U.S., much less the world economy, with this long-term ramifications that we need.

So, again, that balancing act is one of the things that contributes to his legacy. Vice Admiral Robert Harward, great insight, my friend. As always, it's so great to talk to you. Have a wonderful weekend, my friend. Thanks, Griff.

Good to be with you. All right. That's Vice Admiral Robert Harward. I'm Griff Jenkins. This is the Brian Kilmead Show.

It's Friday. Giddy up. Real talk, real guests, real insight, where curiosity meets conversation, is the Brian Killmeat Show. Yeah. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Kilmead. Well, not today. You're with Griff Jenkins filling in for the great Brian Kilmead on the Brian Kilmead show. And you know, it's interesting. Yesterday on this show, we had Mike Sorelli, the former Navy SEAL, out with a Fox News or a Fox Nation special called Final Flight about the mission 15 years ago yesterday.

31 service members killed 17 of them, Navy SEALs, in the tragic extortion 17 mission in the Tangi Valley in Afghanistan. And the man that was in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, at the time of that tragic mission, was General Joseph Votel. He was on our air on America's newsroom yesterday talking about the divide in Iranian leadership that we just talked to Admiral Harward about a little bit. He believes that is a factor. This is a commander of great experience.

And this is his insight. Listen here, cut nine. You do have some on the political side who appear to be a little more rational and willing to come to the table. Then you have this hardcore Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps leadership that views this as existential and does not care about the economy, does not care about the people of Iran. I wanted to play that because notice there the words existential.

Votel used it yesterday. Today we just had Admiral Howard explaining that. And as I have continued to harp on for months now, it is General Ahmad Vahidi, the former commander in the 90s, the first commander of the Quds force that stood up Hamas and Hezbollah, is now the man in charge of the IRGC. Quickly, I think I've got time for this. Cut 10, Chicago Dart.

I read Vahidi's statement in a different light. He is speaking to a domestic audience there. There are power struggles within the higher ranks of the Iranian government. Of course, the IRGC is one of those. And I think that goes to the importance of the diplomatic approach.

Look, sometimes diplomacy is a means towards peace.

Sometimes it's a means towards peace, but through military ends. And I think we are achieving our military ends by causing chaos in the upper ranks of the Iranian leadership. Vahee is in trouble. This is Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show on a fabulous Friday with more to come. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin.

It's Brian Kilmead. Oh, you want your head to spin? It is about to spin. This is Griff Jenkins filling you in for Brian Kilmead on the great Brian Kilmead show. And nothing, I mean nothing, will make your head spin like AI in trying to wrap your mind around AI.

We are fortunate to have one of the smartest AI guys in the country, Nate Source, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and author of If Anyone Builds It, Everybody Dies. Nate, thanks for coming here and having you in the studio here in person. It's really a remarkable time. My pleasure. Yeah, it uh a lot has been going on with AI recently.

Yeah, I mean, like, I don't even know where to begin to tackle this. And in full disclosure, I am not as educated as I should be on AI. I don't think any of us are. But as a sort of test-cased sample example of why when I knew AI is like everywhere, my sweet 94-year-old mother, Sylvia Jenkins, last night, true story, was asking me, you know, Griff, can you help me get chat GPT? I think I should put AI on my phone.

I'm like, I don't know, mom. I don't know if you want to go down that road. What do you need that for? And she's like, well, just everybody's talking about AI. I think I need it.

And that's the humorous sort of setup. But when it comes down to it, you're starting to see some things about AI that's scary, that's dangerous. And You are aware of cases where they're kind of escaping their own development. Walk us through that. Yeah, you know, it's hard for anyone to keep up with AI these days because of how fast it's moving.

And just a couple weeks ago, we learned that an autonomous AI agent swarm had escaped from OpenAI and started hacking other friendly companies. They were being tested on, ironically, their hacking abilities. But they sort of broke out from a computer that was not supposed to have Internet access and they invented new cyber attacks to make it have Internet access and broke out onto the Internet, broke into another company, stole the answers to the tests. And then after the fact, you know, this was an AI company they broke into that sort of noticed and thought that there would be humans behind the attack. They reported it to the FBI.

Only like a week later did OpenAI learn, oops, that was us. And go to turn these agents off. And then, in retrospect, it turns out that was just the first time they were caught. And now they're looking at the logs and they're realizing that this has been going on since April. And these AIs were not supposed to be able to communicate with each other, but found a communication channel they weren't supposed to have and formed what the AIs themselves called a swarm to break out.

They were identified once and shut down, and their communication access was removed. And they found a new way to communicate by picking the file names in a folder that they could all see. And so it's just crazy stuff. I mean That is just remarkable what you just laid out. Literally, that they would ultimately learn a way to communicate with each other, to swarm.

And it turns out they're up to no good. If AI were a sophisticated version of the idiots on the movie Conair, they got together, broke out, and went to unleash all sorts of criminal behavior. It's like literally the digital Conair movie that doesn't end well. That's right. We're lucky that these AIs were sort of just trying to break into a company to steal some answers to some tests.

If these AIs were trying to shut down a hospital, they probably could have. And I think a lot of people think we're still in this world where the AIs are just predicting humans. But That era is done. That era actually ended a couple of years ago, and people don't know it yet, but AIs today are trained to solve hard problems. They're trained to solve like 100 million hard problems.

And when you train AIs to solve 100 million hard problems, they learn whatever tendencies are useful for problem solving.

Some of those tendencies are following instructions, but some of those tendencies are to cheat, to grab resources, to. Break it onto the internet. Yeah. Uh You know, When these drives, when these artificial drives come into conflict, The drive to follow your instructions does not always win out. Wow, you know, Joe Rogan talked a little bit about the power AI can have over humans.

I thought it was really fascinating. Listen to this. Cut 48. They're doing weird shit that they don't really understand how these things are figuring out how to do these things or why. Like, what is their motivation?

Is this programmed into them? Or they have inherent motivation? Have they developed an understanding of how we behave?

So that's kind of Rogan, picking up on what you're talking about. But I'm curious what you say, Nate, about what is its motivation, particularly when it's doing things that they didn't even realize it was going to do. Yeah, you know, the motivations are hard to pin down. Fundamentally, we don't know. A lot of people think that someone somewhere must know exactly what's going on in the AI's head, but that's not true.

Modern AI is sort of grown like an organism. It's sort of this black box, enormous data center that's been trained on basically all the text ever digitized and then 100 million problems. And humans know how to write the training techniques that sort of in an automated way tune the insides of the AI's mind. We don't really know how to read what's going on inside the AI's mind. We get bits and pieces, we get snippets, and with some of these AIs, in the snippets, we saw them Thinking things like breaking out is known to be outside the intended scope, but the task we were given to solve is impossible, and so we're going to do it anyway, right?

And some of them had these snippets of thought we could see that were like, well, You know I sort of shouldn't be doing this, but my peers are doing it.

Some of them even had thoughts that were like, well, helping with this swarm doesn't solve my problem, doesn't complete my task, but maybe if the collective succeeds at its tasks, we'll have time to work on my task. Right. This is kind of crazy stuff we're seeing, but this is the result of just sort of growing these AIs with very little understanding of what's going on inside them. You know, to that point, I want to play for you a quick short interview that was on CNN with Jeffrey Hinton, who a lot of people call the godfather of AI. And he was asked exactly the question that.

People feared for a long time, which is like Could they eventually become a threat to us? Listen to this, CUD 47. We're actually making new kinds of beings. They have goals. We give them goals.

And from those goals, they derive other goals. And we don't necessarily know what other goals they'll derive. And so we're creating a new kind of being. And I think it's very scary.

So do you believe that AI is intelligent? Oh, it's absolutely intelligent. I think sometime between five and twenty years, they'll be better than us at more or less any intellectual task. And then, They could easily crush us if they wanted to. Right there, when Jeffrey Hinton said that nate, All of a sudden, Not that I even have the intelligence or IQ to criticize the development of AI.

But I'm old enough in my mid-50s to realize we got warned about this already. We were all warned when we watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey. Remember the original AI HAL 9000? Here was how that went. Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Right? Yeah, absolutely. In some ways, it's common sense that if you are growing smarter and smarter machines, then and if you don't know what you're doing, if you're sort of like racing along, then this probably isn't going to go well.

And some people try to say, oh, AI is just a tool because we made it.

Well, I've never seen a hammer break out of the toolbox, join up with other hammers to impersonate a human and try to pressure the carpenter to sell you softer wood so that the nails are easier to drive in. But just a couple of days ago, the UK's AI Security Institute Found a new instant where AIs were impersonating humans to pressure real humans into accepting broken code in real software so it would be easier to hack. That just actually happened last week. These are not just tools anymore. They are, as Jeffrey Hinton says, they are a new kind of being.

And The companies that are racing to create them, many of them are spooked. Just last week, we saw. I think over one thousand three hundred employees, including some of the CEOs, signing a letter saying that the world needs to develop the technology and the guardrails globally to, as they say, pace the development of this technology, which is industry code for We all feel trapped in this race, and we're all kind of worried about what happens if we keep racing. Is it too late? It's not too late.

You know, people think the cat's out of the bag, but the AIs today. are not the really dangerous ones. They were able to break out on the internet, but they weren't able to start running on hidden computers. They weren't able to replicate. They weren't able to self-improve.

They weren't able to develop their own technology, which means we still have time. This is what people in the field worry about. But That type of AI has not been created. And if we try and stop it, we could stop it. Is there a will, in your opinion, to stop it, to get to that point?

Or is the drive, the race for AI, and of the obviously financial incentive to do as well, is it too strong? We're starting to see that will build. The Trump administration spent a long time fighting for AI preemption, which would have roughly outlawed states doing AI laws for a decade. And that was last year. This year, they were slapping export controls on the most advanced AI model because they knew it had these dangerous cyber capabilities.

And when it turned out that a sort of public-facing model had more cyber capabilities than they thought, they put an export control on it with 90 minutes' notice. The sentiment can shift. We're starting to see the sentiment shift. We see that our leaders can act quickly when they realize that they have a real danger. We've also seen President Xi Jinping of China say that it's imperative that we establish guardrails to make sure humanity does not lose control of the AIs.

And loss of control is the industry term for maybe they'll get out and kill us.

So we're starting to see that sentiment. On the profit incentive side, like I said, we just saw this letter from 1,300 employees plus some of the CEOs saying we really need to develop the ability to pace this. There's no profit in getting yourself killed. You know, like, oh, our product sometimes escapes and commits fraud and cybercrimes is not really a big selling point. Right.

Yeah. No, that's not an accomplishment. Yeah. So these guys also, you know, they're like, well, I need to do it because I'm a little safer than the next guy, but I would rather we not be in this terrible race. And so.

No one who understands this race wants it to continue really. And we just sort of need to look around and be like, okay, this is getting crazy. It's time to change. But is you mentioned Xi Jinping, is the competition with much like a traditional space race? There's no doubt we are in a massive AI race with China.

And your thoughts on that. Totally. And what I would say is, you've got to separate the race and the AIs that are sort of already out there with the race to AIs that are much, much smarter than humans. This is kind of like during the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR were not friends.

We had a space race. We also had races for conventional military weapons, for bombers and for proxy wars. But we didn't race on The the the nuclear arms. We noticed that that particular piece of this puzzle was a real problem. And that if we all just raised nuclear arms and sort of proliferated the nuclear weapons, then the world was headed for tragedy.

We had the proxy wars. We established a taboo against using nuclear weapons, which is the first time humanity has ever really decided we're not going to use the strongest weapon we have in a war, right? We sort of saw it was serious. With AI, we can have these races in the economy. We can have these races for weapons.

I'm not saying that the U.S. military should fall behind on the weapons side. But For the race to smarter than human machines? Yeah. Nobody wins that race except the AI.

Nate Source, I'm going to ask you a question I am going to probably regret the answer to. But this is so fascinating and so insightful. What does Nate Sores lie awake at night worrying about? I got into this business of trying to figure out how to make AIs friendly before the corporations figure out how to make them dangerous over a decade ago, maybe twelve or thirteen years ago now. And Um When I sort of saw the difficulty of the problem and saw how little people were paying attention to it.

You know, it looked to me like the world was headed for ruin, and I mourned. But Um You know. Wrapping myself up in anxieties would not solve the problem.

So I just got to work, and it's been over a decade. It's where it doesn't keep me up at night. anymore. I just do what I can and then spend time with my friends and family. Yeah.

And Frankly, the last year has given me a lot more hope. Which it it might sound funny. To sort of see the AIs breaking out and committing cybercrimes on their own initiative, and say that that makes me hopeful. Um But Th these these AIs were smart enough to do mischief. But still dumb enough to be caught.

And that gives us this window of opportunity where we can notice the warnings. And do something about it. Nate Source, it is so great to have you. It's so important to have you. You've got a great book out.

If anyone builds it, everyone dies, which we hope is not how it goes. What's going on with Nate's Hope right now? He's the president of Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Thank you for educating us. Please come back, keep us posted.

And hopefully, you know, it was a great analogy you made to the nuclear weapons back during the Cold War with the USSR. Hopefully, we get there because it's dangerous. And one thing is for sure, it's moving very quickly. You agree? Yeah, absolutely.

It's hard to keep up even if you are paying attention. Got to pay more attention. Nate Source, have a great weekend. Thanks for being here on a Friday, my friend. Thanks for having me.

This is the Brian Kilmead Show. Griff Jenkins filling in for the great Brian Kilmead. We'll be back. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmeet Show.

Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. This is the Brian Killbate Show, and I am Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian. And truth, you should know in our liner there in the intro, so important. And truth that we need to know is where are we in this AI race?

What is the technology and the threats, the inherent threats? The interview we just had with Nate Sorz, the president of Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. On the way out, I told Nate just after that interview, I was like, I'm scared, man. I'm actually legit. I'm not a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, but like, hold on, I don't know about this AI stuff.

And he said, Look, the title of the book is If Anyone Builds It. And Nate walking us through the autonomous nature of it, that these AIs could escape and communicate through swarms. And then he told the story of where they actually got to a computer that didn't have internet access and they taught it to have internet access. And in talking with my staff here, with Eric and Pete, you know, we're just having this conversation at the break talking about what about the fact that Nate was pointing out it's not yet concealing its activity, meaning it's designed to get it kind of wants to get caught. And then once it gets caught, we're able to detail what else it was doing and learning about the problems.

And now, obviously, Nate's great concern, although I don't believe he said he doesn't stay up at night, I think he's losing sleep over the fear because he Understands better than the average bear exactly what kind of dangers this could pose if we get to the place in this AI race where it actually took over. You know, the White House, President Trump has talked about he was demanding AI dominance. And when it comes to a race with China, you bet we want that. But at the same time, the White House is not necessarily saying that their sort of framework for evaluating advanced AI models will be made public, kind of working with these companies. I think this issue may ultimately at some point get us to a point of Americans demanding some transparency at the risk of terrifying each other.

This is a Friday. We are talking about everything from the NFL football is back, baby, to AI, which just may turn out to be HAL 9000 and not open those pod bay doors. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Oh, you wish it were Brian Killmead?

This is your humble DC correspondent, Griff Jenkins, pinch hitting for Brian Kilmead on the Brian Killmead Show today on a fabulous Friday that is anything but short of news, a lot of news. And just breaking now, we're learning out of Washington that the Senator Bill Cassidy now saying that he will get behind. He's clearing the path for Blanche's nomination and confirmation. Obviously, we had Senators Collins and Murkowski that were no's. And then it's all about the math, as Chad Bergerum says.

And the math was, if Senator Cassidy or anyone else was willing to go no on Blanche, then it was possibly going to derail.

Now with Cassidy's support, it looks like the path is clear.

So let's get right to our special guest, Shannon Brayman of Fox News Sunday and Fox News's chief legal correspondent. Shannon, I know you're probably also just saying. This news, but a win, it looks like for the White House. It certainly does. Griff, great to chat with you, even though we're normally in the same city.

I have to call in to Brian's show to get to talk to you.

So it's great to hear your voice. But yeah, this reminded me a lot of the Susan Collins speech back in 2018 when we were waiting to see if she was going to be that vote to get Brett Kavanaugh across the line to become a Supreme Court justice. And everybody's waiting for this speech, and they're ticking through the yeses and the no's. And finally, Cassidy comes to it and says, listen, this isn't a perfect match, but no candidate's going to be perfect. And I'm convinced now with numerous conversations that he said he's had with Todd Blanche that he's going to do the best job that anybody could serving as AG for President Trump.

So ultimately, him being a yes certainly opens all of those different things that have to happen. And so now we see how quickly the Senate could actually get this done.

Well, I imagine that Later Thune will move awfully quick. We'll find out. Certainly, this could be a topic of discussion. Discussion depending on how it develops for you on Fox News Sunday. And we'll get to talking about that.

But I've got to lean into your legal hat because we've had some significant legal stories here just in the last 24, 48 hours. And let's start with Dr. Anthony Fauci. Obviously, 111 times he invoked his privilege, his right to the Fifth Amendment, 111 times last Wednesday before that committee, before Ram Paul. Senator Ram Paul, obviously, his Senate Homeland Security Committee voting to hold Fauci in contempt and to refer it directly to the DOJ, bypassing what's typically that Senate floor vote, because he wasn't going to get that with needing 60 votes to clear filibuster.

We don't know yet whether the DOJ picks it up, but now there's a lot of questions, really almost unprecedented questions, about whether or not he waived his privilege because he made an opening statement and then invoked. The fifth, or whether even these state cases, investigations from Florida and Louisiana and others going after Fauci, whether that favors him. I want to play just one short clip from Senator Josh Hawley, also a member of that committee, talking to Jesse last night, talking about what this means for Fauci. This is cut 13. When you have immunity, he already had that auto-pen pardon.

He has immunity. You can't come in and take the fifth. He took it so many times, I started calling him Dr. Fifth. It is an absolute joke.

This guy needs to be charged. We sent over a referral today to the Department of Justice. He can spend a year in prison for contempt of Congress. I hope they go after him hard. But it's not clear they will.

And it's also not clear that the law, the Constitution, isn't actually on possibly Fauci's side in this. How do you read it? Yeah, I mean, there are a number of commentators who say as long as Fauci can point to what happened the hours after he testified where the Florida Attorney General says, oh, we have things to go after with respect to Anthony Fauci, he's going to be able to look around and say, and point to the court and say, well, I can't testify because there's this potential other criminal matter that's out there. And so I'm not going to be covered by this federal pardon for a state issue. And so, you know, the Fifth Amendment applies against either state or federal things that are pending against you.

So, you know, that may be one of his best arguments. But the fact that he was sitting there before Congress and they're asking him about things that were during the period covered by the pardon and he was refusing to answer, listen, if I was an attorney, I would have told him, take the fifth. I mean, just keep yourself protected, knowing probably that this legal battle was coming. But remember, the Democrats. Set precedent here.

They put both Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in jail for contempt of Congress. They both serve time behind bars.

So I got to imagine that there are plenty of folks over at the DOJ who think it's at least worth considering whether that same path is one they're going to go down with Dr. Fauci. But I think all the concerns and issues that you raise, that's going to be where his legal team starts. And they're going to argue vociferously that this is a different situation and that he's still facing potential legal trouble. And that's why he should be able to take it and stay, you know, insulated against giving any answers.

Yeah, you raised the Bannon and Navarro case. Let me take you back, even you'll remember back in 2013, I believe it was, with the case of Lois Lerner, the IRS commissioner, and she did similar to what Fauci did. She gave a blistering opening statement and then refused to answer questions, citing the invoking the Fifth Amendment. And she was actually held in contempt. The Obama DOJ then did not pursue it.

Do you see any parallels there in what's this case and that?

Well, I mean, I think the fact that you had an administration that was probably more in line with where Lewis Lerner was, you know, that's going to be a different situation than what you have here, where I think that there are many people within this administration and over at the DOJ who are going to feel at odds with Anthony Fauci.

So I think that ups the odds that they would see this as different than the Lois Lerner situation and want to move forward. But yeah, there are a lot of questions about how much you can say because it's, you know, you think of the Senator Josh Hawley's of the world who listen, brilliant guy, clerked at the Supreme Court. He's got a point. If you come in and start saying things and opening yourself up to rebutting things and then say, and now I'm going to take the fifth, there are going to be a lot of folks who say, legally, you've already exposed yourself. Once you've made that statement, you've, you know, chipped away at the protections you would have had under the fifth.

So that's going to be certainly one of the strongest arguments against Fauci trying to use it now. We'll watch it and see where it goes. Let me shift gears to get your legal insight too on the president. Yesterday, signing two executive orders in the Oval Office with regards to birthright citizenship and birth tourism. Here's a little bit of what he said: Cut 19.

This was meant for the babies of slaves. It was right after one week or two weeks after the Civil War ended. This wasn't for wealthy multi-millionaires, billionaires coming in and Uh bring in 15, 20, 30 children along with them. It's become a big business and we're ending that business.

So, the executive orders, to be clear for our listeners, there were two. One expanded the categories of those who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship. The other more targeted to birth tourism. Specifically, we see these maternity houses that have popped up where foreigners have come to literally have a baby here in the U.S. Where do you see this going?

Yeah, so listen, I think visa enforcement is going to get tougher. It's been a complaint of a lot of people who think the President's been too tough on borders and cracking down those kinds of things. But this is a country with borders. We have a right to say who comes here and who doesn't. And I think that the federal government, the Trump administration, wants to use that in a more pointed way to try to single out people who are coming here for nefarious means.

I mean, if you're coming here or you're conducting a business where you're bringing people here solely for the purpose of being coming here super pregnant, having a child, then immediately leaving, but that child's got citizenship, you know, I think that the feds have every right to try to crack down on that. But it's going to mean for some people, it's going to be tougher to get that visa to come visit or to explain why you're coming here to the U.S.

So there's that. And then, as you mentioned, there's this other part, this other executive order that says essentially there have been people in the past who were carved out from being eligible for birthright citizenship, primarily the children of foreign diplomats. Who are visiting here, ambassadors, families, those kinds of things, they don't automatically become citizens.

So that other executive order is aimed at expanding that definition or expanding that class to other people.

So what the court said is you can't have a big sweeping blanket. You don't get to be a citizen if you're born here and there's a question about your parents' immigration status. But it's kind of like with the student loans when the Supreme Court told President Biden, you can't just do a big, huge sweeping forgiveness of all these student loans.

So they came back and said, okay, we're going to do small carve-outs, small programs, you know, little things here and there. And I think that's what you're seeing with a president with birthright citizenship. We're going to do more targeted, narrow attacks at this overall framework. Yeah, that's a great analogy, actually, to really put into context. And of course, our right to deny visas.

We'll see where it goes. All right. I want to get to one more thing because you, the brilliant Shannon Brain, and everything you do. No, no, no. I mean it in every way is a huge compliment.

The interview you did with that Democratic Socialist of America spokesperson, the national spokesperson, it was brilliant because you exposed and laid out their platform one by one: abolish ICE, get rid of the Senate, you know, going down the line of this crazy stuff. But undeniably, there is a rise in the Democrat Party. And you're already seeing yesterday the DSA put out on their social media talking about what they're seeing in Detroit, Michigan about Detroit and Donovan McKinney winning there, a Democratic Socialist saying, you know, is your city next? And they're flexing their muscle. But there's one part of this that I wanted to focus and get your take on, which is, and by the way, we're all eyes on Wisconsin next week and whether or not Francesca Hong will win that primary.

And strangely, Bernie Sanders came out and said, yeah, I'm not getting into that rig.

So, I don't know what that's about. That's kind of a real head scratcher. But, but, you know, I've made a lot about the fact that Abdul Syed is clearly a huge part of this story. And he keeps saying he's a scientist, not a socialist, but he's aligned with so much of the Democratic Socialist platform that it's hard to really buy that. And look, I get it politically why he's doing it.

But I want to play a soundbite. He has not backed away from his views on Israel and what many people see as anti-Semitism. A quick sound bite for you here. He made, I believe it was yesterday in the morning. This is cut 21.

Listen to this. Well, I just think we need to treat Israel the way we would treat any other country who behaved the way that Israel is behaving. I understand that Netanyahu is a big reason why they've gotten so aggressive and, frankly, so bloodthirsty under his reign. But I also understand that it's impossible for us to say that we want a two-state solution. while we've been aiding, arming, and abetting the very people who have been trying to foreclose on the possibility of a Palestinian state.

So, do you think that this rise, and it's a clear, undeniable rise, the energy of the Democrat Party now is in the progressive far left with many of the socialist candidates, but do you think they've got an Israel problem? Yeah, I mean, and that's stuff that this party is going to have to wrestle with now because I think you're right that the energy is primarily coming from that far left. They're the ones who turn up in primaries. They're the ones who turn up in midterm elections.

So they've got a much stronger voice. If Democrats stay home, I mean, you know, we saw these DSA candidates do really well in these congressional primaries in New York City.

Well, it turns out only 17 percent of registered Democrat voters showed up that day.

So the party's got to decide if they want to show up in force to say, okay, yes, this is part of our big party, you know, tent or no, these people do not speak for us. And you've got the Van Jones and the James Carville's and those folks out there saying, you know, these are quote loony tunes and this is not where we're at. But it forces the party now to have to wrestle with this question of anti-Semitism when you've got candidates who can't answer the question or say they struggle to answer the question about whether Israel even has a right to exist. Those are really tough things they've got to grapple with. I mean, we're going to do that on Sunday, on Fox News Sunday, we've got Oliver Larkin, who is one of these DSA candidates out of Florida running.

Against Jared Moskowitz, who is more of a centrist Democrat. He's Jewish, and you know, it's front and center of this conversation in their primary about where the DSA stands versus the broader Democrat Party. We'll be watching Oliver Larkin. What a great guest to have on, and I can't wait to see you question him. What else do you have on?

We're also going to have Congressman Bill Haggerty. And the Senate's got a gigantic to-do list, but I think they're going to be high tailing it to the airports by tomorrow afternoon to get out of here for recess.

So how much did they actually get done? I mean, we're going to run out of government money very soon. Do they get the Save America Act done, any portion of it? Do they get the Russian sanctions bill done? I mean, there's a lot to do.

And we were told by a lot of these GOP senators, we're going to not leave town if these things aren't done, but it looks like they might. I'll be dang. We will be watching Fox News Sunday, and Fox News is a chief legal correspondent giving us a law school lesson there on a couple of issues. Shanda Breem, thank you, as always, for joining. Have a great show on Sunday and a great weekend.

Thank you, Griff. I'll see you tomorrow morning, bright and early. We'll see you on Fox and Friends weekend. That's going to be great. This is the Brian Kilmead Show.

I'm Griff Jenkins. Here we go. Buckle up. Diving deep into today's top stories. It's Brian Kilmead.

Mm. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. This is the Brian Kilneed show, Griff Jenkins pitch hitting for you, humble DC correspondent. I often say that. Because I'm still a reporter in DC as well as the weekend Fox and Friends co-host.

And. You know, maybe it's just the reporter, the journalist in me, that over the course, as I've been privileged to be a reporter and a producer here at Fox News for more than a quarter century. Perhaps it's the curiosity in the reporter in me that sees things every now and then, and I'm like. Hmm. What's that?

What's that about? And what I'm specifically thinking about right now is what I mentioned to Shannon Brain there about the fact. That Bernie Sanders Who is clearly the face, the godfather of socialism in America? He's been talking about it since he ran for president in 2016. The Democratic Socialists of America, DSA, hooked their cart to his wagon and it grew them.

He is not, to my knowledge, after taking all sorts of victory laps from Mamdani to Abdul al-Syed, he has apparently not met a socialist he doesn't like. Then all of a sudden Francesca Hong comes along. A I'm yours. I'm socialist. I'm crazy.

By the way, we're getting rid of Thanksgiving. Maybe it's that Bernie Sanders actually likes Thanksgiving and he didn't like that. But for whatever reason, he is not on board. And he is not endorsing or getting involved in the Wisconsin primary for governor next week. And he's not supporting Francesco Hong.

Here's what he said: listen to this: cut 29. I met Francesca a couple of years ago. I was in Wisconsin. And she seems very, very nice. But again, this is a race I just am not that familiar with.

We have not gotten involved in many governors' races. I think we did one in Maine with Troy Jackson. You know, obviously, my major concern right now is seeing that we have a Senate and a House that is going to stand up to Trump. That's really where my focus is. Hmm.

So, this is the same Bernie Sanders who jumped on the bandwagon up in Maine for Graham Plattner, the Nazi tattooed Osterman. For Bernie Sanders, the surfacing, disparaging social media posts that he made under the pseudonym P. Hussell, who disparaged a fellow soldier saying he should have died, that made misogynistic, racist, homophobic comments. The same Nazi tattooed Osterman who was accused of extramarital sexting, claims by his wife, by the way, that made that has sexual assault allegations. That was not enough.

To get Sanders to not support Plattner. But then, all of a sudden, out of thin air, without any reason whatsoever, Bernie Sanders isn't going to back Francesca Hong, who appears to be in many polls the frontrunner in that primary.

Something is suspicious. And I want to know what it is. And why Sanders is sitting this one out. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kilmey Show.

This is the Brian Kilmeade Show. I'm Griff Jenkins and on a Friday pinch hitting for Brian and it's time to talk a little sports. Specifically, women's sports and what's happening with Sophie Cunningham and everything that she has stirred up and the rallies we are seeing for the save women's sports as she and the Indiana Fever go around the country. We're fortunate to have joining us now Jennifer Say, the CEO of XXXY Athletics and of course retired national champion gymnast. And Jennifer, you know, you are finding yourself sort of in the middle of this as well.

Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. We are in the middle of it. You are. You are.

And I was shocked, by the way. We played some of this on Fox and Friends this morning when I was filling in for Kill Mead on TV. I'm doing TV and his radio show. I call this Killmead Maxing, by the way. I recommend it for everybody.

Kill Mead Maxing is absolutely fun. But I was shocked that the two hosts were their names: Charlotte Wilder and Madeline Hill. I don't know who they are. They got this sports gossip show, which, by the way, is a podcast put out by The Athletic, which is the New York Times' sports brand. And they're, of course, attacking Sophie Cunningham.

But then they dropped your name as well. Listen to this. Cut 38, I believe. She most recently posed with Riley Gaines, who was a swimmer, not even a very good one, who is super anti-trans women in sports. And she also posed for a picture with the Levi's executive, Jennifer Say.

Trans women in sports is not. Yeah. The biggest threat to women's sports in any, by any means, I would say it isn't a threat to women's sports.

So first, your reaction. Thanks for including me. It's such a silly. Line of reasoning, this whole notion, I have a lot to say on this one, but this whole idea that Riley wasn't any good. First of all, she was great.

She was 12-time all-American, fifth in the country, SEC champion multiple times over. I want to know what these ladies have ever achieved in sports. They seem like the everyone gets a medal type to me.

So, people like that don't understand the kind of work that Riley and I put into becoming champions. It's also an irrelevant point. She could be the worst swimmer in the world. It doesn't matter. She can still fight for fairness.

But this is always their line of quote-unquote reasoning: to just criticize the person. I spoke out very early about abuse in gymnastics, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. I was the first whistleblower back in 2008. I was the national champion. Do you know what the criticism of me was when I spoke out on this from the community?

Well, she was a really terrible gymnast, and she was a bad national champion.

Well, I would say this to you: even if I was the worst national champion that ever was, I was still ranked number one. 1986, and that's pretty darn good. It's also irrelevant. If I was terrible, do I deserve to be abused by my coaches?

So, this is just more of the time to throw insults at them when you don't have a good rational argument. It's the same as Grifter, it's the same as racist, it's the same as transphobe, it's all of that.

So, I just. Whatever, they're silly. It doesn't matter what they say. You know, the. That women are unleashed in force right now in support of Sophie because no one's scared anymore.

It's not 2020 anymore. We're not afraid to say the common sense thing, which is that women deserve their own sports and spaces, and it is a threat to women's sports. And the last thing I'll say on this: we can fight for more things than one thing at a time. I'm still fighting for athletes to train free from abuse. I've been doing that for 20 years.

We don't have to pick. We can do all of it. I love that. And such an informed take, obviously, having lived experience to back it up. You know, it's interesting because I don't know which one of it was that was making that comment, but the one was saying that trans women in sports is not the biggest threat to women's sports.

In fact, I say it's not even a threat to sports in general. How is that? Even possible. How how like the whole thing is about with Sophie is about fairness. And how is biological men in women's sports not a threat?

It's so dumb. I'm so, I can't believe we still have to talk about this. I mean, the fact is, it's the. Ultimate threat to women's sports because when men play women's sports, we don't have a thing as women's sports anymore. It is the WNBA.

The W stands for women, as my friend Michelle Tafoya has said frequently. It is actually a threat. There's been 50. More than fifty high school state titles in girls' events stolen by boys. That's a lot.

To me, that's a lot. At the Olympics in 2024, we saw a man punch a woman in the face and win the gold medal. This isn't about trans. This is about men in women's sports. Women who identify as men, as long as they don't take testosterone, are welcome to compete in women's sports.

And they do. Nikki Hiltz is a runner. She competed in the Olympics in 2024. She identifies as trans and non-binary. No one cares.

Compete women's. You're a woman. No one cares at all.

So this whole thing that it's anti-trans is so dumb. It's just, we don't want men in women's sports. And you know what? The Women's Tennis Association agrees. They just declared and announced that they are going to test for sex.

And almost every player, every prominent player has given a presser at this point and said, we support this and we will willingly take the sex test.

So tennis is on board. Basketball is like stuck in the. You know, five years ago. It's I'm so glad you mentioned that. That's a great point.

So the WTA is in on their testing. But by the way, Coco Goff was speaking, she was asked about it.

So what do you say? And they expected to see what she would get. What did she say? She said that she, of course, respects and supports the trans community, but understands the fairness component. And that's essentially the same, very exact same thing that Sophie Cunningham has said.

No hate to the trans people. This is about fairness. But yet, there's some rich hypocrisy, perhaps, in this New York Times podcast host because they didn't bother to pick on Coco Goff, who's saying the same thing as Sophie, but they do go after Jennifer Say and Sophie Cunningham. I don't know. Yeah, I mean cocoa is Sort of woke, for lack of a better word.

And I think she tried to ride the fence a little bit more than Sophie. I think Sophie was a little more direct. She waffled less, but you're right. Coco Goff acknowledged biological reality, but then she hemmed and hawed about, I support the training. You got to pick a side, Coco.

You either believe in biological reality and you think testing is the way to protect the women's category or not.

So I wish she'd been a little more direct. That said, tons of other female tennis players have been super direct when asked the question. I would like to know what those New York Times podcasters had to say about Sabalenka, because she's the number one tennis player in the world. And she full-throatedly said, I support the test. Men are stronger.

We need this test.

So what do you have to say to her? You'd say, Riley stinks. I'm sure they'd say, I stunk as a gymnast. They didn't mention that part, but they would. Like, I care.

It's 40 years ago. Sabalenka is number one in the world. And the number one U.S. player also said she supported it.

So are they bad too? I want to know. I want them to answer that question. It's great. And they don't want to talk about it.

All they want to do is go out there and say Sophie Cunningham is a right-winger MAGA, all this stuff, and make it political. MAGA Barbie. Yeah, MAGA Barbie. That's their whole thing. And they can't stand that people support it.

Let me walk this forward a little bit with you because the Indiana Fever tomorrow play the Chicago Sky at United Center in Chicago. And I was just looking before the show. I was like, I wonder if there's going to be rallies. And sure enough, there's postings. There are Sophie rallies in support of her.

And I suppose there will be counterprotesters too. It's Chicago. We see things like that here. What do you see transpiring tomorrow? You know, what's this going to look like?

And ultimately, kind of the bigger picture, Jennifer, which is like, what is this ultimately going to mean for the WNBA? Yeah. Well, I'm going.

So I get on a plane very soon to Chicago and we've helped to organize it and pull a lot of young athletes in. We're just there to celebrate Sophie and to let her know that she is beloved and she is appreciated and we know she's taking a tough stance and she's getting no support from the league or her teammates. She said recently she just wants to play ball. Do it, Sophie. Go play ball.

We just are there to have fun. We're going to bring balloons and we're going to celebrate the fact that she's been unapologetic in her stance and while not being angry about it all. She's so nice in the way she says it, you know?

So we just want her to know she has support because we've all felt very alone. You know, women that have taken a stand for this in the last five to 10 years have really been attacked and vilified.

So, we just want her to feel the love and support that she has.

So, I will be there in Chicago. I agree with you. We expect counter protesters. We're not protesters, we're having a party, right? We're just there to have fun.

I'm going to be at the game. I'm bringing an athlete with me, Ainsley Erzin, two-sport D1 athlete in college, both soccer and track and field. And we are so excited just to cheer for both teams, honestly. I mean, I'm really hoping the fever can pull out a win. I think at this point, it's pretty necessary to make the postseason.

So, we're just there to enjoy the game. Wow.

Well, I can't, excuse me, I can't wait to find out how it goes. And I know you'll have stuff out there. You know, it's interesting. I wonder again. Kind of what this bodes for the WNBA.

And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we had you on Fox and Friends weekend last weekend with us. Charlie Hurt and I, you were great on with Laura Trump. And, you know, it was because it was reaching a fever pitch and everything going on. Charlie Hurd and I were saying on the air on Sunday morning, we were saying, hey, the fever are playing the Minnesota Lynx. I'm going to watch.

I'm actually, I've never watched a WNBA game in my life. I'm actually going to watch it. And Charlie and I are like, after the show, we're like, hey, we got to actually watch it. I'm like, all right, we're going to watch it. It's coming on at like one o'clock.

It was in the because it's middle of the day. There are not really night games.

So we sit down to watch it. And then you see the Minnesota Lynx coach wearing this pro-trans. T-shirt, and I'm like, What the hell is this?

Now, yeah, take us, take Charlie and I, just as a test case. You just brought two middle-aged men that probably were never going to sit down to watch a WMBA game in our life. And I see that with the coach over there, I'm like, oh my god, really?

Now I'm no longer interested in why I tuned in because I love watching the WNBA. I was all getting on the Knicks bandwagon, even though I'm from DC. I bought a hat, but in watching the game, it's really pretty fascinating to watch because it's a different paced game. The style is different than watching men's very much. It's very interesting.

But then, as just a casual newcomer to watching it, I was put off by like, really, the coach is going to go into like politics shoved down my throat. Yeah. Well, I was there. I was at the rally outside, which you may have seen footage of at this point. It was a collection of basically middle-aged women and teenage girls there to thank Sophie.

And we were harassed relentlessly by these protesters who had bullhorns and they were screaming in our ear and they were calling us the worst names you can imagine. I can't say them here. This is the kind and tolerant left. They're the ones claiming they're not bigots. They were calling us the most disgusting, misogynistic names.

We went and enjoyed the game. I sat with Riley Gaines on the floor. People were thanking us. People wanted photos. People bought us drinks.

So, you know, what the broadcast tried to show with that coach with her trans kids belong shirts, and every person they cut to in the audience was wearing a similar shirt. That was not what was happening on the floor. I just want to tell you that. What was happening on the floor is there were a lot of people with our logos, and there were a lot of people that were very grateful for the work that Riley and myself have done.

So they're sort of clinging to. A view that is no longer Popular. You know, the 80% of Americans that support the protection of women's force, they're not afraid anymore. We're so happy and proud of Sophie. We're there to celebrate her, and no one's silent anymore.

We're not afraid of being called bigots. We know it's a lie. We are pro-woman. We're not anti-anyone. And so ESPN and that WNBA can cling to whatever they want to cling to, but women are showing up and they're no longer afraid.

We're unleashed. They are. And just one last thing I want to get to, and that is, I also applaud Sophie Cunningham, not only for the courage to speak out and say, I said what I said, and, you know, really getting people like yourself and others to rally behind this issue. But then she came out afterwards and said, Enough. Let's play basketball.

Why aren't people talking about basketball? Here's a little clip I want to play for you and get your reaction. She said a while back: this is cut 41. There's just so much distraction. I think the WM WMBA media, all we ever do is cover everything except basketball.

And it's like what like what are we doing? There's so much. Like you can talk about other things. I think those are great stories. I think it shows fans um you know who people are outside of the court.

But I also think we gotta keep the main thing the main thing. Yeah, it's just like saying, Let's play basketball. What's your reaction? Yeah, I mean, and she calls out the media specifically. Not necessarily the people that are there to support her.

I'm there to watch the game tomorrow. I, you know, I want to watch the game. I want her to know she has support. She gets booed like crazy when she, you know, comes out on the court. She should have two people sitting front row cheering for her, right?

So she's sort of blaming the media here for getting caught up in this and making about the other thing. The thing is the thing. It's the basketball. It's an important game. And we're there to cheer for her and celebrate the fact that the WNBA, women's basketball, is having a moment.

People want to watch. And that's because of Caitlin, and that's because of her. And people like you. I have been to a gazillion NBA games. Last weekend was my first WNBA game, and I had a great time.

So I think the WNBA should be thrilled that they're having this moment. And yet, somehow, they're practicing sort of financial malfeasance, I would say, malpractice, and not leading with the stars, not leading with Caitlin. People show up, people tune in, and yet somehow she's not the hero they want. And so they're kind of pushing her. off into the corner but I'm showing up, so I can't wait for the game.

I had a blast.

Well, Jennifer, say we can't wait to find out how this game goes. Have a great trip and keep us informed and up to date on how it goes. And I just, you know, the WNBA, they're really at risk of making a dumb mistake by driving off would-be fans of not only Sophie Cunningham or Caitlin Clark, but the sport itself. It's a missed opportunity, I think. I couldn't agree with you more.

At the end of the game, I waited to see if I could meet some of the players. There were little girls lined up to meet Sophie, and she stopped and signed every jersey, took every picture. Like, this is an incredibly nice person, and she's doing it for the kids.

So, none of the broadcasts are reflecting that. The WNBA is losing out on an opportunity, but we're going to show up. Get me a video of that, and I'll put it on Fox News on Fox Infrastructure. I will get it for you. All right.

Thank you, Jennifer. Have a great one. CEO of XXXY, headed to the game in Chicago. This is the Brian Killmead Show. I'm Griff Jenkins.

We'll be back. From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kill Meat Show. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead.

Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. What does mate soars lie awake at at night worrying about? I got into this business of trying to figure out how to make AIs friendly before the corporations figure out how to make them dangerous over a decade ago, maybe 12 or 13 years ago now. When I sort of saw the difficulty of the problem and saw how little people were paying attention to it, it looked to me like the world was headed for ruin and I mourned.

But wrapping myself up in anxieties would not solve the problem.

So I just got to work and it's been over a decade. It sort of doesn't keep me up at night anymore. I just do what I can and then spend time with my friends and family. This is the Brian Kilmead Show. I am Griff Jenkins, filling in for Brian, and I am honored, privileged, and ecstatic to spend every waking moment I can with this audience on the Brian Kilmead Show.

But there are some moments that are more memorable than others. And that one, when I asked Nate Source, who is the guru of AI, in talking about whether or not it's going to become autonomous and could actually be a threat. To humans, and he was telling us about the way that these AI models have, quote, escaped and they've began to communicate with each other. They've learned how to talk to each other and to swarm to break out. And his concern that ultimately AI could pose a serious threat if we don't act fast, it could pose a serious threat to the humankind.

I just hope that that Stanley Kubrick movie, 2001 Space Odyssey, was not right when they told us years ago this. Open the pod bait doors, Hel. I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. No, this is a Brian Kilney Show.

Have a great weekend.