The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 11.20 BTS CONTROVERSY, Epstein Update, & Sondland's "Quid Pro Quo" Confusion EXPLAINED

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

What’s that you said? You want another super long show? Well then by golly, you’ve got it! Go to  https://buyraycon.com/defranco to get an amazing Black Friday deal on Raycons! Check out the latest A Conversation With Simply Nailogical: https://youtu.be/hdrA3eDipdo Check out the latest Rogue Rocket Deep Dive: https://youtu.be/xThuF6Db2YQ Follow On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://Anchor.fm/aConversationWith We have skeleton and holiday merch galore! Check it out HERE!: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✩ FOLLOW ME ✩ ✭ TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PhillyD ✭ FACEBOOK: http://facebook.com/DeFrancoNation ✭ INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/phillydefranco/ ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭Buy Merch: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✭Lemme Touch Your Hair: http://BeautifulBastard.com ✭Paid Subscription: http://DeFrancoElite.com ✩ TODAY IN AWESOME ✩ ✭ Check out https://phil.chrono.gg/ for 50% OFF “Armed to the Gears” only available until 9 AM! ✭ HISHE Dubs - Frozen: https://youtu.be/EhcEutiJnsk ✭ V Wars Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/M1kuAdVKvuE ✭ Dungeons & Dragons Drinks - How to Drink: https://youtu.be/uu-vM8CLJrI ✭ Bacteria and Viruses Are Raining Down on Us All the Time: https://youtu.be/KBRyyCc9mLE ✭ Honest Trailers - Tangled: https://youtu.be/uWbkh1VlJUM ✭ Robert De Niro and Al Pacino Have an Epic Conversation: https://youtu.be/j4QAA8Fwy1c ✭ Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker “End” TV Spot: https://youtu.be/Zsp8iOt76YU ✭ Secret Link: https://youtu.be/q-e5DvIeSP4 ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ Grammy Nominations Announced: https://roguerocket.com/2019/11/20/grammy-nominations/ Guards Charged with Falsifying Records After Allegedly Shopping Online and Falling Asleep While on Duty: https://roguerocket.com/2019/11/20/guards-charged/ Impeachment Testimony Updates: https://roguerocket.com/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-testimony/ ✩ MORE NEWS NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Hollywood Exec Wanted Julia Roberts to Play Harriet Tubman in 1994, Says ‘Harriet’ Screenwriter: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1197258686307225600 ————————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda ———————————— #simplynailogical  #Sondland #BTS ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday. My name's not Philip DeFranco and let's just jump into it. Another week, another PDS host fired. Ah, Christine simply nalogical. Oddly enough, had to let her go because not enough hand movement. But unfortunate public firing aside, if you'd like to watch the brand new podcast I shot with Christine and Ben, it's actually up right now. I uploaded it right before this video at youtube.com slash convo with. We've got a new episode every Wednesday and it's been really fun just catching up

to people I haven't talked to in a while, meeting people for the first time. And with Christine and Ben specifically, I was really honored that this was like the first video podcast interview thing that they've done. So if you wanna check that out, it's gonna be one of the top links down below or youtube.com slash convo with.

But with that said, of course, buckle up, hit that like button and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today before things take a dark and or polarizing spin is we had the Grammys in the news. First off, if you didn't see, there was a controversy leading up to the announcements today that started yesterday.

This because while the announcement had not been made yet, you had fans speculating that some of the information had actually been leaked. And this all started because the Grammys have these bios for artists who have been nominated. In those bios, it lists how many times that artist has been nominated, how many times that they've won.

And yesterday, for a brief period of time, the nomination number for several artists changed. For example, as of yesterday, Ariana Grande had only been nominated for six Grammy Awards ever. But there was a period of time yesterday that when you visited her page, the number increased to 11. And she wasn't the only one. You had Taylor Swift going from 32 to 35,

Lady Gaga from 24 to 27. And while all of this was fan speculation, maybe it was a glitch, it all appeared to be confirmed this morning when nominations were actually announced. With each of the artists that we just talked about getting those exact number of nominations. All right, so one of the focuses were those leaks. Another one was Lizzo.

Right, Lizzo has been dominating in just general, but also in these nominations. She's nominated for Best New Artist. Her album, Cause I Love You Deluxe, was nominated for Album of the Year. Truth Hurts was nominated for both Record and Song of the Year. But you had a number of people questioning her eligibility

because yes, she has just blown up, whether it be on the radio or whatever streaming service, you see her just getting constantly played. But fun fact, the song Truth Hurts actually came out in 2017, so you had a number of people saying, how can a 2017 song be nominated for a 2020 award show? And it turns out, the answer's actually kind of a couple of different things.

First on the Grammy's page, specifically on the song of the year category, it says a song is eligible if it was first released or if it first achieved prominence during the eligibility year, which regarding that note, Truth Hurts did not climb the charts until this year. But also according to Billboard, it's eligible for another reason in that it was not submitted for a Grammy prior to this point, as well as Truth Hurts also appeared

on the deluxe version of Cuz I Love You, which came out this year. People also had similar questions about Lady Gaga and the A Star Is Born soundtrack. And this because the album along with the songs on it received three nominations this year. But as you might remember last year, the biggest song from the film, Shallow,

actually won two Grammy awards. So you have people saying, how can the thing that already won an award be nominated again this year? And the answer to that is that Shallow was released as a single early enough to compete last year, but the album wasn't actually released till this year's window.

And then finally, could we talk about the music industry and massive reactions and possible controversy without mentioning BTS? Right, and if you looked at the Grammy's trending topic on Twitter, it is just filled with tons of BTS fans that are upset and angry. This because even though BTS is massively popular, they sold 4 million copies of their new album.

It became the best selling album in South Korean history. They received zero nominations this year. Right, and this situation has probably amplified a more sensitive topic because of the other controversy. And specifically there, I'm talking about the MTV Video Music Awards nominating them in the controversial new best K-pop category instead of just nominating them in the major slots.

Right, but it also wouldn't be fair to just say this is BTS fans. They are in no way pointing out that it appears crazy that the success of this group is not translating into nominations. We saw Rolling Stone say, "'The failure to acknowledge K-pop at award shows "'stands in stark contrast

"'to the music industry's day-to-day reality.'" And noting that in the last year, major labels have all worked to get a K-pop act on their slate. With the article going on to say, "'The problem extends beyond BTS. American listeners are ranging more widely than ever before.

Increasingly enthralled by singers from South Korea, but also artists from Nigeria, Colombia, and Spain. But the Grammys, as per usual, lag behind.'" Right, and so this is actually part of, and a continuation of, a much larger discussion regarding international artists and the Grammys. With, in this instance, BTS sort of being the face of it because of their massive popularity.

But also on the other end, you have people saying, you know, with any award show, yes, you can talk about the business behind it, but people are always snubbed. With some pointing to Taylor Swift's lover not getting album or record of the year nominations, although I would say she was still nominated three times. Yeah, ultimately that's the situation,

some of the standouts there. And I guess kind of my final note on this, I find myself agreeing with actually something that Eminem said a while ago. First of all, that vote is fake as fuck. That's not a real vote. That's not a real vote. They give it to who they want to give it to. They give it to their darlings, the fucking, oh, this got critical acclaim, but it sold two records. comes a point where when an overwhelming something comes along that has this wave and impact on music and you give it to fucking a lot of fucking Dottie. Who? A lot of Dottie. And obviously here he's

specifically talking about the Grammys, but I think this could also be attributed to a number of award shows and maybe just even award shows in general. And there's always two options. When we're talking about something that is art, right, it's obviously subjective. Your reality is not that of someone else with different tastes. But also, especially when you have something like the music industry,

you understand that this is a business. That there are likely other factors at play that involve money and favorites. And hey, at times, even ignorance. I mean, when you look to the music industry, that is an industry that has just been shaken up at random moments where everything completely changed. Yeah, of course, with all that said,

I'd love to know your thoughts on this. And then let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein and the guards who were on duty the night that he died. And the reason that we're talking about this is because yesterday those guards were charged with falsifying records related to that night. And so if you don't remember, back in July, Epstein had been arrested on federal charges

of sex trafficking minors in Florida and New York. Then that same month, following reports that he attempted to commit suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, he was placed on suicide watch. A week later, he was taken off that list, but reportedly prison officials still moved his cell within 15 feet of the guard's desk to prevent future attempts.

However, on August 10th, he died in his cell anyway, with a medical examiner ruling that his death was a suicide. Though, very notably here, there has been a ton of speculation regarding that ruling, some of that coming from Epstein's own lawyers, as well as a pathologist hired by Epstein's brother. But one of the main things here was that Epstein was now dead.

There was no way to continue pursuing charges. And so those charges were dismissed at the end of August. Right, so there is that, but going back to those guards, they've been the subject of a lot of scrutiny. Right, and so understandably, you had a lot of people asking, how was Epstein able to kill himself, right? That the guards were close.

The guards were supposed to complete rounds every 30 minutes. They were also supposed to perform prisoner checks and counts at midnight, 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. that night. But according to these new charges, both Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, quote, "'repeatedly failed to perform mandated counts "'of prisoners under their watch.'" And that because they sat at their desk

and browsed the internet. But the indictment goes even further, claiming that at one point, both fell asleep at their desk for two hours. Also saying that Noel spent part of the night shopping for furniture, while Thomas was shopping for motorcycles and looking at sports news.

And in fact, according to the charge, the last time anyone saw Epstein was around 10.30 p.m. on August 9th. This when Noel reportedly briefly walked up to and then away from the door to the tier that held Epstein. Noel and Thomas then allegedly quote, "'Repeatedly signed false certifications attesting to have conducted multiple counts of inmates

when, in truth and in fact, they never conducted such counts.'" The prosecutor said that that led correctional officers to believe that inmates were being monitored and accounted for. And ultimately, Epstein's body was discovered around 6.30 the next morning when they were delivering his breakfast.

Following this, Noel reportedly told a supervisor that they hadn't completed their 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. rounds, but Thomas said they hadn't done any of their rounds that whole night, saying, we messed up. And then adding of Noelle, I messed up, she's not to blame, we didn't do any rounds, right? And so like I said, yesterday, both of those guards were charged,

they were taken into custody. In federal court, they have now pleaded not guilty to six different counts each. This after they rejected a plea deal where they would have had to admit to falsifying records, and then soon after, they were bailed out for $100,000 each. Though notably, to go back to the hearing,

you had Thomas's attorney arguing that the guards were being scapegoated, saying, we feel this is a rush to judgment by the US Attorney's Office. They're going after the low man on the totem pole here. On the other side of things, however, you had US Attorney Jeffrey S. Berman saying in a statement, as alleged, the defendants had a duty to ensure the safety

and security of federal inmates in their care at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Instead, they repeatedly failed to conduct mandated checks on inmates and lied on official forms to hide their dereliction." Yeah, ultimately that's where we are with this. It'll be interesting to see one, what happens with this case, what other information comes out.

Also, a side note to this story, since we talked about Epstein earlier this week after that Prince Andrew interview. While filming today, we saw reports that Prince Andrew is, quote, "'Stepping back from royal duties.'" This quote for the foreseeable future, which if you watch that interview is not surprising.

But ultimately that is where we are with this story as of now, it's gonna be interesting to see what develops, what other information comes out, how that may or may not pertain to the speculation and controversy around Epstein's death. Yeah, let me know what you're thinking. And then finally, let's talk about updates around the impeachment hearings.

Right, yesterday and today, the House Intelligence Committee held its third and fourth day of public hearings. You know, we's talk about updates around the impeachment hearings. Right, yesterday and today, the House Intelligence Committee held its third and fourth day of public hearings. You know, we've talked about impeachment efforts over the last few months. We covered the first public hearing in the show last week, all linked down to previous coverage. And a quick oversimplified recap

before we talk about the updates. You know, there was this anonymous whistleblower complaint with that complaint alleging that President Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine that had already been approved by Congress on the condition that Ukrainian President Zelensky conduct two investigations, one into Burisma, a Ukrainian company that Joe Biden's son Hunter

was on the board of, and another into a theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. That complaint also claiming that Trump refused to meet with Zelensky until after he had publicly agreed to the investigation. And so we had Democrats saying that the complaint in the now released rough transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky showed an explicit quid pro quo.

Their argument being that it showed that the president of the United States held security aid from a key ally that had been approved by Congress, approved by the Pentagon, until Ukraine would promise to investigate a political opponent. But on the other side of this, you had Trump and his Republican allies saying

that the impeachment inquiry is not based on substantial evidence and it is just a political circus. Right, so with that said, let's first look at some key highlights and takeaways from yesterday's hearings. Yesterday, so with that said, let's first look at some key highlights and takeaways from yesterday's hearings. Yesterday, we saw testimonies from four witnesses. In the morning, we had two people who were both on the Trump-Zelensky call.

Jennifer Williams, a State Department official who became an advisor for Vice President Mike Pence. And Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert at the National Security Council. Now there, we didn't see any huge new bombshells from either of them, but we did see them talk about the call with Trump and Zelensky. Regarding that, we saw Williams say, I found the July 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls I had

observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. We also saw Vindman's comments on the call, which were similar but a bit more strongly worded. I was concerned by the call. What I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support,

undermining U.S. national security, and advancing Russia's strategic objectives in the region. Truck month is on at Chevrolet. Get 0% financing for up to 72 months on a 2025 Silverado 1500 custom blackout or custom trail boss. With custom trail bosses available, class exclusive Duramax 3-liter diesel engine and Z71 off-road package with a 2-inch factory suspension lift, you get both on-road confidence and off-road capability. Dirt road ahead? Let's go! Truck month is awesome! Ask your Chevrolet dealer for details. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door.

A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Also, both Williams and Vindman testified that not one national security official supported freezing Ukraine's security aid, with Williams also saying that several officials requested that they remove the hold,

but that they were told that the White House had requested it stay in place. Also, a notable thing about these two testimonies actually happened outside of the hearings, and that involved efforts to discredit these witnesses from the right and specifically from President Trump and his administration. A few days before Williams even testified, Trump took to Twitter to attack her, writing, "'Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is,

"'to read both transcripts of the presidential calls "'and see the just-released statement from Ukraine. "'Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers "'who I don't know and mostly never even heard of "'and work out a better presidential attack.'" And then yesterday in an incredibly unusual move, we saw the official White House Twitter account, not just Trump himself,

appearing to try to undermine Vindman in a series of tweets. And then of course there were the afternoon hearings and these were interesting because the two witnesses in those hearings were actually requested to testify by Republicans, not Democrats. And those two individuals were Kurt Volker, the former US special envoy to Ukraine,

and Tim Morrison, former White House national security advisor. Now Volker's testimony former US special envoy to Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, former White House National Security Advisor. Now Volker's testimony was a bit more interesting in regards to new developments, and this because he actually changed his previous testimony. In his closed door testimony, Volker had said that US officials

had never communicated to Ukrainians that the aid would be withheld for any specific reason. But yesterday we actually saw Volker telling committee members that officials in the Trump administration had sought an investigation into Burisma Holdings. And notably that millions of military aid to Ukraine rested on that investigation.

Though notably here, Volker said that he didn't know about those events at that time and that he never conveyed that linkage to Ukrainians. Volker also saying that he originally didn't believe that the Burisma investigation involved the Bidens and that he said that he never participated in any efforts to investigate the Bidens.

But also noting here, In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former president, vice president Biden. I saw them as very different, the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently. And had I done so, I would have raised my own objections. He also had Morrison, who was on the call, saying that he was not concerned by anything on the Trump-Zelensky call. But he did say that he was concerned about tying Ukraine aid to the investigation.

And he also confirmed that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, who's actually testifying today as I'm filming this, and who we'll try to talk about a little bit in a minute, directly told a Zelensky aide. That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aide lifted.

Okay, and so all of that brings us to Sondland's testimony, which has arguably been the most explosive public hearing so far. You know, a few weeks ago, we talked about Sondland when he changed his testimony. Sondland had originally testified that there was not a quid pro quo regarding military aid, but he later revised his testimony after several people,

including Vindman and Morrison, contradicted his testimony and said that it was actually Sondland himself who told Zelensky's aide that the military assistance would be conditioned on the investigation. With Sondland writing in an amendment to his testimony that he told Zelensky's aide, the resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement

that we had been discussing for many weeks. Right, and this was a big deal because Sondland has generally been described as a strong ally of Trump. Sondland was a major donor to Trump, reportedly giving $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee. He was also, I think as Brent Basel learned today,

after tweeting, listen to Sondland and you'll understand why America elected Donald Trump president to get rid of people like Sondland. Sondland was actually appointed to his position by Donald Trump, despite the fact that he had no political experience at all. Right, so he had many arguing that it was gonna be much harder for Donald Trump

and his allies to discredit him as a never-Trumper, things that we've seen him do with the others, including Williams. It's also been interesting to see the different ways that Donald Trump has talked about Sondland. Back on October 8th, Donald Trump tweeted that Sondland was a, quote, "'Really good man and great American.'"

Then earlier this month, after Sondland revised his statement, he said that he hardly knows Sondland was a quote, "'Really good man and great American.'" Then earlier this month, after Sondland revised his statement, he said that he hardly knows Sondland. And today, among other things, we saw Trump say of Sondland, "'I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though.'" But main thing, let's take a look at some of his testimony today,

which, keep in mind, is still ongoing as we're recording. And so right at the beginning, in his opening statement, we see Sondland explicitly talk about quid pro quo, saying, As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server, and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the President. But regarding the note of military aid, we saw Sondland say,

President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. However, Sondland still said that he was concerned about the military aid being conditioned on the investigation, saying, I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson.

And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians. I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations. I should also mention here that a spokesperson for Mike Pence's office has denied that that conversation ever happened. Also, there was a note here where some witnesses have said that Sondland and others were part of sort of a rogue operation that were intended to go around

normal diplomatic channels. But regarding this, Sondland denied this and said, The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false. Going on to say that many people high up in the administration, including Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, knew what was going on and that this was the plan. Everyone was in the loop. And also regarding that, we saw this key interaction with Representative Adam Schiff. that Mulvaney was aware of this quid pro quo, of this condition that the Ukrainians had to meet, that is announcing these public investigations to get the White House meeting. Is that right?

Yeah, a lot of people were aware of it. And including Mr. Mulvaney? Correct. And including the Secretary of State? Correct. Also saying that he told Pompeo that he was concerned about the military aid being withheld and Pompeo directed him to keep up the pressure campaign.

Also, I think I want to point out is a piece of testimony that actually we even saw Donald Trump while speaking to the media today, quote, "'It is in reference to a September 9th phone call "'where Sondland says that Donald Trump says, "'I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. "'Tell Zelensky, President Zelensky, to do the right thing. Right, which sounds like a very notable thing,

but probably the thing that's even more notable is the timing. As I just mentioned, this call reportedly happened on September 9th, and that date matters because that's the same day that the House launched investigations into the whistleblower complaint. So essentially the argument here is Donald Trump and his administration, who had previous knowledge

that the whistleblower complaint was a thing, was essentially trying to cover their bases and muddy the water since they had been found out. Also, notably regarding the timing and the dates here, and I only mention this because it's being used as a constant defense. One of the big defenses from Trump allies is, hey, look at the Ukraine aid, it was eventually released.

Which, as others have argued, if you attempt bribery or you attempt extortion and you don't succeed, it doesn't mean that it's not a crime. But also too, the aid was released two days after the House started investigating the whistleblower complaint. Yeah, just some things that I wanted to know because the context and the timing is key here.

And I feel like whether intentional or not, there are a lot of people misrepresenting situations right now. But with all that said, we still have more coming up. Also slated to talk today of Laura Cooper, a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Defense Department, and David Hale, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs at the State Department.

Both of them have previously testified behind closed doors, so this is their first public testimony. We also have more later this week, including Fiona Hill, who used to be the top Russia specialist on the National Security Council, as well as David Holmes, who was a State Department aide, who notably overheard a phone call between Sondland and Trump.

But with all of that said, of course, I now wanna pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts regarding all of this? And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And hey, if you liked this video, let us know. Hit that like button. Also, if you're new here, you want more of these dives into the news on your weekdays, hit that subscribe button

and definitely tap that bell to turn on notifications. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, I highly recommend you check out that brand new podcast I did with Simply Nailogical, or maybe you just missed yesterday's show, you wanna catch up, you can click or tap right there to watch either of those right now. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow.