The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 11.7 Youtube's New Adpocalypse Fight, Continued Whistleblower Fallout Explained, & More

Episode Date: November 7, 2019

Happy Thursday! We’re closing the week out with a long one. Go to http://DollarShaveClub.com/phil to get your starter set for $5. After that, the restock box ships full-sized products at regular price. Check out the TODAY’S Rogue Rocket Deep Dive: https://youtu.be/T6L044agby8 Check out the latest A Conversation With Joey Graceffa: https://youtu.be/leE2Vyxp8nI Follow On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://Anchor.fm/aConversationWith Grab the Have a Great Holiday Sweater (and other sale goodies) 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 22% OFF “Vambrace: Cold Soul” only available until 9 AM! ✭ Deprogramming: How People Were Legally Kidnapped From Cults: https://youtu.be/T6L044agby8 ✭ Emilia Clarke and Henry Golding Play Holiday Movie Quote Game: https://youtu.be/BNo-I8Kq9e8 ✭ Soul | Official Teaser Trailer: https://youtu.be/4TojlZYqPUo ✭ The Knight Before Christmas starring Vanessa Hudgens: https://youtu.be/-JtwROpSVWc ✭ The Invisible Man - Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/dSBsNeYqh-k ✭ David Dobrik Does the Grossest Thing With Gum: https://youtu.be/gnsdJqqBmSo ✭ DaBaby Crushes Ice Cream While Eating Spicy Wings: https://youtu.be/QmLn2giNZ0g ✭ Former Jewel Thief Reviews Famous Heist Movies: https://youtu.be/CtWqv0Z3ErM ✭ Secret Link: https://youtu.be/Ig89YdtRkjc ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ Creators Petition FTC As YouTube is Forced to Remove Personalized Ads on Children's Content: https://roguerocket.com/2019/11/07/youtube-coppa/ Submit your comments to the FTC here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2019-0054-0001 CGI James Dean Casting Sparks Debate: https://roguerocket.com/2019/11/07/james-dean-cgi-cast/ Key Diplomat’s Impeachment Inquiry Testimonies Explained: https://roguerocket.com/2019/11/07/key-takeaways-from-impeachment-testimony/ Previous coverage: https://youtu.be/G-Q4bM6vFnE ✩ MORE NEWS NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Ellen DeGeneres and Sandra Bullock Sue Over Phony Endorsements: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1192547651608285186?s=20’ ————————————     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 ———————————— #DeFranco #JamesDean #YouTube ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards. Hope you have a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're gonna talk about today are updates around the massive situation involving the FTC and YouTube.

As you might remember, we covered it back in September. The Federal Trade Commission settled with YouTube and its parent company for $170 million. And that nine figure settlement stemming from alleged violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act or COPPA, which to kind of boil down COPPA was passed back in 1998 and basically the act requires websites

to first obtain parental consent before collecting or using the personal information of children under 13. And specifically in the complaint, the FTC and New York Attorney General Letitia James said that although YouTube has an audience of all ages, some of its individual channels such as toy review channels are child directed, meaning they must comply with COPPA. And specifically here, the concern was around

personalized ads, ads that use your viewing history. And yet the FTC and James alleging that YouTube had been illegally collecting personal information from children to show them targeted ads. Right, and as far as the targeting of the channel putting out the content, it appears the focus there is, you know, while YouTube can take something like the YouTube Kids app and they can say,

hey, we know that kids are using this app, we'll make sure there's no tracking. There's really no way to know or stop if someone using the website without being logged in or just on a parent's account is watching a video. With this, the FTC said that it would hear public comments until October 23rd before enforcing new COPPA guidelines. And so of course, this was massive news,

not only because of the fine, but also because YouTube ended up announcing that changes were coming. And one of the most notable is that it would stop serving personalized ads on all children's content in January. With YouTube saying one, that it would use machine learning to find videos that target a young audience. And on top of that, creators would be given the tool

and be required to flag their content if it falls into the children's category. If it did, along with losing personalized ads, it would also lose things like comments. So that gets announced. A lot of people end up freaking out. This because while removing personalized ads does not remove all ads. The majority of ads that were being displayed were personalized and generalized ads in general bring in anywhere from 60 to 90 percent less than

personalized ads. Right. So essentially imagine you go into work and your boss says, hey, by the way, in January, we're going to pay a 60 to 90 percent less. And that's if you maintain the same output and success. So obviously devastating news for those putting out content that's if you maintain the same output and success. And so obviously devastating news for those putting out content that's directed towards children. It's also part of the reason we've seen several big kids content creators speaking out, pointing out that in addition to the money troubles, which could make what they're doing unsustainable, they are also worried that they could be

directly fined for violating COPPA, which is very notable because reportedly for each violation, a fine can be up to $42,000. And of course there's also the concerns of what content this is going to hit, which isn't completely unfounded because reportedly there's actually been discussion within the FTC that this ruling not only

would affect kid-directed content, but expand to other content that is simply kid-friendly, which if that turns out to be the case, I would briefly like to say, shit, motherfucker, bitch, that's fucking wild. Also, quick side note, I had someone complain on Twitter yesterday that my language was filthy. But I said the F word too many times yesterday

and their six year old was watching and that they were disgusted. Quick friendly DeFranco recommendation, you should probably not be watching my show with a six year old. I mean, personally, that's just my recommendation. Maybe get headphones. You can hear me and all the horrible stuff

that we're having to talk about and your kid can laugh at the funny looking man with the forehead wrinkle and the moving hands. But back on track, a big part of the update today are YouTubers lobbying the FTC. Because yes, there are things like a change.org petition that as of this morning had over 37,000 signatures. With creators who've signed that petition

asking the FTC to provide an enforcement statement for creators, clarify the definition of child directed content. They're also asking the FTC not to expand the ruling to cover child attractive content. Also asking for them to delay enforcement asking the FTC not to expand the ruling to cover child attractive content. Also asking for them to delay enforcement until the FTC finishes reviewing COPPA and to allow parents to just use apps like YouTube Kids

instead of forcing creators to turn off personalized ads. So I do wanna know there in my opinion, that does not address the problem that people are saying is there. Because according to Bloomberg, YouTube Kids currently only attracts 1% of YouTube's total audience, even though kids content is the most viewed content on YouTube.

Also, notably, that Change.org petition was started by Jeremy Johnston of the family vlog channel J House Vlogs. Also, in addition to having a channel that would most likely be affected here, he is also a lawyer, who actually ended up traveling to DC to talk directly to the FTC.

And in videos, Johnston has argued that he thinks the FTC is legitimately trying to do what is best for children, but notably here, he also said that the FTC was largely unaware of these creators' concerns beforehand. And in fact, this morning we spoke to Johnston about his meeting with FTC commissioners. And it was really eye-opening.

He told us that at first the FTC thought general and personalized ads paid the same amount. And actually after explaining that that was not the case, Johnston then filed a request to extend the FTC's public comment period from October 23rd to December 9th. That request has then actually been approved. And since then, we've also seen YouTube itself

urging creators to talk about their concerns. With the YouTube creator's Twitter account tweeting, "'Creators, you are a vital part of YouTube "'and we support you making your voices heard. "'If you are interested in sharing your views on COPPA, "'the FTC is receiving comments on its website "'until December 9th.'" But still, while speaking with Johnston this morning,

you could see this already having an impact on the business. He said that he and his wife have already decided to pull the plug on some of their planned kids content. And he really emphasized how this is going to affect the little guy because yes, big creators will be able to find other ways to generate money with things such as brand deals and on that. He said that isn't going to be available for the small creators in the future. And that's a big reason why I'm speaking out. I wouldn't be doing all of this if it was just about my channel, but I'm considering other people like me or other people five years, 10 years from now, who want to get going. And I'm so grateful that when I took that leap of faith to say, I'm going to do YouTube full time, that ad revenue made that possible.

And with all of that, Johnston also said that he understands the need for parents to have control of their kids' privacy online. But notably, he argued that this isn't doing that. We care about children's privacy. We are just saying that this regulation is going to do more harm than good. I think it's really important that we all recognize that the majority of parents are letting their children watch YouTube main. We're wanting parents to continue to be able to make that choice without the government coming in and overriding the parents' decision.

If parents were really concerned about personalized ads, it raises the question, why are they all letting their kids watch YouTube main? But hey, ultimately, that is where we are with the story now. Of course, like with any story, I definitely would love to know what you think. What I would also say today is if you do have strong opinions, strong concerns,

I'm also going to link down below where you can leave a comment for the FTC. It'll also be interesting to see over the next few months to see how and if the FTC responds to these creators' concerns. Yeah, ultimately we're gonna have to wait and see. And then let's talk about this really interesting technology slash business news.

And it involves a question and debate that I think we're gonna see more and more of as the years go on. And that is just because we have the technology, should we do something? And specifically the instance and debate that we're talking about today is around an upcoming movie that will star James Dean.

To which you're probably wondering one of two things, and it probably tells us a lot about who you are. You're either thinking one, the porn guy, or two, wait, the dead guy? And the answer is yes, the dead one. James Dean, of course, passed away over 60 years ago in a car crash when he was just 24 years old. And as far as how this person who died over six decades ago

could star in a new movie called Finding Jack, they reportedly will use a CGI version of Dean for one of the characters. And according to the Hollywood Reporter, Dean's performance will be constructed via full body CGI using actual footage and photos. And adding, another actor will voice him. The movie will be based off of a book with the same name.

And according to the IMDB summary of the film, it follows a character who's forced to abandon an injured dog that he met while serving in Vietnam, which it is worth noting that Dean isn't the main character mentioned, he'll be a secondary lead, and as far as why they landed on Dean for their casting decision, one of the directors said,

"'We searched high and low for the perfect character "'to portray the role of Rogan, "'which has some extreme complex character arcs, "'and after months of research, we decided on James Dean.'" And also adding that they got the right to use Dean's image from his family, saying, "'We feel very honored that his family supports us

and will take every precaution to ensure that his legacy as one of the most epic film stars to date is kept firmly intact. The family views this as his fourth movie, a movie he never got to make. We do not intend to let his fans down.'" But family's opinion or not, right, this idea of having a dead person cast in a movie

posthumously isn't sitting well with a lot of people. This, including Zelda Williams, the daughter of Robin Williams, which interesting thing to note here, there's actually restricted use of Robin Williams' image for at least 25 years after his death. It was actually a decision made by his family. So this is something that Zelda has a certain kind of personal experience with.

And so she tweeted, "'I have talked to friends about this for years "'and no one ever believed me that the industry "'would stoop this low once tech got better. "'Publicity stunt or not, this is puppeteering the dead for their clout alone and it sets such an awful precedent for the future of performance." We also saw big name actors joining the conversation.

Chris Evans putting out a sarcastic, "'I'm sure he'd be thrilled,' followed by, "'This is awful.'" Maybe we can get a computer to paint us a new Picasso or write a couple new John Lennon tunes. The complete lack of understanding here is shameful. You also had Elijah Wood who simply said, "'Nope, this shouldn't be a thing.'"

You also had Julie Ann Emery who's been in things like Preacher and Better Call Saul adding, "'Yeah, that's not James Dean. "'It's his face on a motion capture performance "'and an anonymous actor providing voice pattern "'and choices. "'I'd like to know how it will be credited, "'how the real actors will be paid,

"'and how little this team understands the acting craft.'" And later saying, "'How did Dean's descendants know that he would want "'to be in a Vietnam movie? That he would support that? Though of course it is important to point out that not everyone had that feeling. It wasn't completely universal.

One of the main defenses was essentially if the family approved of it, right, then this is probably good. And while this is a very specific story, we're talking about one movie, it's also bigger. Because there are reports that this kind of CGI in film doesn't stop with James Dean. You know, the company is making the CGI.

You have a Canadian group called Imagine Engine and a South African group called M.O.Y Worldwide. And they could have more projects like this in the future with one of the directors saying, "'Our partners in South Africa are very excited about this as this technology would also be employed down the line to recreate historical icons such as Nelson Mandela to tell stories of cultural heritage significance.'"

Right, so this is in the same realm, but also not completely a one-to-one comparison. Nelson Mandela wasn't an actor. Also, I mean, even in recent history, we saw a similar debate. For example, in Rogue One, Peter Cushing, who had died two decades before the film's release, he still made an appearance thanks to CGI.

Though, of course, there, once again, not a complete one-to-one comparison. You had people arguing this is a different case. He had previously agreed to play the character. Right, so I think more people saw that as honoring, including someone, rather than exploiting. Whereas James Dean here would be used for a film that he had no understanding of, no knowledge of.

And so I was really fascinated by this story. I was also really fascinated to know what you guys would think. I'm kind of torn on it, but I'm definitely leaning more towards it feels wrong. Right now that the tech is here, I feel like for living actors, this is gonna be part of the conversation of like,

would you be cool if after you died, we turned you into a digital puppet and your family could make some money? I don't know, that's just kind of my immediate feeling. And so I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this? And then, you know, it's been a little while, but let's talk about some huge updates regarding Trump,

Ukraine, the impeachment investigation. You know, we talked about this story a lot when it first got going. So if you're looking for really detailed background, I'll link you to the previous coverage. But for some quick context, so you get kind of brought back up to speed, you have a general understanding

of what the hell I'm talking about. The House's impeachment investigation stems from a whistleblower complaint that claims that Donald Trump pressured Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden during a phone call back in July. And also connected to this, whether or not Donald Trump decided to withhold

the nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine so that he would have leverage over Zelensky. And so that's the whole quid pro quo debate. Now on one side of this, you have Donald Trump and his supporters saying that it is not quid pro quo because in the call with Zelensky, Trump did not explicitly say, I will not give you this $400 million

unless you look into Biden. But on the other side of this, you have people saying that even if Donald Trump didn't directly pressure Zelensky, he still asked a foreign leader to interfere in the US election process by investigating one of his main 2020 opponents. Now regarding the situation, Trump has kind of described it as a general situation,

not a personal favor. With Trump saying that the aid was withheld because he wanted to make sure that Ukraine was following through on its commitments to crack down on corruption. But many others responded by saying that makes no sense, noting that Congress had already approved the aid package because, and this is a big note,

the Pentagon had specifically said that Ukraine was meeting its corruption goals and thus the aid was good to go. Over the last few weeks, we've seen the various house committees involved in this investigation request and subpoena a number of people to testify or hand over documents and information.

Those testimonies happening behind closed doors, something that Republicans have heavily criticized the Democrats for, arguing that all of this should be public, but I also do want to note they're not all Republicans. For example, in the midst of all the craziness where you had Republicans trying to push themselves into a private meeting, there was a clip from 2018 being shared of Republican Representative Trey Gowdy. Our private hearing was much more constructive than the public hearing.

I mean, public hearings are a circus, Margaret. I mean, that's why I don't like to do them. I don't do many of them. I mean, it's a freak show. And actually about a week ago on CBS, he said he still believes that, adding, I'm a rule follower. I threw a Republican out of a hearing because he was not a member of the committee. If you're going to have private investigations with unlimited time for questioning and cross-examining witnesses, that's a good thing." But then also adding,

"'What's not a good thing is to have selective leaks where you pick one sentence out of an eight-hour deposition.'" Yeah, on the other side of this, with the closed-door hearings, you had Democrats saying that these private meetings, they're a common practice, especially for testimonies that concern questions of national security

that often are not public information in the first place. With some pointing out and arguing that Republicans did the same thing for the Benghazi hearings. But that said, one of the big updates is that yesterday, the House announced that it will start holding the first public hearings in the impeachment investigation next week.

And also over the last few days, the House has been releasing a number of transcripts from testimonies given by key witnesses. By kind of giving us a peek into some of what's been going on behind closed doors leading up to the public hearings. And while all of the testimonies are important, there are two main people that we're gonna be focusing on today, Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU,

and Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat to Ukraine. So who are they? How do they fit into this? Why do they matter? Well, among other things, it turns out that both of them took over their positions under kind of unusual circumstances, though in very different ways. Sondland has generally been described as a strong ally

of Trump. Before serving as the US ambassador to the EU, he was a wealthy hotel owner and major donor to Donald Trump, reportedly giving $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee. And Trump appointed Sondland back in March of 2018, despite the fact that he appears to have no official political or diplomatic experience.

And as far as Sondland's public introduction for this situation, he was mentioned by name in the whistleblower complaint alongside the former US envoy to Ukraine. In the complaint, the whistleblower wrote that the envoy and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to navigate the demands that the president had made of Mr. Zelensky. And as far as Taylor's story, it is a lot different.

He was a career diplomat who served as the US ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 under both George W. Bush and Obama. And Taylor ended up being chosen to be the interim ambassador to Ukraine back in June after the previous ambassador, Maria Yovanovitch, was suddenly forced to leave her post. Without going too far off on another tangent,

we should also mention that Yovanovitch also testified before the House, and her testimony was also released earlier this week. That testimony, she said that Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, led a targeted campaign to oust her because he claimed that she was trying to stop Ukraine from opening an investigation into Biden. Taylor and Sondland were both also implicated

in a set of text messages released by the house that invoked key people organizing the call between Trump and Zelensky and what happened after. In fact, one of the most significant interactions from those texts was between Sondland and Taylor where they discussed the Trump administration's decision to withhold aid from Ukraine. In that conversation, Taylor texted Sondland,

"'As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy "'to withhold security assistance "'for help with a political campaign.'" To which Sondland responded to that conversation, Taylor texted Sondland, "'As I said on the phone, "'I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance "'for help with a political campaign.'" To which Sondland responded to that concern, "'I believe you are incorrect "'about President Trump's intentions. "'The president has been crystal clear, "'no quid pro quos of any kind.

"'The president is trying to evaluate "'whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt "'the transparency and reforms "'that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. "'I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.'" Which a number of people have argued that the way that that text was framed and structured, it appeared he realized that these texts might be seen by others in the future. Okay, so then let's talk about their testimonies.

Sondland was initially supposed to testify on October 8th, but at the last minute, his testimony was blocked by the State Department. Though, he ended up testifying about a week later on October 17th. And in that testimony, he said that Trump had basically delegated Giuliani to lead the United States foreign policy in Ukraine and directed diplomats and others in the administration to talk to him. And regarding that, Sondland said that he and others disagreed with that choice, but they still went along

with it, saying in his opening statement, "'We were also disappointed by the president's direction "'that we involved Mr. Giuliani. "'Our view is that the men and women of the State Department, "'not the president's personal lawyer, "'should take responsibility for all aspects "'of US foreign policy towards Ukraine. "'However, based on the president's direction,

we were faced with a choice." He then goes on to say that they chose to follow the president's directions and work with Giuliani. One of the most significant lines from Sondland's testimony came from his opening statement where he denied that there was quid pro quo regarding military aid, saying, "'I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding US security assistance from Ukraine

in return for assistance with the president's 2020 reelection campaign." Right, so a very notable statement. But then a few days later after Sondland's testimony, Taylor testified before the House, and he painted a very different picture. In his opening statement, Taylor said that Sondland told a top Zelensky aide, quote,

"'That the security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the investigation into Biden,' adding, "'This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations. And arguably the most significant line

from Taylor's testimony was in response to a line of questions from Representative Adam Schiff, the chair of the Intelligence Committee. Schiff pointing to Taylor's statement that the White House meeting was, quote, "'conditioned on the investigation'", asking Taylor if he was explicitly saying that Ukraine would not get the meeting or the military aid

if they did not announce the investigations. And Taylor responded, "'That was my clear understanding. "'Security assistance money would not get the meeting or the military aid if they did not announce the investigations. And Taylor responded, "'That was my clear understanding. "'Security assistance money would not come "'until the president committed to pursue the investigation.'" With Taylor also going on to say that he later had a phone call with Sondland who told him that Trump had said that he, quote,

"'Wants President Zelensky to state publicly "'that Ukraine will investigate Burisma,' "'the energy company Hunter Biden was on the board of, "'as well as alleged Ukrainian interference "'in the 2016 US election.'" Adding, Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke

that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations. In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, "'Everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance." Notably, Taylor's testimony about Sondland and the fact that he was the one who told Zelensky's aide that the military assistance would be conditioned

on the investigation was also confirmed in a testimony by Tim Morrison, who was a former White House national security advisor who said that he was physically present in the room when Sondland made that statement to Zelensky's aide. You also had Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert at the National Security Council, backing up the claim in his testimony, saying, quote,

"'Sondland emphasized the importance "'that Ukraine deliver the investigations "'into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. "'I stated to Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate. And at this point, if you're like, wow, it sounds like there are three people who have contradicting statements to what Sondland said.

You can actually make that four people, now including Sondland himself. What we ended up seeing Tuesday when Sondland's transcript was released was that on November 4th, he later went back and changed his testimony to line up with Taylor's and the others. Writing in a supplemental statement given to the House that he reviewed Taylor and Morrison's opening statements

and that those statements, quote, "'Have refreshed my recollection "'about certain conversations.'" And adding that he now recalls a conversation on September 1st, 2019 with the same Zelensky aide the others referenced, and writing that during that conversation, "'I said that resumption of U.S. aid

"'would likely not occur until Ukraine "'provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. Now, obviously you look at that statement, it appears very specific word choices, would likely not occur, anti-corruption statement. Right, but still basically what it looks like is Sondland is saying here

that he did explicitly talk about quid pro quo. Right, so obviously these testimonies are a big deal. They kind of set up the framework for these public hearings next week. This especially because Taylor is one of the people who's set to publicly testify, and it'll be interesting to see if he says anything new. And as far as the responses, the reactions to this situation,

at least for the Democrats, they appear to be pretty happy with Sondland's revised testimony, especially because after his initial testimony, several Democrats had accused Sondland of intentionally avoiding critical questions, with some even seeming to believe that he had perjured himself.

But now with his revised statement, they have several consistent testimonies, including one from a close ally of Trump. And to that point, we saw Schiff telling reporters yesterday, the most important facts are largely not contested. The president enlisted whole departments of government in the illicit aim of trying to get Ukraine

to dig up dirt on a political opponent, as well as further a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election that he believed would be beneficial to his reelection campaign. But we also saw some Republicans pushing back against that, like Senator Lindsey Graham, who responded to Schiff's statement while speaking on Fox News.

Also, just note in the clip, he refers to Sondland as Sonderland. He's just misspeaking, I didn't want it to confuse you. But with that said, on the show he said, "'Yeah, that statement's full of crap.'" So Bill Taylor, what does he base his belief that there's a quid pro quo on? What is the factual basis?

A conversation with Sunderland. Now, here's a question. Why did Sunderland change his testimony? Was there a connection between Sunderland and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff staffers? I've been a lawyer for a very long time. When somebody changes their testimony, they suddenly recall something they didn't know before, it makes me incredibly suspicious. To which a number of people have argued, well, some people might revise their statement if they realize that they have perjured themselves.

But also, a thing that I'll say while looking at this, another interesting thing about Taylor's testimony is that while Sondland seemed pretty clear that Giuliani was acting on Trump's direction, Taylor was actually less sure. In his opening statement, Taylor said that while it was clear to him that the meeting between Trump and Zelensky was conditioned on the investigation,

quote, it was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani. And when asked by Schiff, he later elaborated, the irregular channel seemed to focus on specific issues, specific cases, rather than the regular channel's focus on institution building. So the irregular channel, I think, under the influence of Mr. Giuliani, wanted to focus on one or two specific cases, rather than the regular channels focus on institution building. So the irregular channel, I think,

under the influence of Mr. Giuliani, wanted to focus on one or two specific cases, irrespective of whether it helped solve the corruption problem, fight the corruption problem. And when Schiff asked Taylor if he believed that Giuliani was doing that because he believed that it would benefit his client, President Trump, Taylor replied, that's my understanding.

But when asked by Republican Representative Lee Zeldin if he believed the condition was coming from Trump, Taylor said, quote, I think it was coming from Mr. Giuliani.'" Zeldin followed up by asking, "'But not from the president.'" And Taylor responded, "'I don't know.'"

And ultimately, that's where we are with this. That's the story. I mean, as far as my opinion, based on everything that we're hearing, based on everything that we're seeing, it's, I mean, I think a lot of people get lost in the term quid pro quo. It's very hard for me to see this

as anything other than blatant bribery for personal gain. The use of political office, the levers provided, including $400 million in aid that was already approved by Congress thanks to the Pentagon, in exchange for a political hit on one of his main opponents. That said, it'll be interesting to see what comes out from, to use Gowdy's terms, this circus. Will we get more information?

Will we see maybe some contradictions or some stumbling? Or, I don't know, will we see representatives using their opportunity to just monologue? It's going to be really interesting. And so, of course, where I'm going to end this, there's the story, some of my personal opinion on it, and of course, I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts regarding this?

And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And hey, if you liked today's video, let us know, hit that like button. Also, if you're new here, you want more of these daily dives into the news, hit that subscribe button. Definitely tap that bell to turn on notifications. Also, if you're not 100% filled in,

you can check out that brand new podcast I just put out and or that brand new deep dive we also just put out. You can click or tap right there to watch that. But main point, thanks so much for watching. I love your faces and I'll see you never. That was too aggressive and also not true. I'll see you soon.