The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 12.10 WHY People Are FREAKING OUT On Olivia Wilde, Eminem, Nick Cannon & The IG Report

Episode Date: December 10, 2019

Start your free trial today: http://www.Squarespace.com/Phil & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!   Check out the TODAY’s Rogue Rocket Deep Dive: https://youtu.be/n8KE7WgzbvY Check out the latest A Conversation With CallMeCarson: https://youtu.be/CzKjH2U0rWs   Follow On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://Anchor.fm/aConversationWith    ✩ 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 28% OFF “Monster Sanctuary” only available until 9 AM! ✭ How Police Deal With Protests and Riots All Over the World: https://youtu.be/n8KE7WgzbvY ✭ Sheryl Crow NPR Music Tiny Desk Concert: https://youtu.be/kCcmk4-FZwY ✭ How 3D Printed Homes on Mars and Earth Would Work: https://youtu.be/aEuH7FsX0lo ✭ THE GRUDGE Trailer: https://youtu.be/Yq5igwyrX9E ✭ WWE Star Asuka Eats Japanese Eel: https://youtu.be/WmGwwPSlRq8 ✭ Ninja Tries to Keep Up with a Professional Chef: https://youtu.be/4h36wfqcg9A   ✭ Secret Link: https://youtu.be/S2GrDGXZivc   ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ AJC Sends Letter to Warner Brothers: https://roguerocket.com/2019/12/10/ajc-richard-jewell/  Nick Cannon Ignites Beef with Eminem:  https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/nick-cannon-eminem-diss-track-battle https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/12/10/were-all-losers-in-eminem-and-nick-cannons-embarrassing-feud/  House Announces Articles of Impeachment: https://roguerocket.com/2019/12/10/house-articles-of-impeachment/   Justice Department Inspector General Report: https://www.axios.com/ig-report-justice-department-russia-investigation-63467682-0b54-4cfa-ad48-de3be5e940a6.html https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-chris-wray-reacts-doj-watchdog-report/story?id=67605418 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/09/takeaways-horowitz-report-russia-investigation/ Read the report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf    ✩ MORE NEWS NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Influencer’s Plan for Website Domain Name Goes Completely Wrong: https://roguerocket.com/2019/12/10/website-domain/ Houston Police Chief Slams Republican Lawmakers: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1204510574031323137   ———————————— 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, Katie Calo ———————————— #DeFranco #Eminem #Trump ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards. Hope you've had a fantastic Tuesday. 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 is this controversy around Clint Eastwood and Olivia Wilde. And the focus of this story

is around Clint Eastwood's new movie, Richard Jewell, which is actually based off of a Vanity Fair article titled American Nightmare, the ballad of Richard Jewell. And the movie is based on a true story. It follows Jewell, and for those who do not know, Jewell was a security guard present at the 1996 Centennial Park bombing at the Atlanta Olympics,

which ended up killing one person and injuring over 100. And Jewell, for his part, reported a suspicious package at the scene, clearing the area, largely being regarded as a hero right after. But the FBI later made him their main suspect in the case, thinking that he may have actually planted the bomb himself. And with this, the Atlanta Journal Constitution ended up reporting this story

and kind of turning this whole thing into a media frenzy. And this ended up making Jewel look like a villain figure in the eyes of the public, even though it ended up turning out that he was innocent. And before he died in 2007, Jewel ended up filing several defamation suits, all of which were settled except with the AJC. They ended up getting their lawsuit dismissed in 2011

with the court saying that, yes, even though Jewel was innocent, what they were reporting was true at the time. Now as far as the movie, it doesn't have its wide release until this Friday, so a ton of you probably haven't seen it, but all in all, it is in pretty good reviews, all things considered, and many think that it actually has a decent chance of receiving Oscar nominations.

Though, we have seen a number of big criticisms. Some critics saying that it appears that Eastwood's trying to make a movie slamming fake news media. You have a Slate review saying that the journalist in question, Kathy Scruggs, who's played by Olivia Wilde, is portrayed as vampiric. Going on to say that it depicts a worldview where the quote, "'Most dangerous threats to well-meaning, ordinary-ish

"'white guys like Jewel are big government "'and an unscrupulous media.'" Washington Post calling it the Trumpiest movie you've ever seen and says that the press has shown as the enemy of the people. And going on to say, quote, "'There's plenty of room for outrage over suspicions "'that fell on an innocent man

"'without resorting to demonizing reporters "'and law enforcement officers "'as caricatures of corruption.'" Right, and the reason I'm showing and mentioning those reviews is because it kind of plays a part in why we're talking about the movie today. AJC and its parent company, Cox Enterprises,

wrote a letter to Warner Brothers' Clint Eastwood and the film's screenwriter, Billy Ray. And in it, they ask for a statement and disclaimer in the film, including publicly acknowledging that some events were imagined for dramatic purposes and artistic license and dramatization were used in the film's portrayal of events and characters.

We further demand that you add a prominent disclaimer to the film to that effect. And this is because in one scene, the film implies that Kathy Scruggs traded sex for a news tip. And so they say that this is not true and there is no evidence of this ever happening. Also noting that Scruggs died in 2001,

so she can't even defend herself against the film's claims. With her letter saying, such a portrayal makes it appear that the AJC sexually exploited its staff and or that it facilitated or condoned offering sexual gratification to sources in exchange for stories. That is entirely false and malicious and it is extremely defamatory and damaging.

They also address the assertions the film makes about the AJC acting unethically, defending their reporting, saying, "'The AJC actually held that story for a day "'to develop additional independent corroboration "'of key facts prior to publication. "'Law enforcement sources confirmed to the AJC "'their focus on Mr. Jewell.

"'The accuracy of the story had also been confirmed "'with an FBI spokesperson to whom the entire story "'was read before publication.'" They also posted an article called "'The Ballad of Kathy Scruggs, which includes people who knew Scruggs at the time of her reporting. With one calling the film's depiction of her

a complete horseshit and just not true. Another saying, it's obvious to me they did not go to any great lengths to find out what the real characters were like. And the editor of the AJC, Kevin G. Reilly, also talked to Variety where he said, "'The film literally makes things up "'and adds to misunderstandings

"'about how serious news organizations work. "'It's ironic that the film commits the same sins that it accuses the media of committing. Now on the other side of this, Warner Brothers is standing by their movie. And in a statement to Fox News, they said that the film is based on credible material and adding, it is unfortunate and the ultimate irony

that the Atlanta Journal Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast. Richard Jewell focuses on the real victim, seeks to tell his story, confirm his innocence, and restore his name. The Journal Constitution's claims are baseless and we will vigorously defend against them."

They also noted that there is a disclaimer at the end of the film, which is standard for all films based at least partially on true stories, with the disclaimer saying that the film is based on historical events, but some elements were created for dramatization. Now that said, even before the AJC published their letter, we saw Olivia Wilde defend the film and her character,

telling the Hollywood Reporter that Scruggs' legacy has been, quote, unfairly boiled down to one element of her personality, one inferred moment in the film, and adding, I think that people have a hard time accepting sexuality in female characters without allowing it to entirely define that character. We don't do that to James Bond.

We don't say James Bond isn't a real spy because he gets his information sometimes by sleeping with women as sources. Which we saw a number of people, including journalists, essentially respond, that's a bullshit statement. Right, James Bond isn't a real person. Yes, you are an actor acting in a movie. That is based on real events

and you have a number of people very angry that you are depicting a real person as having slept with a source, doing something unethical to get information. A person that also cannot defend themselves. Right, it's like if I did a story based on real events around Olivia Wilde and for some reason I include a scene where I inferred that Olivia Wilde was a big fan

of butt chugging or she slept with someone to get a role. Olivia Wilde, her friends, her peers would likely be very offended. Especially if the main argument is that it's not based on any real information. Now, as far as the other criticisms of how the media is portrayed in general, I'm going to have to wait to actually see the movie to have an opinion on that, which I will say this controversy probably does nothing but help the movie. But with all that said, based off of what we do know now, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. Then in quickie

entertainment news, we need to talk about Nick Cannon and Eminem. And no, this is not a video from 2010. And in this story, you had Nick Cannon of drumline and host of the Masked Singer fame deciding he was going to take a shot at Eminem, putting out a dish track on Eminem with such zingers as calling Eminem Elvis Pussley, seemingly taking a shot at him for adopting a daughter that is not his,

and quote, I heard your chauffeur got a video of you sucking a cock. And ultimately it was just kind of sad, really for two reasons. One, I feel like we all collectively learned that Nick Cannon doesn't have anyone in his life to tell him when he comes up with bad ideas,

which also isn't the most surprising. I don't know if Nick Cannon's ever turned down an offer. And two, 85% of the internet collectively came together to say that was trash. Like at least with Rap Devil, right, Machine Gun Kelly, there was a debate. Debate on its own, comparatively in my opinion, weaker to Kill, that was trash. Like at least with Rap Devil, right, Machine Gun Kelly, there was a debate. Debate on its own, comparatively in my opinion, weaker to Kill Shot by Eminem.

You know, in its own right, you could be like, I see the appeal. And I think a good example of like how poor of a job Nick Cannon did, when Eminem ended up responding with a throwaway tweet in just 14 minutes, that tweet had more likes than the damn official music video five hours after, and also still more likes than the official audio

that was released on Nick Cannon's channel. And as far as those responses, one, Eminem tweeted, you mad, bro? Stop lying on my dick. I never even had a chauffeur, you bougie fuck. Followed by, I demand an apology, Nicholas. You've made my gardeners so jealous. With all this happening,

you saw the hashtag RipNickCannon trending, 50 Cent responding, I don't understand to save my life why someone would pick a fight with them, he is a different kind of animal, and adding Nick that shit was trash, I oughta kick you in yo ass when I see you punk. And as far as what happens next, hey, while I and any other Eminem fan are like, yes, I would love to see another diss track from Eminem, you know, I end up thinking back to the lyrics and the ringer, it ends up kind of being a lose-lose.

Also, almost the entirety of the internet was clowning on Nick Cannon before Eminem even responded with throwaway tweets. Just feels like Nick Cannon wants it too much, but that's the story, my opinion. Of course, I'd love to know your thoughts. And then, of course, you're seeing the news today around President Trump. And while this first part will not be the focus,

it would be odd if we did not mention or include it. The House has officially announced two articles of impeachment against President Trump. The articles will now go to the Judiciary Committee for debate and approval before being sent to the House floor for a full vote. And if approved, they will be sent to the Senate for the trial portion, which would likely be set in January.

And there, with a Republican-controlled Senate, unless something crazy happened, that's probably where this would end. Now, as far as the articles in question, notably, this did not include a mention of obstruction of justice from the Mueller report, but today we did see Representative Jerry Nadler, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee,

make the announcement. The first article is for abuse of power. It is an impeachable offense for the president to exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest. That is exactly what President Trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election. And when he was caught, when the House investigated and opened an impeachment inquiry, President Trump engaged in unprecedented,

categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry. This gives rise to the second article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress. And there, the obstruction of Congress is also somewhat connected to one of the heavy criticisms from Republicans. You've seen some from the Republican side saying that Democrats are moving forward too fast with the impeachment process and that they should wait to collect more evidence from material witnesses and relevant documents. But there we've seen people like Representative Adam Schiff,

the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, explaining that the Democrats have tried to get those witnesses and documents, but they were unable to because the Trump administration blocked subpoenaed witnesses from testifying and refused to hand over documents. And going on to say that going through the legal process of trying to get those witnesses and documents

would take months, if not years. The argument, why don't you just wait, amounts to this. Why don't you just let him cheat in one more election? Right, and so for the most part today, I think all these other places are gonna be running, understandably, with the two articles of impeachment. But today, for the final story, I really wanted to focus

on the Justice Department Inspector General. There's a lot about this story online that I've seen misrepresented, whether it be from regular people or politicians or news outlets. So yeah, let's talk about that. So the Office of Inspector General released a report called "'Review of Four FISA Applications

and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation." It is 476 pages. I will link to the whole document down below. 99.9% of people that know about the document will not read it, so let's try and talk about it. Right, and in more plain terms, the real focus of this were what are the origins

of the 2016 Russia probe? We've seen Trump and his allies claiming a number of things. They made accusations that the FBI opened cases into Trump campaign officials because of political bias or improper motivation. However, the inspector general concluded that it was not influenced by political bias or improper motivation. This regarding George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. Although, as Axios pointed out, the inspector general said that there were significant inaccuracies and omissions in the surveillance applications used for Page. And adding, had FBI officials notify Justice Department leadership

of certain relevant information, the Inspector General said it may have undercut the claim, supporting probable cause in Page's application. Also in the past, we've seen Trump and his allies claiming that the Steele dossier, right, that controversial thing, that was the reason that the FBI opened its investigation. Turns out the Inspector General determined

that the dossier didn't actually play a role in the FBI's opening of the investigation, but as reports pointed out, it did play a quote, central and essential role in FBI lawyers' decision to support the Page surveillance request, with the inspector general essentially concluding that the FBI didn't do a good enough job

ensuring that Steele's information was accurate. And if you haven't noticed the trend at this point, I'll make it abundantly clear. A lot of this boils down to no purposeful wrongdoing was found based off of political bias or anything like that, but the FBI and a number of individuals in it seemed to be incredibly flawed.

We'll continue. There was also a dispute in this. You know, we've seen Trump and his allies claiming that Steele is essentially like an anti-Trumper. And according to the inspector general, Steele disputed a number of things. One, he defended his report saying they were not designed to be finished products.

And two, on the note of bias, he said, if anything, he was actually favorably disposed towards the Trump family. This reportedly because he had been friendly with one family member for years, which ABC News has reported is Ivanka Trump. Also regarding surveillance, the Inspector General reportedly found no evidence

that the FBI sought warrants for Manafort or Flynn, but while the FBI was interested in obtaining them for Papadopoulos, ultimately they did not. Also in the past, we had seen Trump and allies claiming that the FBI had placed essentially an informant in their group. Regarding that, the Inspector General's report said that the FBI did conduct, quote,

"'several consensually monitored meetings "'between FBI confidential human sources, CHS, "'and individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign,' "'but adding that those operations received "'the necessary approvals under FBI policy.' "'Going on to say, we found no evidence "'that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign,

recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign. Which, and this actually kind of goes back to the accusations of bias. Reportedly, the inspector general's report, quote, notes that key figures, including agents and sources, were actually supportive of Trump. And there were two key things here.

One, as the Washington Post points out, one supervisory special agent, SSA, describes believing a confidential human source's information because the source was a Trump backer. With that part of the report reading, he added that because the CHS was a Trump supporter, he was quote, not worried about the source trying to provide information or getting dirty information on Trump. He said any suggestion the CHS quote was directed to damage or investigate the Trump administration is just absurd. And two, reportedly, it turns out that not only was the source a Trump supporter, so too were the agents involved in cultivating him.

With the report saying, we reviewed the text and instant messages sent and received by the handling agent, the co-case handling agent, and the SSA for the CHS. Saying the agent contacted another FBI employee, saying if you hear talk of a special prosecutor, I will volunteer to work on the Clinton Foundation.'" That agent also sending instant messages

stating he was so elated with the election. Compared the election coverage to watching a Super Bowl comeback. Also referring to Hillary Clinton as a criminal. And as far as the handling agent and the co-case handling agent, on November 9th, they had a text exchange reading, "'Trump, haha, shit just got real.

"'Yes, it did. "'I saw a lot of scared motherfuckers "'on my way to work this morning. "'Start looking for new jobs, fellas, haha, lol.'" Right, and all of that was a notable inclusion since a lot of the motherfuckers on my way to work this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas, haha, lol." Right, and all of that was a notable inclusion since a lot of the way that Donald Trump has kind of painted this picture. That the FBI was essentially filled with people like,

what, Peter Strzok, a former senior counterintelligence officer, and Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney, who have messaged negative things about Trump. Although notably, they were found to not have acted out of bias, nor did they unduly influence the beginning of this investigation.

Now with all of that said, this situation is not completely over. And I mean that because one, reportedly there's an unnamed FBI lawyer who is currently under investigation mentioned in the report. This reportedly because he doctored an email that he sent to a supervisory FBI agent as they tried to determine whether they needed to inform

a special court overseeing surveillance warrants that Page had been a US government source in the past. So reportedly the report notes, the information was not included in their surveillance warrant applications, but it could have been exculpatory because some of Page's past contacts with Russians were approved by the US government.

And two, because after this inspector general report came out, we saw attorney general William Barr disagree, calling the Russia investigation completely baseless, saying he doesn't agree that there was sufficient predication to open this counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. And notably here, we also heard from US Attorney John Durham. He was appointed by Barr to conduct a parallel investigation

and he released a statement saying he disagreed with some of the findings from this Inspector General report saying, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Based on the evidence collected to date and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General

that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened. Right, so likely what we're gonna see from a number of people who are not happy with this report is people saying, well, let's wait for that one. Though I do wanna note here, connected to Barr, who you've maybe seen headlines, has said it's possible agents acted in bad faith

in Trump probe. Following Barr's comments, we saw a report is that a group of attorneys from the conservative group Checks and Balances have slammed Attorney General William Barr. With Donald Ayer, a former Deputy Attorney General, former Deputy Solicitor General, and former US Attorney, saying Bill Barr has grossly mischaracterized

and subverted the findings of the IG investigation report addressing the FBI investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 election. With former Associate Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Rose saying the attorney general has returned to his playbook of distortion and obfuscation in a transparent effort to undermine the IG's meticulous fact-based conclusions. Also another part of this story,

and it's a notable reaction and update involves current FBI director, Christopher Wray, who notably was nominated by President Trump after he got rid of Comey. And Wray, while noting that a number of the things in this report are unacceptable, right, the report lays out what they call 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions,

he went on to say, it's important that the Inspector General found that in this particular instance, the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization, which it appeared that Donald Trump was not a fan of because this morning he tweeted, "'I don't know what report current director of the FBI,

Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn't the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men and women working there. And following that, you had a number of people really focusing on him saying,

current? You know, Wray was appointed to a 10 year term, but technically the president could get rid of him. Though a number of experts say there is political risk there. So would he do it? Honestly, who knows? But yeah, with all of that said, hopefully it gives you a better understanding

of just the weird all over the place mess regarding the story. And of course, with this one, I would love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. And that is where I'm going to end today's show. And hey, if you like jumping into the news with me, make sure you hit that like button.

Also, if you're new here, definitely hit that subscribe button, tap that bell to turn on notifications so you don't miss these daily weekday videos. Also, if you're new here, definitely hit that subscribe button, tap that bell to turn on notifications so you don't miss these daily weekday videos. Also, if you're looking for more to watch after this video, you can check out our brand new deep dive or maybe just miss the last Philip DeFranco show you wanna catch up.

You can click or tap right there to watch either of those. 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.