The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.26 Why People Are Freaking Out On JLo, Rhett & Link, Russia, & More

Episode Date: February 26, 2020

Shoutout to Keeps! Go to https://www.keeps.com/defranco to get 50% off your first order of hair loss treatment.   Check out my Conversation With: https://youtu.be/yCwqigzvhj8 Follow On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://Anchor.fm/aConversationWith   Check out the latest Rogue Rocket video: https://youtu.be/f_vOKr3-h1U   ✩ FOLLOW ME ✩ ✭ TEXT ME: 813-213-4423 ✭ TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PhillyD ✭ 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 62% OFF “A Plague Tale: Innocence” only available until 9 AM! ✭ Send me a text! 813-213-4423 ✭ Disney's Mulan Stunt Featurette: https://youtu.be/9LnPZo_M030 ✭ Inside a $50M Bel Air Mansion With a Vintage Bowling Alley: https://youtu.be/oBWFOnN3uBM ✭ BTS Performs "ON" at Grand Central Terminal: https://youtu.be/MZh-w2nysuI ✭ BTS Carpool Karaoke: https://youtu.be/T4x7sDevVTY ✭ Marc Maron: End Times Fun Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/PdgrEGFu44E ✭ Yosemite On Lockdown After Bear Spotted In Park | The Onion: https://youtu.be/nYDYZEVlQFQ   ✭ Secret Link: https://youtu.be/csqRKVus7dA    ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ Happy Anniversary to “The Dress” https://www.eonline.com/ap/news/1126248/revisiting-the-dress-debate-5-years-after-the-viral-sensation https://twitter.com/i/events/1232667481421967360 FCC Receives Complaints About Super Bowl Halftime Show: https://roguerocket.com/2020/02/26/fcc-superbowl-jlo-shakira/ SCOTUS Rules With Border Agent: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1232772670942564356?s=20 Intelligence Officials Say Russian Interference Report Was “Overstated”: https://roguerocket.com/2020/02/26/russian-interference-report/    ✩ MORE NEWS NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ A Texas Teacher Was Suspended for Showing Students a Photo of Her Fiancé https://roguerocket.com/2020/02/26/arts-teacher-suspended/ James Charles Faces Backlash for Impersonating Latin TikTok Character, Rosa: https://roguerocket.com/2020/02/26/james-charles-rosa-impersonation/  ——————————   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 #JenniferLopez #SCOTUS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's up you beautiful bastards? Hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday. We're Rhett and Link. Welcome to the Philip DeFranco Show. And let's just jump right into it. Another Wednesday, another set of potential PDS host replacements that I have to fire off. It's feeling more and more like

I'm gonna have to do this job forever. But on a happier note, if you'd like to watch my brand new podcast with Rhett and Link, I uploaded it like I always do right before I uploaded this video at youtube.com slash a combo with, and any and all of the audio platforms of your choice. I'll link to it down below.

If you're unfamiliar, it's a weekly podcast where I bring someone on, try to learn about them. And this one was actually especially interesting for me. They recently put out a set of videos where they, I'm kind of using the term loosely, they kind of came out as agnostic after, you know, very much religion being a huge part of their life. So I was really interested in talking about, you know,

well, what is it like opening yourself up like that? And then in a number of ways getting hit really hard. And I really appreciate the guys. They got very real, raw, vulnerable. I highly recommend you check it out. I think it's one of the more interesting ones. So definitely after today's show, check it out. But with that said, this is the Philip DeFranco Show.

Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is remembering a day that will live in infamy. People talk about how today in the United States, we are more divided than ever. Left versus right, hate being spewed every single day, but that does not hold a candle to the world war that we saw five years ago to date

as the fifth anniversary of this dress. Oh, strangers, families, friends divided. At each other's throats is the dress, black and blue or white and gold. It's the darkest of times, and some say we've never fully recovered. Also, that was five years ago? I, wow.

The longer I live, the faster I feel like I'm dying. So I guess the main points of this story, oh, the internet. We have fun here a lot. I mean, it's horrible also a lot. But yeah, a little internet history to start us off. Also, the dress is black and blue. No, I'm just kidding, but I'm not. But I am. But I'm not. Moving on. And then let's talk about a

story that centers around the Banffs that are Jennifer Lopez and Shakira. So earlier this month, Jennifer Lopez and Shakira were the halftime show at the Super Bowl. In general, a lot of people, including myself, said they absolutely nailed it. Some even calling it the best halftime show they have ever seen. It easily became the most watched halftime show on YouTube. But, you know, we also had some people slamming it, saying that they found their clothes and dancing to be inappropriate. We had some parents up in arms,

and it actually turns out that people were more vocal about their complaints than we maybe thought. Because what we're seeing now are reports that the Federal Communications Commission received over 1,300 complaints about that show. And to make this story even better, WFAA local station in Texas, which is the state that actually filed the most complaints,

obtained and published the full list yesterday. Some of the complaints, they really accuse this performance of a lot. Some writing, "'Completely inappropriate halftime show "'with simulated orgies, stripping, "'and borderline pornography. "'This is a family event during prime time

"'and should never have happened.'" Another writing, "'The halftime show was raunchy, lewd, and not acceptable for all viewing audiences. The scantily clad butt shots of JLo, especially when she turned to the cameras and bent over, was nothing short of hard porn. Which if I could very quickly,

having heavily researched the topic, I do not think that is a just comparison. But also several reviews accused the performance of worsening the issue of sex trafficking. Writing, in an era where sex trafficking is increasing, such programs only tend to feed the problem. If I wanted to see this type of activity, I would go to a strip club.

Instead, my living room was invaded by this. Another writing, during a time when we are trying to stop sex trafficking and prevent rapes, why are we showing children women who are scantily clad during the halftime show? Why was the cameraman so obsessed with showing us J-Lo's crotch and anus? Is your network encouraging more rapes and sexual assaults?

Because apparently that's what watching women doing with their bodies as they please does? And you can go through the whole list. A number of them are kind of ridiculous, funny, kind of bat shit crazy at times. Also, a number of them just seem like they're angry women exist, which actually kind of on that note,

to make a comparison to last year's halftime show with Adam Levine showing off his dirty, dirty man body. But that performance only led to 58 FCC complaints. Although to be fair, these two instances are pretty much nothing compared to the 2004 incident with Janet Jackson. There, the FCC released a statement just five days

after the Superbowl saying that they had received over 200,000 complaints. And in fact, some reports indicate that as time went on, they got even more reaching half a million. There, the FCC actually hit CBS with a hefty fine afterwards, but after a bunch of legal back and forth, it was tossed out. But ultimately to bring it back to the main story,

one, to Shakira and JLo, I would once again like to thank you for your service, and two, for the people that sent in complaints about that show thinking that it somehow encouraged sex trafficking and rapes, I would be more concerned about the apparent hit you took to the head. And I guess that's where I'm ending this one. And then, let's talk about this case that the US Supreme Court took a look at and have now ruled on.

So the story and case start back in 2010 when you have a 15 year old by the name of Sergio, who's reportedly with his friends along the culvert that divides El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico. And here you have the teenager's family saying the group is playing a game where they dared each other to run up to the unmarked border, touch the US side, then return to the Mexico side. Although alternatively here, Jesus Mesa Jr., who was a border patrol agent there at that time, claimed that the kids were throwing rocks at him in an attempt to illegally cross the border. And according to reports, during one of the runs across,

Mesa detained one of the boys. Sergio was able to run away, make it back to the Mexico side, but Mesa then drew his gun and fired shots, hitting the teenager in the face and killing him. And so following this boy's death, Sergio's family attempted to sue Mesa, based on the 1971 case Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Agents. And in that case,

which dealt with an unconstitutional home search, the Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits could be filed against federal law enforcement officers for constitutional violations, even though no statute has authorized this. So this case worked its way through the courts, ultimately getting to the Supreme Court, and ultimately the decision we saw come down this week

was against the family. The Supreme Court ruling in a five to four vote that the family could not sue Mesa. And here, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority saying that this case was rooted in a different context than the Bivens case and thus the implied rights from the 1971 ruling should not be extended easily here. Writing, unlike any previously recognized Bivens claim,

a cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications. Adding, in addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad, and because of the distinctive characteristics of cross-border shooting claims, we refuse to extend Bivens into this new field.

And Alito, backed by Justices John Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, said that it should be up to Congress to decide the scope of these matters, not the courts. Additionally, and notably here, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch went even further, calling on the courts to overrule the Bivens decision entirely in a concurring opinion.

Now on the other side of this, we saw Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent. She of course joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and they argued that the lawsuit should not be thrown out and that the only reason Mesa wasn't facing consequences was because Sergio happened to be on the Mexican side when he was shot.

With Ginsburg writing, the only salient difference here, the fortuity that the bullet happened to strike Hernandez on the Mexican side when he was shot. With Ginsburg writing, "'The only salient difference here, the fortuity that the bullet happened to strike Hernandez on the Mexican side of the embankment. But Hernandez's location at the precise moment the bullet landed should not matter one whit. Mace's allegedly unwarranted deployment of deadly force occurred on United States soil.

It scarcely makes sense for a remedy trained on deterring rogue officer conduct to turn upon a happenstance subsequent to the conduct, a bullet landing in one half of a culvert, not the other." So with all that said, kind of the arguments and explanation here, I would really love to know your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree

with the Supreme Court decision here? Why, why not? I of course would love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. And then let's talk about everyone's favorite, totally non-controversial topic, Russian interference in the US election. It's unfortunately a topic

that a large number of people dismiss because they see it as this partisan play to go after their guy, or a topic that people do believe is real, but they see it in a selective way. Right, so to kind of bring up to speed, last week we saw reports that intelligence officials had told the House Intel Committee that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election to get Trump elected,

with that briefing reportedly having taken place on February 13th, and actually right after that news broke, Bernie Sanders told reporters that his campaign had been briefed a month earlier about Russian efforts to help him in the election as well. Right, and so after that, we saw both Trump and Bernie respond to the news, though in very different ways. We saw Trump tweeting,

another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the do nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to, after two weeks, count their votes in Iowa, hoax number seven. Trump also saying the reports of Vladimir Putin wanted to help were disinformation while speaking at a rally in Las Vegas.

And adding, wouldn't he rather have Bernie who honeymooned in Moscow? Now as far as Bernie, he took a different approach. Instead of denying the claims, he took aim directly at Putin. Saying in a statement, I don't care frankly who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear.

Stay out of American elections and as president, I will make sure that you do. And adding, in 2016, Russia used internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters. Okay, so all of that went down last week,

but the reason that we're talking about this today is because we're now seeing reports that intelligence officials are saying that the assessment of Russian interference in Trump's campaign was and has been overstated by the official who gave the briefing to the committee. That person was Shelby Pearson, the top intelligence official for election security. Around this, CNN, Fox, and NBC all spoke with national security officials who told them that the US actually doesn't have evidence that Russia's interference in the 2020 cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump specifically. One of the officials telling CNN, "'The intelligence doesn't say that. "'A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence

"'is not that they have a preference. "'It's a step short of that. "'It's more that they understand "'the president is someone they can work with. "'He's a deal maker.'" One of the intelligence officials who spoke to CNN also said that the way Pearson characterized the intelligence was misleading,

while another just said that she failed to provide nuance that was needed to convey the information, with the report adding, Pearson's characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pearson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.

And to that point, NBC also reported that intelligence officials say that was an overstatement fueled, they believe, by a misinterpretation by some Democratic lawmakers on the committee. But also, very notably here, NBC also said that the officials who spoke to them did not dispute

that she told the House the analysis suggests the Russians favor Trump, a preference the Russians displayed during the 2016 election the US intelligence community publicly concluded. And adding that two former intelligence officials briefed on the matter told NBC News there is evidence that the Russians would like to see Trump remain in office. But those officials who spoke to NBC also said

that they were worried the information was being distorted by both Republicans and Democrats for political gain. And specifically adding that Trump and his national security advisor, Robert O'Brien, have sidestepped questions about how they would respond to foreign election interference and have instead put the focus on Democrats. By doing so, they have also played politics

with intelligence and national security, current and former officials say. Now with all this said, I know earlier I kind of joked about like how we were never as divided as the blue and black or white and gold dress. We do live in very divisive times, especially politically speaking. And I think that it's really hard

when people deny the facts. There is no doubt that the Russians interfered in 2016. And I think that Donald Trump has done a great disservice by often dismissing those facts. Some thinking and saying he's doing so for nefarious self-serving reasons. Others, I think at the very least, I think it's related to his ego,

if he admits this thing, he feels like it'll delegitimize him. But ultimately, at the very least, I hope we can all come together to know that there is one man set to gain from all of this interference. And that man is Vladimir Putin. The whole goal here is to sow chaos,

to undermine democracy, to make us question everything. To the point of even if they have their hand on any specific individual thing, there's questions about it, there's skepticism, people don't know what to believe. And this isn't a new thing from Russia, they've just gotten exceptionally better at it in the past decade.

And I ultimately end up leaving this story and situation kind of deflated, concerned, because it feels like it shouldn't be a partisan issue, whether it be Russia or any other outside interference. That we should be against that, we should all together be trying to combat that. But unfortunately it feels more and more like it's only going to be used for political purposes.

And there's a range in the ways that it could be used, but one of the scarier ways is to make essentially half the country, depending on who wins or loses come November, doubt the validity of the scarier ways is to make essentially half the country, depending on who wins or loses, come November. Doubt the validity of the results. And so that's why for a number of different possible outcomes, I'm very concerned about November. I know there are a large number of people, I mean, not necessarily people watching this video, but people in this country that assume, even though they've had issues with the government, that everything will ultimately be okay.

Everything's kind of worked things out. Politically speaking, in the United States, we're living in a time of firsts, a time of extremes, and a time where more than ever, it doesn't feel like we have the us in the US. But on that delightful note, that's where I'm ending today's show. Of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on this

or anything I talked about today. And that is where I'm going to end today's show. And hey, thanks as always for tuning in to my little daily news show. If you like these, hit that like button on the daily, it helps out the show. Also, if you're looking for more to watch, maybe you missed yesterday's show

or you wanna check out that brand new podcast with Rhett and Link, 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. I hope you liked this video. Subscribe if you like it.