The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.29 What Did Mueller REALLY Say Today, Gamers Arrested For Playing PUBG, & Lahren VS Gillette

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show Of course remember hit that like button to support the show But with that said let's just jump into it The first thing we're gonna talk about today is two bits of Indian news one small the other very very weird and large The smaller one is that India has officially won with T-Series officially becoming the first YouTube channel to have over 100 million subscribers Beating out the largest YouTube creator channel, PewDiePie, aka Felix. Felix who has just a measly, barely more than 96 million.

Starting point is 00:00:32 How embarrassing. What a loser, he said very, very sarcastically. Obviously this isn't a real loss for Felix. He is by far the largest individual creator channel on the platform. Any and all challengers are miles away. The whole campaign and subscriber battle, I mean, it just supercharged his channel to a point where he's getting between four to nine million views per video.

Starting point is 00:00:49 Yeah, I felt like mentioning it because it felt like the closing of a chapter. But with that said, the other bit of India news is wild. This is about PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. Other people know it as PUBG, which if you don't know, it's a massive online multiplayer survival game. It's in the battle royale genre. For a while's been a popular game right it came out on PC then console But in India when it really really got big it was when they offered it on smartphone after that it just exploded in India You had this free game within just a few months becoming the top grossing app on Android in India and that ranks still holds But after a little while we started seeing stories pop up claiming that there were some serious problems and that story focused around a 15 Old boy who was reportedly admitted to a clinic for PUBG addiction and And it just escalated from there. In January of this year a fitness trainer from the Kashmir region

Starting point is 00:01:30 was admitted to the hospital after he began self-harming because he was quote addicted to the game. Early in February it was reported that a teenager committed suicide after his parents refused to give him a new phone to play the game. And unsurprisingly these events, these reports, others similar to them, they sparked some fierce backlash. Locals in the Kashmir region called on the government to ban PUBG after the fitness trainer was hospitalized. Also at the beginning of the year an activist in India demanded a national ban on the game, arguing that it promoted violence and cruelty. Shortly after that reportedly an 11 year old boy filed a separate court petition to ban PUBG, saying that it encouraged violence and cyberbullying. And keep in mind, there was more happening, these are just some examples.

Starting point is 00:02:03 And so what we see is that India starts taking matters into their own hands. At the end of January, the state of Gujarat banned PUBG in schools, claiming that the students were getting addicted to the game and that it was quote, "'adversely affecting their studies.'" You know, that's school, there's a time and a place. But it didn't stop there.

Starting point is 00:02:16 In early March, police in the city of Rajko, which is in Gujarat, they announced that they were banning the game altogether, with the police commissioner reportedly writing in a statement. "'From the various sources, it comes to our knowledge that after playing games like PUBG, violent traits are shown to be increased in youth and children.

Starting point is 00:02:30 Due to these games, the education of children and youth are being affected, and it affects the behavior, manners, speech, and development of the youth and children. With the commissioner also saying that anyone found playing this game in public would be jailed and fined. And it turns out they were not bluffing. Just within the first week of announcing this ban, they reportedly arrested 10 people for playing PUBG.

Starting point is 00:02:46 The ban also had a spillover effect because less than a week later, other large cities started banning the game too. By mid-March, the state police there had reportedly arrested 21 people for playing the game in public. According to reports, most of the people who were arrested were college students.

Starting point is 00:02:58 Oftentimes plainclothes cops picked up these gamers outside college campuses, cafes, youth hostels, and other places. And while some of these kids got kind of a slap on the wrist, others were actually charged and convicted in court, some fined, some even briefly jailed. Now the good news with this situation, if you can call it good news, is that these bans were all short-lived. Some cities reportedly lifted the ban barely a month after imposing them, with authorities saying because exams in state schools were finished, kids didn't need to focus on studies anymore.

Starting point is 00:03:21 And in other cities like Rajko, the bans were actually called off in April and early May. And the reason I say that it's hard to call this good news is that at any other point, they could just put it back in place. Based off of some of the moves that we've seen in India, it seems like they are ban happy. I mean, just a few weeks ago, we were talking about how they banned TikTok completely,

Starting point is 00:03:37 saying that it exposed minors to pornography, and then a few days later, they just reversed the ban. And obviously, while there are differences between these two situations, it has a common theme. All right, big accusation, accusation the games and making kids violent It's hard not to view these moves as moral panic overreaction you had people arrested Convicted actually in a jail because they played a game on their phone. That's batshit crazy by itself But they also went about it in a batshit crazy way

Starting point is 00:04:00 It's like if they made it illegal to burn candles, but it wasn't illegal to make or sell candles They specifically just went after the end user and really I think all they accomplished is that there's now young people that don't trust the government There are obviously people who have issues around games, although I've never personally experienced that for me It's always been this fantastic escape from reality for a little but the answer isn't to have police going to hostels and cafes and just singling out Young people that have their phone in landscape mode. It's just crazy and it feels like I should be reading this on The Onion, but this is this is just real life. Granted, I find myself thinking that more and more just looking at any and all of the news these days, but uh, yeah. I don't even know how to end this story other than this shouldn't have been a real thing.

Starting point is 00:04:40 But of course, like with everything I talk about on the show, I'd love to know your thoughts on this. And then let's talk about a story that involves Tommy Lahren and Gillette. So if you haven't seen, there's this new ad from the razor brand Gillette that shows a father teaching his transgender son how to shave for the first time. And shocker, that has been met with mixed reactions online. The video features Samson Brown, a Toronto-based artist who opens up about his first experience shaving after his transition. The video then cuts to Brown and his father in front of a bathroom mirror. Brown explains that his transition isn't just about him, but also about those around him. And the ad then reads,

Starting point is 00:05:07 Whenever, wherever, however it happens, your first shave is special. And the video closes on the company's tagline, The best a man can get. And the ad is reportedly part of Gillette's My Best Self campaign, and it's currently being shown at the Inside Out LGBT Film Festival in Toronto. So, let's talk reactions. We saw many LGBTQ supporters applauding the company for its inclusiveness. Some even saying that the video brought them to tears.

Starting point is 00:05:26 You also had others that found the ad insincere and accused the company of pandering. Some even arguing that the video actually exploits transgender people for monetary gain. Kind of an in-between those lines. You also had some users recognizing the ad as a marketing strategy, but still respected the brand for the subject choice.

Starting point is 00:05:39 And then also you had others who took issue with the brand supporting the transgender community in general. Among those criticizing, you had conservative commentator Tommy Lahren chiming in, calling the ad, quote, a little much. Also saying that it promotes undergoing hormone therapy and gender reassignment to high school-aged children. As far as Brown's response, he actually took to Facebook to say that he was overwhelmed by the positive responses, writing, I'm keenly aware of how blessed I am to be able to exist in this world, being supported by my family in ways that all too often many of my trans brothers, sisters, and siblings

Starting point is 00:06:05 who exist outside the binary are not always as fortunate." And adding, I am confident that this ad will encourage many of my trans siblings and fill them with the knowledge that our existence in this world can be filled with the love and support we deserve. Gillette has also responded in a statement saying, We anticipated there would be some negative response

Starting point is 00:06:20 to this video, however, we're thrilled with the overwhelmingly positive responses we've seen from both consumers as well as organizations. And adding, as a brand committed to helping men look, feel, and act their best, it's important to us to embrace inclusivity in how we portray masculinity. This is especially true for Samson and others in the trans community, which is why we created First Shade. Ultimately, that's where we are with this story right now. And of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on this. Is your reaction to this kind of along any of the lines of the groups that we talked about?

Starting point is 00:06:45 Do you love it? Do you think it's just marketing? Are you somewhere in between because it's still them choosing a side? Do you think that it's bad? Any and all thoughts and your reasoning for them, I'd love to see in those comments down below. And then let's talk about this situation

Starting point is 00:06:56 with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If you didn't see this morning, Robert Mueller, for the first time since two years ago when he was appointed Special Counsel, he gave a public on-camera statement. And in this public statement, he reiterated some of the top points that he made in his investigation and report and for the sake of time and trying to make it consumable i'm going to try and just hit on some of the key points that a lot of people are talking about now but to make

Starting point is 00:07:14 sure you're fully informed i'm going to link to the whole thing down below so in this public statement robert muller explains this isn't just about one thing the report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

Starting point is 00:07:56 Okay, so there's the Russian interference part, and the investigation shows that there was insufficient evidence to say that there was a broader conspiracy. But regarding Russian interference, he hits on that hard saying. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers, who were part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. And of an important note here, that is in addition to the separate allegations regarding a private Russian firm. So there's that part, which really should not be discounted. It's an incredibly important important part of this story and I think we as Americans need to care about outside interference And then secondly a Muller talks about obstruction and the key note here the key clip here that you've probably seen played over and over At this point was if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime

Starting point is 00:08:39 We would have said so and he then adds we did not, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. He then says the introduction to Volume 2 of the report explains that decision, then further explaining, It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal

Starting point is 00:09:04 and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. And for people wondering, well, why would you even investigate if you could not charge?

Starting point is 00:09:26 He ends up hitting on that when talking about the Department of Justice's opinion regarding being able to charge a president or not. And he hits on two specific things. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process

Starting point is 00:09:54 other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would, would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. And one of the biggest standouts of all of that was what he said about the Constitution.

Starting point is 00:10:28 That it requires a process other than the criminal justice system. Because the process that it appears that he's talking about is Congress's ability to impeach. Mueller's saying he followed regulations, he gave the results to the Attorney General. The Attorney General then made a large part public to Congress and the public. And essentially Mueller has finished his job. With him also saying that the special counsel's office is closing, that he's returning to private life. And also adding that he hopes and expects this is the last time that he will talk on this matter.

Starting point is 00:10:50 Adding that any testimony from his office would not go beyond the report. And following all of this, we saw President Trump respond, "'Nothing changes from the Mueller report. "'There was insufficient evidence, "'and therefore in our country a person is innocent. "'The case is closed, thank you.'" I feel like it is necessary to say

Starting point is 00:11:03 that that is not an accurate representation of what Robert Mueller said. Well, he did say insufficient evidence regarding conspiracy, which I'm very happy to hear. But in no way is that what Robert Mueller said about obstruction. Mueller explained the limitations of what he was allowed to do from the beginning to the end of his investigation, and specifically says the Constitution requires a process outside of the criminal justice system. Which is Congress, who ultimately, along with the American public, got a large portion of the report. This was in no way an exoneration regarding obstruction.

Starting point is 00:11:29 Democrats have even gone further saying that it is a referral to Congress for impeachment. On the opposite end of that though, we're seeing Republicans use what I'm calling the Ken Starr defense. We saw the likes of Newt Gingrich tweeting, "'Mueller tried to have it both ways. "'If he thought President Trump was guilty of something,

Starting point is 00:11:42 "'he should have said he was guilty of something. "'Ken Starr used the word guilty 11 times on 11 different counts in his report on President Clinton. If not guilty, Trump is innocent. And we've seen a good number of people respond that that is not an apples-to-apples comparison. If anything, it's just misleading. Saying that while Robert Mueller and Ken Starr's positions had kind of similar functions, they operated under different legal authority. Ken Starr was an independent counsel. Robert Mueller was a special counsel. Starr was appointed by the now expired Ethics and Government Act.

Starting point is 00:12:07 That act expired in 1999, and after 1999, as explained by Axios, special counsel is governed by the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter Six, which has been the way to appoint a special counsel ever since 1999, and adding, the law gives the Attorney General much more authority over whether to appoint a special counsel and over the investigation.

Starting point is 00:12:22 It's part of the argument against the comparison is you have Robert Mueller saying that he had to abide by DOJ guidelines, whereas comparatively, Ken Starr was an independent counsel and wouldn't have the same limitations. So there's that legal argument that's happening right now. But also, what I would add is I think it's important to look back and see there was a massive amount

Starting point is 00:12:38 of criticism against Ken Starr. I'd completely forgotten about this, which is not shocking. I was about 13 at the time. Ken Starr's ethics advisor resigned to quote, according to the AP, "'Protest the independent council's decision "'to act as an aggressive advocate "'in the House impeachment hearing

Starting point is 00:12:52 "'against President Clinton,' "'with Dash saying in a letter, "'you have violated your obligations "'under the independent council statute "'and have unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment.'" Yeah, that's where I'll leave this one for now. And of course, pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this whole situation?

Starting point is 00:13:04 And that's where we're going to end today's show. And remember, if you liked this video, you wanna support the channel, be sure to hit that like button. And if you're new here, definitely be sure to subscribe and click that bell to turn on notifications. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, maybe you missed one of the last two Philip DeFranco shows,

Starting point is 00:13:16 you can click or tap right there to watch 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.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.29 What Did Mueller REALLY Say Today, Gamers Arrested For Playing PUBG, & Lahren VS Gillette

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.