The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.8 Why People Are Applauding Kim Kardashian Now, Trump Exec Privilege Chaos, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you had a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show, of course. Remember to hit that like button today, otherwise I'm gonna punch you in the throat. Which, actually, no, before we jump into it today, there has been such a large and interesting reception to my threats of throat punching this past week that for the next 48 hours I created and am making available the Throat Punch University Tee. You're smart, you know that whether for intimidation, self-defense, or as we have now learned kinks, throat punching is vital to everyday life. And that is why today I am offering you an honorary degree to Throat Punch University, which is a real university that I made up right now. Also, regarding the shirt, I am actually genuinely excited. As I previously mentioned when we did the big sale and shutdown of ShopDeFranco.com, I wanted to change things up. Better quality, but at the same time, better prices. And that's why, unlike the t-shirts we sold in the past, this shirt is not $25, but instead is just $19.99.

Starting point is 00:00:51 And I'm obviously biased here, I think the quality is way better. So if you don't wanna miss out, you wanna snag this shirt while you can, link to it down below. But with that said, let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is Kim Kardashian, and hey, you hold up

Starting point is 00:01:03 before you skip this story. Covering Kim Kardashian off and on over the past ten years has been a very strange Evolution. It used to be like awesome when had internet beef or there was some big reaction around the sex tape. Today's story is that in The last three months Kim Kardashian has been quietly working with a non-profit law firm to help commute the life sentences of 17 first-time Nonviolent drug offenders. Yes, really Kim Kim helped fund the 90 Days of Freedom campaign, which was launched after President Donald Trump signed the First Step Act, which, for those that don't know,

Starting point is 00:01:29 is the sweeping criminal justice reform bill that was signed into law this past December, and among other things, it eased mandatory minimum drug sentences. And as far as the 90 Days of Freedom campaign, it was actually started by Kardashian West's lawyer, Brittany Kaye Barnett, who heads the Buried Alive Project, and she launched this campaign in partnership

Starting point is 00:01:42 with lawyer, Me'Angel Cody, of the Decarceration Collective. And Barnett and Cody are utilizing the newly signed First Step Act as grounds for the releases of low-level drug offenders serving life sentences who have displayed good behavior. With Cody telling CBS News, "'Kim Kardashian has been instrumental "'in funding the legal fees

Starting point is 00:01:56 "'for vital attorney representation, "'transportation for newly freed prisoners "'so they have a ride home to their families, "'and reentry costs related to our clients' "'smooth transition back into society. And those freed with help from this campaign include Terrence Byrd. Byrd was convicted in 1995 for possession

Starting point is 00:02:09 with intent to sell less than a kilo of crack cocaine, or, as the Buried Alive Project puts it in its profile of Byrd, about enough to fill a small sandwich bag. Also, according to her report, others who were freed include Jamel Carraway, who served 11 years of a life sentence for cocaine possession.

Starting point is 00:02:22 Also, Eric Balcom, who's now back with his family in Florida after serving 16 years behind bars. And I will say, it's been very interesting to watch this because I think a lot of people, when she went to the White House, when she was kind of connected to a release in the past, I think there were a lot of people that were like, okay, this is just this one-time publicity stunt,

Starting point is 00:02:37 but then there was another release connected to her and another. You know, I think there are a lot of people that discount her intentions here. They doubt legitimacy here. And to a certain extent, I get it, right? People look to the past. They look to the kind of idea of being famous just for being famous.

Starting point is 00:02:50 But when we're seeing the net results of nonviolent criminals actually being released, that it wasn't a one-time thing, it appears to be a continued effort, I will personally celebrate a celebrity using their money, their spotlight, for a good cause. You know, I see it as no different when you see the Leonardo DiCaprios of the world using their spotlight to try and promote some good. We had Ben Stiller talking to Congress the other week. He was talking to the Senate about Syrian refugees. Or you have Ashton Kutcher with

Starting point is 00:03:12 Movements to End Modern Slavery. He's also talking to Congress. And you know, whether you think any person should be famous or not, or should have money or not, I commend people doing something extra, doing some good. And honestly, the way the news cycle has gone over kind of the past three to five years, I'm a net results kind of guy. Does whatever after the equation equal into more good into the world or less suck in the world? Great. But with that said, that's the story, my personal takeaway, and I pass the question off to you.

Starting point is 00:03:39 Do you agree with me or do you see it differently? Any and all thoughts, I'd love to hear from you. And then let's talk about Uber and the trouble around them. Today, in cities across the world, ride sharing drivers are striking to send a message to Uber and the other ride sharing apps that they want livable incomes. And the timing of this action is incredibly notable because it comes as Uber plans

Starting point is 00:03:55 to go public sometime this week. The company is expected to be valued between 80 and 91 billion, and that is despite reports that they actually lost an average of 58 cents per ride last year, although that's not really unheard of with tech companies. Like Amazon, for example, it took them years after their first public offering to become profitable. You know, a big part of that is throwing money at growth, new projects, grabbing as much market share as possible.

Starting point is 00:04:14 But meanwhile, on the other side of the company, you have drivers seeing a dip in their earnings. For example, recently, in March, Uber cut rates for drivers in Los Angeles by 25%. And obviously there's a difference, but I can't even imagine if I just came into work one day and I was like hey just so everyone knows You're getting paid 25% less when I say obviously the situation is different. I don't necessarily just mean skill level It's that these ride-sharing drivers are classified as independent contractors, which uber says is a good thing that allows flexibility But it doesn't give those drivers like the same benefits that I give to my full-time employees. Right, paid sick days, paid vacation, healthcare, dental, eye. And they're trying to do their ride-sharing job while standing on shifting sand.

Starting point is 00:04:50 They have little control over their pay rates. But regarding these issues, Uber said in a statement yesterday that they are focused on improving driver's experience, adding, whether it's more consistent earnings, stronger insurance protections, or fully funded four-year degrees for drivers or their families, we'll continue working

Starting point is 00:05:03 to improve the experience for and with drivers. While Lyft said in a statement that their drivers have actually seen increased earnings and added, over 75% drive less than 10 hours a week to supplement their existing jobs. On average Lyft drivers earn over $20 per hour. We know that access to flexible extra income makes a big difference for millions of people and we're constantly working to improve how we can best serve our driver community. However, on the other side of this drivers are saying that it's taking more and more hours to make the same amount of money now. You have people like Robin Thomas, a 37-year-old full-time Uber driver, saying, We have no sick leave and are forced to drive long hours to make ends meet. Mustafa McLeod, an Uber driver and organizer, saying,

Starting point is 00:05:36 Most of drivers living in San Francisco are forced to work at least 70 to 80 hours a week in order to survive in the city. Living expenses increase, gas prices increase, food expenses increase, everything is getting more expensive in order to survive in the city. Living expenses increase, gas prices increase, food expenses increase, everything is getting more expensive in order to live in San Francisco. We have to drive more and more, deal with health and stress problems, but Uber doesn't care. What Uber is doing is decreasing pay to drivers. And so all of that brings us to the strikes today happening in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City,

Starting point is 00:05:59 Washington D.C., as well as cities across the world like London and Sydney. For example, in Melbourne, about 30 protesters gathered near an Uber facility holding signs that said, On-Demand Workers Demand a Living Wage and Fight for Workers' Rights. In Los Angeles, drivers are not signing into the app for 24 hours and are gathering at Los Angeles International Airport. Meanwhile, in other places, there are drivers also doing 2-12 hour boycotts. We also saw Rideshare Drivers United, which is an unofficial advocacy group that organized the strike in LA.

Starting point is 00:06:22 They actually released a driver's bill of rights that laid out their demands which include a 10% commission cap, the app to show the estimated fare and destination before they accept, an elected driver representative on the board of directors, a rideshare vehicle cap, and an hourly minimum wage like New York City's which is $27.86 before expenses. Which, if you're like, where is that number coming from? New York City actually implemented the wage back in December after the city's taxi and limousine commission was tasked to come up with pay standards that would raise drivers earnings to $17.22. Although regarding that there are already lawsuits from Lyft and another ride-sharing app by the name of Juno

Starting point is 00:06:52 challenging the minimum wage claiming that this will cause a decline in bookings. One of the main questions in my head when this story popped up when we were looking into it was well how united of a front is this? We saw a tweet saying that the apps are still in use in New York and in Chicago this morning. In LA, if I open up the app right now, I wanted a ride home and get an Uber Black in two minutes, Uber X in two minutes, and all of it appears to be normal rates. And I think part of that may boil down to Uber's defense,

Starting point is 00:07:15 that the majority of people that are driving for Uber are not doing it full time and that it's intended to be a way for extra income. Right, and when it's just a part-time thing, it's something that's extra. You're not thinking about the benefits or anything. You're maybe designating some time, or some time opens up and you're like,

Starting point is 00:07:29 hey, let me make a few dollars. And when you have as many drivers as Uber has, according to their last filing, they have more than three million drivers worldwide. In my eyes, it's very unlikely you're gonna get a good number of those people on the same page. And in my eyes, and maybe I'm being cynical here, I think there are a lot of people

Starting point is 00:07:42 that are gonna hear this and go, oh, I can probably get more rides in today. And if that was not enough of a hurdle, and I do not mean any disrespect with this, it is a low-skilled job. And I don't foresee them having an issue with onboarding young people that want to make some extra money with their car. Even though their long-term goal is probably just to use human beings until they can have the cars drive the cars, and they don't have to deal with the people. You know, like a lot of industries are gonna go. And then, there's never really any shortage of it in the news cycle,

Starting point is 00:08:05 but there were two interesting pieces of Donald Trump news today. The first being is that this morning we learned that President Trump will be asserting executive privilege, and that's specifically over the unredacted Mueller report. And as far as why is this happening? So today the House Judiciary Committee just voted to hold Attorney General William Barr

Starting point is 00:08:20 in contempt of Congress, meaning it next must go to the rest of the House. And that over Barr refusing to comply with the committee's subpoena. And just so there's not any confusion, because I've seen a lot of different reporting, some of it misleading, this reportedly is not related to William Barr

Starting point is 00:08:32 refusing to testify in front of the committee. And instead, it's because Attorney General Barr refused to supply the committee with an unredacted Mueller report. And Democrats say that this would be incredibly important for Congress to fully understand the situation, because then Congress could understand not only what was released to the public,

Starting point is 00:08:45 but the redacted portions as well as supporting documents. But as we learned today, President Trump asserted executive privilege over this. Reportedly, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd confirmed that the President will assert executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials. And White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders saying in a statement that President Trump, quote,

Starting point is 00:09:01 "'has no other option than to make a protective assertion "'of executive privilege. This in response to the House's contempt vote. And in response to all of this, we saw House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, saying since the White House waived these privileges long ago and the department seemed open

Starting point is 00:09:15 to sharing these materials with us just yesterday, this decision represents a clear escalation in the Trump administration's blanket defiance. I hope the department will think better of this last minute outburst and return to negotiations." With Nadler reportedly adding, "'The fight is not just about the Mueller Report. The president has stated that his administration

Starting point is 00:09:30 will oppose all subpoenas. This is unprecedented. If allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight.'" And we had Nadler today calling this a constitutional crisis. Certainly it's a constitutional crisis, although I don't like to use that phrase because it's been used for far less dangerous situations

Starting point is 00:09:46 The phrase has been overused. We're in one because the president is Disobeying the law is refusing all information To to to Congress. It's a lawless administration. We cannot have a lawless administration although on the other side of this Sarah Sanders went after Nadler, Chairman Nadler is asking the Attorney General of the United States to break the law and commit a crime by releasing information that he knows he has no legal authority to have. It's truly outrageous and absurd what the chairman is doing and he should be embarrassed that he's behaving this way. Now as far as if this affects Mueller's testimony next week, as of right now, a justice official has said it does not. For those not aware, Mueller is set to talk to the committee on May 15th tentatively. Although it should be noted there that as of this last Sunday, President Trump has now said that he doesn't think that Mueller should speak in front of Congress.

Starting point is 00:10:29 So there was that, which is a big deal on its own. Of course, I'd love to know your thoughts there. But there was also another big story today. As you may or may not know, there was a major report from the New York Times on President Donald Trump's taxes. Yesterday, they published findings from Trump's tax returns between the years 1985 and 1994. And there they revealed that during this decade, Donald Trump saw $1.17 billion in losses. And those losses were so severe that for eight of the 10 years, he didn't actually pay any income taxes. And reportedly those losses came from what the Times called his core businesses, which included his hotels,

Starting point is 00:10:56 casinos, and retail spaces and apartment buildings. Now, of note here, the New York Times reportedly did not get their hands on Trump's tax returns, but they got the information from someone with legal access to them. And from there, they say they used IRS documents and other information they gathered in a 2018 investigation into Trump's taxes to verify what they found,

Starting point is 00:11:11 with the Times also looking into the context of Trump's losses. And they say that they found that during this time span, he quote, appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer. In both 1990 and 1991, his core business losses amounted to over $250 million each year. According to IRS information for those years, this is more than double the losses of the nearest taxpayer. Now, Trump's team has spoken out against this report. The Times spoke

Starting point is 00:11:33 to one of Trump's lawyers, Charles J. Harder, who said these numbers were quote demonstrably false. Also adding that due to the age of these returns their data should not be trusted saying IRS transcripts, particularly before the days of electronic filing, are notoriously inaccurate "'and would not be able to provide a reasonable picture "'of any taxpayer's return.'" But it's also worth noting that a former IRS employee countered this, saying that this data has gone through intensive quality control.

Starting point is 00:11:55 Also, we saw Donald Trump responding to the Times report this morning, tweeting, "'Real estate developers in the 1980s and 1990s, "'more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write-offs "'and depreciation which would, if one was actively building actively building show losses and tax losses in almost all cases much was non-monetary sometimes considered quote tax shelter You would get it by building or even buying you always wanted to show losses for tax purposes Almost all real estate developers did and often renegotiate with banks It was sport additionally the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate fake news hit job now

Starting point is 00:12:22 If you're wondering why people are saying that this report is so significant Topka Trump's taxes has been fought over for a long time, right? is a highly inaccurate fake news hit job. Now, if you're wondering why people are saying that this report is so significant, the topic of Trump's taxes has been fought over for a long time. Right, we've heard about this all the way back in 2016 when he became the nominee for the Republican Party and didn't share his taxes. Of course, that did not break law,

Starting point is 00:12:33 but it did break precedent with other nominees before him. And ever since then, you had reporters and politicians alike trying to find his returns, piece together information they could get from whatever scraps they could. But now, the timing of this New York Times article is very interesting, because this report news comes very close to what we saw on Monday. Where we saw Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin

Starting point is 00:12:50 declining the House Ways and Means Committee's request to see Trump's tax information between 2013 and 2019. And in a letter to committee chairman Richard Neal, he said that the request, quote, "'Lacks a legitimate legislative purpose and pursuant to section 6103, the department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information.

Starting point is 00:13:05 And following that, there are many people debating Mnuchin's right to decline this. And they argue this by also citing Section 6103 of U.S. Internal Revenue Code, which states, "'Upon written request from any of these three people, "'the Secretary shall furnish such committee "'with any return or return information specified "'in such request.'"

Starting point is 00:13:20 But Mnuchin has fought back, saying that you still would need a legitimate policy reason, which he does not believe Congress has. And so in response to this decline and pushback, Chairman Neal has said that he will be meeting with the House Council to discuss next steps. And even suggesting just taking the matter to federal court as opposed to issuing a subpoena, telling reporters,

Starting point is 00:13:34 it doesn't have to be an intermediary step. They seem not to be paying a lot of attention to the subpoenas, so take it from there. And as of right now, he says he anticipates having a plan by the end of the week. But also of note, on that front, Neal is not the only one fighting for Congress to get their hands on Trump's tax returns.

Starting point is 00:13:47 In fact, today, the New York State Senate passed legislation that would allow Congress to request Trump's state tax returns in New York. And so that means that it's going to advance to the state assembly next week, which has a Democratic majority, and so is expected to pass there as well. Now with all that said,

Starting point is 00:13:59 as far as will we actually see Trump's returns anytime soon, well, there's still a lot of skepticism on that front. Trump has refused to make them public at every turn, commonly using the excuse of being under audit. Also earlier this week, we saw this from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. To be clear, you believe Democrats will never see the president's tax returns.

Starting point is 00:14:16 Oh no, never. Nor should they. Ultimately, that's where we are right now. You have some Trump supporters saying that, you know, he is under audit, right? They are feeding into that reasoning. Others saying that it's no one's business. Meanwhile, you have those requesting it saying it may expose tax fraud.

Starting point is 00:14:29 Others saying that it might showcase sketchy foreign income. Maybe there was money moving that would explain Trump's relations with certain countries. But, ultimately, that is where we are with this story right now. Of course, this is a constantly developing and changing situation. But still, of course, like with everything we cover, I'd love to know your thoughts on this. And actually, the last thing I want to talk about today, and I wanted to end on this note because a lot of the stuff we talk about on this show, it ends up, because it's new, it ends up being horrible or this polarizing thing. I wanted to end today's show by praising two bamfs of the day. Unfortunately, it is still sad because often these days when we see the good, it is in the face of or something that was a silver lining to something horrible. And that's no different today because there was a 14 year old football star who was reportedly killed by a stray bullet on Saturday.

Starting point is 00:15:09 And following that to help this family to ease some of the horrible in this still immensely horrible situation, Ezekiel Elliot is paying for the funeral. And he's just doing this good in a situation where he didn't have to. And finally we have the likes of Kendrick Castillo today. If you didn't hear, there was a shooting at a Colorado charter school yesterday. Eight students were injured, one student was killed, that was Castillo. And reports have now come out that he died

Starting point is 00:15:31 protecting his classmates. With a classmate who witnessed the shooting saying, "'The next thing I know is the shooter is pulling a gun "'and he's telling nobody to move "'and that's when Kendrick lunged at him. "'And he shot Kendrick, giving all of us enough time "'to get underneath our desks to get ourselves safe "'and to run across the room to escape.'"

Starting point is 00:15:44 And as more comes out, it seems like Castillo wasn't the only one. With that witness, also thanking Brendan Bailey, Jackson Gregory, and Lucas Albertoni for being some of the kids that were brave enough to bring the shooter down so that all of us could escape and all of us could be reunited with our families. But I will say, even praising these kids, it still, no matter what, it hurts. They were in a situation that should be unthinkable, but becomes less so every day. And I praise Kendrick Castillo, but I'd rather not know him.

Starting point is 00:16:08 I would rather him have been this person that I didn't know of that would have just finished his senior year soon. But at the same time, I can't help but be in awe of and thankful for the Castillos of the world. And so with this momentary spotlight that I'm privileged to have, I will point it to Castillo rather than the monsters

Starting point is 00:16:23 that inflict horror into our everyday society. But yeah, that is where I'm gonna end today's show. Now remember, if you like this video, you want to support the channel, just take a second and hit that like button, maybe even share the video. Also, if you're new here and you want any and all of the seven new videos we post every single week, be sure to hit that subscribe button. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, you missed the last Philip DeFranco show, the Extra Morning Deep Dive, you want to catch up, click or tap right there to watch those. But with that said, of course, as always, my the last Philip DeFranco show, the extra morning deep dive, you wanna catch up, click or tap right there to watch those.

Starting point is 00:16:46 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 5.8 Why People Are Applauding Kim Kardashian Now, Trump Exec Privilege Chaos, & More

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