The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 6.23 WOW David Dobrik is in BIG Trouble, The Truth About Gen Z, Supreme Court, Adam Schiff on Jan 6

Episode Date: June 23, 2022

Use code PHIL for $20 off your first SeatGeek order. https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/PHIL News You Might Have Missed: ​​https://youtu.be/PrGB7syY_Xs TEXT ME! [phone] Get More Phil: https://linktr.ee/PhilipDeFranco – 00:00 - Jeff Wittek Sues David Dobrik 04:03 - Uvalde School Police Chief Placed on Leave 06:41 - FDA Orders Juul Products Off the Market 08:17 - Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Gun Law 11:07 - Reports Detail Interests of Gen Z 14:05 - Sponsor 14:48 - Adam Schiff Talks Jan. 6 Hearings 19:35 - Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Trump in State or Federal Investigations? 20:32 - If You Were in the Position of the DOJ, Do You Think There Is Enough Evidence? 21:31 - Should Action be Taken Against Congress Members Involved in Election Schemes? 22:32 - Why Is There Such a Difference Between the Actions of the Panel and the DOJ? 23:47 - How Can We Ensure Democracy Will Hold? 25:00 - What is Your Message to Voters Ahead of the Midterms? – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ Check Out My Editor Maxx's Stream! https://www.twitch.tv/itsthetourettes Jeff Wittek Sues David Dobrik: ​https://www.tmz.com/2022/06/22/david-dobrik-sued-for-excavator-stunt-gone-wrong-slicing-mans-face-open/ Uvalde School Police Chief Placed on Leave: https://roguerocket.com/2022/06/23/uvalde-police-chief-put-on-leave/ FDA Orders Juul Products Off the Market: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-23/juul-vaping-products-are-ordered-off-the-market-in-the-us-by-fda?sref=LxPlVnZb Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Gun Law: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8 Reports Detail Interests of Gen Z: https://blog.youtube/culture-and-trends/culture-trends-report-gen-z-multiformat-shorts-creator-pop-culture/ https://murmuration.org/static/Looking-Forward-with-Gen-Z.pdf Adam Schiff Talks Jan. 6 Hearings: https://roguerocket.com/2022/06/23/schiff-doj-trump-election-crimes/ ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Instagram Testing New Tools To Verify Users Are Over 18: https://roguerocket.com/2022/06/23/instagram-age-verification/ —————————— Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg Art Department: Brian Borst, William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Maddie Crichton, Lili Stenn, Ben Wheeler, Chris Tolve Production Team: Zack Taylor, Emma Leid ———————————— #DeFranco #DavidDobrik #JeffWittek ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards! Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. I got a fantastic and big old Thursday show for you today, so definitely hit that like button to let the world know you like those big ones. We've got a lot of news to talk about that I definitely want to hear your thoughts on. We have Congressman Adam Schiff hopping by the show fresh off a January 6th hearing to talk about it and so much more. So hey, let's just jump into it. And the first thing that we have to talk about today is I have developed teleportation technology. Check this shit out. Phil, what are you doing in my stream? We're not doing this bit until tomorrow. My bad.

From Casa de Franco to Casa de Work-Life Balance. More than adequate accommodations to be able to walk you through how the world is specifically on fire that day. But a lot of big news today, so let's start off light and talk about David Dobrik. Remember when he almost killed his friend? That friend being Jeff Wittek,

David Dobrik operating the crane that he was swinging while also operating a camera. And while David's horrifying excavator slam didn't kill Jeff, it ultimately did break his foot, his hip, tearing a ligament in his leg, and shattered his skull in nine places. With Wittek also almost losing his eye and having to have surgery after surgery.

And now the news appears to be that Wittek is hitting back, but not at Dobrik's face, but rather something David may care about more, and that is his wallet. With TMZ now reporting that Jeff is suing David for more than $10 million in damages, saying as a result of the accident, he has suffered wage loss, loss of earning capacity, and racked up hospital bills, with him suing specifically for general negligence and intentional tort. Which, if you're not familiar with what intentional tort is, as Emily D. Baker, a fantastic attorney and legal commentator put it, Intentional tort means you've done an act, an affirmative act, that has caused a harm. Tort is not the food. Tort is a civil harm for which you can recover damages.

So, s*** that you did that's not criminal that you can be sued for, that is a tort. But that only owns a reading over the actual filing on a live stream today, which shows that Wittig is additionally accusing Dirt Gear LLC who Dobrik rented the excavator from, for malice and fraud. This because he alleges that Dirt Gear LLC provided no training or instruction on how to use the excavator to David Dobrik or David Dobrik LLC, or how not to use the excavator,

including the safety features of the excavator. And of that $10 million that Wittig is trying to get from Dobrik, you had Emily saying. I think 10 million is a really reasonable number. When you look at life, because now you're looking at lifetime, lifetime medical bills,

alteration of life, alteration of working and earning capacity. You're just looking at a lifetime of, you know, expenses and lost potential earning and income due to this accident. And as far as what David's defense here could be, Emily said that it would likely come down to contributory negligence. We've kind of seen David planting these seeds. He's saying that it was Wittig's idea

to get on the excavator, him agreeing to get on the excavator. And with that, who bears the most responsibility for this accident? Though, as she notes, contributory negligence, I don't think knocks Dobrik out of liability here at all. He's the one driving it. He's the one driving it. And so he is the one responsible once he is driving it. So I don't think, you know, Wittig getting on the excavator with Dobrik is going to make this case a case where the contributory negligence matches to the point where Jeff Wittig's not going to recover. I think they will likely settle this. I can't imagine this would go to trial. I mean, you can't put this case in

front of a jury easily. This is not for Dobrik. This is not a case you want to go to a jury because the video is chilling. This is a case they want to settle. If you're Jeff Wittek, if Dobrik doesn't want to settle with you, you take this to a jury and you play the video. And you're like, yeah, I trusted my friend to not try to kill me. And so now with all of that said, I do want to pass the question off to you. Where do you stand on this? I've seen opinions ranging from being in Jeff's corner, David's corner. They're both at fault. It's only the excavator company's fault. It's all over the place. So that's why with this story, I'd love to know your opinion on the story in general, but also what would you like to see happen in this case? Let me know. Then we need

to talk about this absolute earthquake of a city council meeting, where we saw people coming together to voice their outrage and demand action against school district police chief, Pete Arradondo, with a lot of what followed centering around one council member in particular, Arradondo himself. Yes, really just over two weeks before the massacre,

he was elected to the seat on May 7th. But after public scrutiny and outrage is now pointed in his direction after the police response, people's feelings about electing him have understandably changed. With him also missing an emergency council meeting after the shooting, as well as this most recent meeting. And so now you have these community leaders

and family members of those killed giving fiery speech after fiery speech to their council members with seemingly the sadness displaced by raw anger at this point. Who are you protecting? Not my sister. The parents? No? You're too busy putting them in handcuffs. We are

having to beg y'all to do something to get this man out of our faces. We can't see that gunman. That gunman got off easy. So we can't take our frustrations out on that gunman. He's dead. He's gone. Y'all need to put yourselves in our shoes and don't say that none of y'all have because I guarantee you if any of y'all were in our shoes y'all would have been pulling every string that y'all had to get this man off the council. With a woman also pointing out a technicality that if Arredondo misses two more meetings the council can vote him out for abandoning his office but only if they refuse a leave of absence that he has requested because it would excuse him from attending. What you can do right now is not give him if he requested it a leave of absence. Don't give him an out.

We don't want him. We want him out. And so after all the testimonies, you see council member Chip King making this announcement. I make a motion we do not grant the leave of absence for councilman. With the entire council then unanimously voting to approve the motion, though, if Arrigando decides to show up, he still can. People wondering, like, would he be crazy at this point to show his face in public again? But that also isn't the end of his repercussions. Yesterday, the district superintendent placed him

on administrative leave as well. It was unclear if that leave is paid or unpaid, and you still have people calling for him to resign or be fired. And in the meantime, even more damning details are coming to light about the police response, with the Department of Public Safety director saying that the officer whose wife, you know,

the teacher who called him saying she was bleeding to death inside the classroom, he actually tried to move forward into the hallway to help her, but the other officers detained him and even took his gun away, escorting him off the scene, with his wife then later dying from her injuries, which is as horrifying as it is infuriating. And then finally, the last piece of news surrounding all this is that Uvalde's mayor has announced that Robb Elementary is set to be demolished, saying that no student or teacher should have to return there. But with all of this, what do you make of it? I'd love to know your thoughts.

Whether it be about Arredondo specifically, should actions be taken, yes, no, as well as any specific part of this story, because one of the ones obviously that stands out to me is the guy that wanted to save his wife but was detained. Like, I didn't think this story could be more heartbreaking or horrific, but here we are. And then we have to talk about how the FDA is ordering Juul,

the major e-cigarette, to be taken off the market entirely in the US. With the agency explaining in its decision today, as a result, the company must stop selling and distributing these products. And those currently on the US market must be removed or risk enforcement action. Now, if you've been paying attention, this isn't too surprising,

as Juul's been in the FDA's crosshairs for years now. Having spent two years reviewing a Juul application to promote its tobacco and menthol-flavored products, and Juul having gotten into a ton of trouble for marketing past fruit flavored products to teens and children. With the situation being so bad that it eventually led the company

to limit its marketing in 2019 and the FDA completely banning fruit flavored e-cigarette products in 2020. And Juul sales have tumbled ever since. And so there's now this notable question of, is this a sign of things to come for the entire industry or just a sign that the FDA doesn't like Juul specifically? Right, and that's because other e-cigarette brands,

Reynolds, American Inc, and Enjoy Holdings Inc, have been allowed to keep their tobacco-flavored e-cig products on the market. But at the same time, it's possible the FDA will reconsider those products as well after it's dealt with Juul. But the company is having until September to prove whether or not their e-cigarette products

are in the interest of public health. And if they can't do that, the FDA is aiming to squish them like a bug. Without authorization in the US market, Juul could effectively die. And there's a lot of dollars at play. Even though last year they were down 11% in sales, they still reported $1.3 billion in sales last year.

And the US makes up almost its entire market, even though it tried to expand into the UK, Italy, France, and the Philippines. Now, it is possible that Juul could fight this either through the appeals processes provided by the FDA itself or in the court, but this may just be small news if the FDA actually gets its way.

Because reportedly they're looking to effectively kill cigarettes by eliminating nearly all nicotine in them. Which could absolutely shatter the $95 billion US cigarette industry. Although at the same time, we might just see those sales shift to cigarette alternatives.

But ultimately for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what happens. Then in absolutely massive news, just this morning, the Supreme Court issued a historic ruling regarding the Second Amendment. Striking down a New York law that put restrictions on people who concealed carried guns outside of their home.

And I really can't emphasize enough how major this decision is. Not only does it represent the biggest expansion of gun rights in over a decade, this ruling is only the court's third major statement on the scope of the constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms, and as the New York Times put it,

it's first in how the right applies to firearms in public places. The decision has far reaching implications, particularly in cities that had sought to address gun crimes by putting restrictions on who can carry them. And this decision now places similar laws in at least eight other states in jeopardy. Right under the New York law,

which was enacted more than a century ago, those who want to get a license to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense must show they have a proper cause. With the law being challenged by two men who had licenses to carry handguns for hunting and target practice, but have been denied permits for concealed gun carry for self-defense.

With officials saying the men couldn't show a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community. But in an NRA-backed suit, the two claimed the New York law violated the Second Amendment, arguing that the state makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license. And in the 6-3 ruling today,

entirely along ideological lines, the Supreme Court's conservative majority agreed. With Justice Clarence Thomas writing in the majority opinion that the ability to carry a weapon for self-defense purposes is a constitutional right and adding, "'A state may not prevent law-abiding citizens "'from publicly carrying handguns "'because they have not demonstrated

"'a special need for self-defense.'" With him going on to say, "'We know of no other constitutional right "'that an individual may exercise "'only after demonstrating to government officers "'some special need. "'It is not how the Second Amendment works "'when it comes to public carry for self-defense.'" But in the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer argued only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. It is not how the Second Amendment works

when it comes to public carry for self-defense." But in the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the court's conservatives failed to, quote, "'correctly identify and analyze the relevant historical facts' and accused them of ignoring an abundance of historical evidence supporting regulations." With Breyer noting that many states have tried

to address some of the dangers of gun violence and claiming that the court's decisions severely burden states' efforts to do so. With Breyer also arguing that this matter goes beyond history and also touches on the rights of states to protect their citizens. Claiming that the Second Amendment allows states to take account of the serious problems

posed by gun violence and writing, "'When courts interpret the Second Amendment, "'it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, "'for them to consider the serious dangers "'and consequences of gun violence "'that lead states to regulate firearms.'" And to this point, Breyer specifically noted that nearly 300 mass shootings have taken place just since the beginning of 2022. And pointed to data that shows that gun violence that lead states to regulate firearms. And to this point, Breyer specifically noted that nearly 300 mass shootings have taken place

just since the beginning of 2022. And pointed to data that shows that gun violence has now surpassed car crashes as the leading cause of death for children and teens. But as far as what happens next, despite the SCOTUS ruling, the New York law is not entirely moot just yet. The case will now get sent back to a lower court,

which experts expect will then send it to another court, which will then likely give New York some kind of grace period. And as far as the similar laws in other states, it's basically all but ensure that those will be challenged immediately against this now new Supreme Court ruling. And while those challenges will probably succeed in ensuring states cannot ban concealed carry of guns

in entire cities, they will likely still be able to impose some kind of restriction on certain sensitive places like schools. But for now, yes, we have this massive decision today, but very likely a long road of litigation. And so in the meantime, of course, with this, I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts today?

Then, in really interesting news, we should talk about what Gen Z is up to, other than calling some of your favorite things mid. Because there were two recent reports that show what this generation is interested in, both in the YouTube space specifically, and kind of the broader context of the world. We'll start with the YouTube Culture and Trends Report,

which focused on Gen Z viewers and creators. With YouTube saying they conducted the surveys in over 10 countries and analyzed hundreds of trends and found that 65% of Gen Z users are more interested in quote, content that's personally relevant to them. They find that's more important than the content that lots of other people are talking about, which is a very important thing to know.

Because while most people see going viral in general as kind of the goal and success, yeah, that's fine. But there's a much bigger and more exciting thing about being big in a smaller pond. When you're talking about content that's geared towards more unique interests, you're talking about more actual community. And with YouTube, they say there are three specific kinds

of creativity emerging when it comes to personally relevant pop culture. The first being community creativity, where people are taking niche passions and turning them into larger shared experiences. The second being multi-format creativity, when trending concepts can play over a different range of formats and mediums going from short form to long form. And the last being response creativity, where people turn to content

that meets specific personal needs. For example, 83% of Gen Z say they've turned to YouTube to watch soothing content to help them relax, right? Think ASMR and other kinds of content like that. But as a report from the Walton Family Foundation and Mermation found, YouTube trends are far from the only thing that this generation is engaged with. With that saying, there are three main themes among Gen Z. The first being prioritizing family and mental health. The second is believing that institutions like the government and corporations are in trouble and need to be rebuilt as leaders are not considering

their needs when setting priorities and instead favor the elite and overly partisan opinions. And the third being a new idea of success, which means living a balanced life that allows you to afford a home, but also have free time to travel and specifically not wanting to follow the paths of adults in their lives who have worked to exhaustion.

And all three of these play into their everyday lives, right? When it comes to mental health, for example, Gen Z reported feeling anxious, depressed, and having thoughts of self-harm at higher levels than other generations. But you had the report adding there, Despite these ongoing struggles with mental health and seemingly never-ending personal and public trauma, an integral and unique element of Gen Z's identity is a calling to be a part of something bigger than themselves. With 44% strongly agreeing with a sentence, "'Standing up for those who are vulnerable "'or without a voice' is an important part of who I am." And this is important because when it comes

to political beliefs, Gen Z is voting at historic levels and is expected to soon become the largest voting group in the country, though only 7% describe the United States as a healthy democracy, likely because they have eyes and ears. And when it comes to jobs, they say they do not want to live to work, but rather work to live. And that while yes, financial independence is overall

their most important goal by the age of 30, they also strongly value spending time with friends and family, having connections. And this kind of confirms and further explains some of the stuff we already knew about Gen Z. They're a more progressive generation than those that came before them. They're more in tune with their feelings.

They're seeking to change the world. They seem at least more inclined to live a life that's more fulfilling rather than kind of like checking boxes of what other people want in their lives. It's seemingly more about living experiences rather than the accumulation of things. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm very excited to see what Gen Z brings.

Especially because of the rise of social media, we see more and more examples of previous generations shitting on the new ones, but I'm personally like excited and anxious to see what comes. But from that, I wanna take a second to thank a fantastic sponsor of today's show, SeatGeek. Summer concerts are here, people! And that means you can get $20 off tickets at SeatGeek

when you use promo code Phil. And if somehow at this point you don't know what SeatGeek is, they're a ticketing app that makes buying tickets super simple. I've got the app on my phone and it is by far the easiest way to buy tickets. In fact, I recently used SeatGeek to go to the Super Bowl. Plus, with so many amazing concerts and festivals happening right now, you're not gonna want to miss it.

I'm talking about The Weeknd, Billie Eilish, Bad Bunny, and so many more. SeatGeek wants to make sure you're getting a good deal. So, when you're on the app, look for those green dots. Green means good deal, red means bad. And remember, I've got the hookup. Use code PHIL for $20 off tickets at SeatGeek. That is $20 off your first purchase when you use promo code PHIL. Make sure you click that link in the description to download the app so they know I sent you and they keep paying me to be your resident bringer of sadness. And then you need to talk about the January 6th hearing, starting with the one that happened on Tuesday. With that one specifically

focused on Trump's effort to pressure state officials to reverse the election and his plot to send a fake slate of electors to Congress to encourage Pence to declare him a winner. The hearing was largely led by Representative Adam Schiff, who outlined Trump's ever-escalating pressure campaign that became more and more desperate, saying that his supporters viewed Trump's election lies as a call to action, resulting in harassment, armed protests, intimidation, and threats of violence and death against lawmakers and election officials. And to directly connect Trump to these efforts, the committee presented numerous testimonies of officials.

This including a deposition video from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, where she said that Trump had personally called her and asked for the RNC to help his plot. And among other efforts detailed by the panel, you had Trump and his team circulating a memo to legislatures around the country trying to justify the strategy. They met with state legislatures, spent millions of dollars on ads. Also, back when he could, you had Trump publicly tweeting his claims about fraud to encourage legislatures to do what he wanted, urging people to directly target state officials, and even going as far as to share their phone numbers on social media. With officials both in live and video testimony describing the flood of emails, texts, and calls they got, as well as the personal harassment they received

and continue to receive to this day at their offices and homes. With many painting a picture of how many Trump supporters grew more dangerous leading up to the insurrection and served as a precursor to the violence we saw that day. You had Rusty Bowers, a speaker of the Arizona House, testifying that Trump called him and asked him to hold a committee hearing in the chamber to replace Biden electors with Trump electors. With Bowers saying that he told President Trump he was asking him to act against his oath of office and he would not break it. Saying that his request was something that has never been done

and had no legal pathway under state or federal law. With Bowers claiming that he repeatedly asked for evidence of the fraud claims that Trump and his team were citing. With them saying that they would give it to him but they never actually did. And adding that at one point Rudy Giuliani admitted they had lots of theories but didn't have the evidence. With Bowers stating that he told the president at least twice that he wouldn't do anything illegal for him, but he still continued to receive direct pressure from Trump and his allies. On that note, another very significant takeaway from the hearing on Tuesday was that two members of Congress were implicated in Trump's scheme. The first was Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, who Bowers claimed had called him on the day of the insurrection to ask him to overturn the election results. And the second was U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin,

who the committee revealed had tried to facilitate the delivery of fake slates from his state in Michigan to Mike Pence on January 6th, which is especially notable because it is illegal to submit false documents to the federal government. Schiff also outlining how Trump and his campaign were directly involved in the plot to replace Biden electors if they won their legal challenges. With the committee playing testimony of Trump lawyers who said that as time went on, they began distancing themselves from the president's efforts because they did not believe that they were legal.

With a top aide testifying that Trump's own White House counsel even said that the plan wasn't legally sound in a meeting where Giuliani and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were present. Also, a panel investigator showed documents that directed the fake electors to cast their ballots in complete secrecy

because they did not have access to legitimate systems used for doing so. With those fake electors actually eventually meeting in several battleground states and, at the request of Trump, signed documents falsely stating that they were the duly elected electors in the states. The hearing then turned to testimony from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and another top election official, who discussed how Trump repeatedly pressured and threatened them to overturn the election even after they investigated all the claims and told him both

publicly and privately that there was no evidence of fraud. The committee also received depositions from DOJ officials, including Attorney General Barr, who told him that his claims were incorrect. But despite all of that, Trump still repeated various different lies, including in the infamous call to Raffensperger, where he told him to find enough votes to help him win the state and suggested the top official could be criminally prosecuted if he didn't. With Raffensperger going on to say that he was doxed and both he and members of his family received threats after this. And actually on the topic of officials receiving threats, the last witness the panel heard from was a long-serving elections worker named Shay Moss, who, along with her mother, became the subject of targeted threats brought on by a Trump team lie.

This after Giuliani publicized a spliced-out surveillance video that he and Trump shared to promote the conspiracy that the mother and daughter were part of a scheme to bring in suitcases of Biden votes and then scan them multiple times. With Moss saying that after Trump spread that video and lied about what was going on, she, her office, and her mother received tons of threats and harassment, many of which were racist. And she went on to say just how much this turned her life upside down. I no longer give out my business card. I don't transfer calls. I don't want anyone knowing my name. I don't want to go anywhere with my mom because she might yell my name out over the grocery aisle or something. I don't go to the grocery store at all. I haven't been anywhere at all.

I've gained about 60 pounds. I just don't do nothing anymore. I don't want to go anywhere. I second guess everything that I do. It's affecting my life in a major way. In every way. All because of lies. With Schiff pointing to these two as part of the reason that democracy held.

Even if it was by a threat, it was because of courage of officials like those who spoke before the committee. But also Schiff going on to say that the question remains, will our democracy hold again? So with that question in the air and having seen what happened at this hearing and the ones prior, I reached out to Representative Schiff to talk about this. And fresh off the heels of heading the day, he hopped by the show to talk. So Congressman Schiff, I'm just going to jump straight into it. The committee has shown evidence of Trump's direct involvement in putting together fake elector slates and repeatedly pressuring elected officials to overturn the results in their state. So with that, whether it's based on your experience as a former prosecutor or everything that you're experiencing

in this specific process, do you believe that there is enough evidence for Trump to be indicted in state or federal criminal investigations, especially when it comes to the case of Georgia? I certainly believe there's enough evidence for the Justice Department to open an investigation. Whether they will conclude that they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be a decision they'll have to make. But first you have to do the investigation. As Judge Carter in California said that he believes Donald Trump and some of those around him likely engaged in multiple federal criminal acts. And Donald

Trump should be treated like any other citizen. When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal, potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate. So, I mean, but if the shoe was on the other foot, you're in the you're in the DOJ. You've seen what you've seen through through this. If you were in that position, do you think that there is enough? Well, I think there's enough to investigate. And, you know, one of the concerns I have is it's a year and a half since these events. And while, you know, you mentioned Georgia, there's an investigation going on in Fulton County by the district attorney. I don't see a federal grand jury convened in Atlanta looking into this. And I think it's fair to ask why. Normally, the Justice Department doesn't wait for Congress to go first.

They pursue evidence and they have the subpoena power. They're often much more agile than the Congress. And I think it's important that it not just be the lower level people who broke into the Capitol that day and committed those acts of violence who are under the microscope. I think anyone who engaged in criminal activity trying to overturn the election, where there's evidence that they may have engaged in criminal acts, should be investigated. Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $4. New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, biscuit or English muffin sandwiches, small hot coffee, and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard.

When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy zero dollar delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions and terms apply. Instacart groceries that over deliver. So with Tuesday's hearing, you established that the two Republican Congress members, Representative Andy Biggs and Senator Ron Johnson, pushed the fake elector scheme. So with that specifically, do you think action should be taken to address the elected officials? And if so, what are they? Well, there's a lot more

information that we would like to get from elected officials, some of which we've subpoenaed, others we haven't. And we're discussing, you know, what remedies we might have to compel that testimony if necessary. It's difficult, though. We have referred four people for criminal prosecution who have obstructed our investigation. The Justice Department has only moved forward with two of them. That's not as powerful an incentive as we would like. The law requires the Justice Department to present these cases to the grand jury when we refer them. And by only referring half of them, it sends a very mixed message about whether congressional subpoenas need to be complied with.

But we clearly want to learn more about whatever role members played in this plot to overturn the election. Is there is there anything that you it's more of conjecture so i it's a weird question but is do you do you have a feeling as to why there is there's such a drastic difference seemingly from the the doj than with with these hearings well i i think the leadership of the department is being very cautious uh i think that they want to make sure that the department avoids controversy if possible it doesn't do anything that could even be perceived as being political. And while I appreciate that sentiment, I spent almost six years with the department, and I also appreciate that they look back on the four years of Bill Barr and Matt Whitaker and

others who politicized the department in a terrible way, and they want to make sure they correct for that abuse. At the same time, the rule of law has to be applied equally to everyone. And if you're so averse to admiring the department in any kind of controversy, and it means that you're giving effectively a pass or immunity to people who may have broken the law, that too is a political decision, and I think it's the wrong decision. For four years, the department took the position you can't indict a sitting president. If they take the position now that as a practical, prudential matter, you also can't even investigate one because it would be controversial or perceived as political,

then the president becomes above the law, which I think is a really dangerous proposition. And I mean, with this in the hearing, you know, you've said that the democratic system barely withheld Trump's actions. And you ask the question, will it hold again? And personally, I'm a cynic and I've talked about this publicly. I don't have faith that it will if actions aren't taken. So I guess at a time when many big lie candidates are winning their primaries and Republican states are taking steps to undermine elections, how do you think we can ensure that democracy is going to hold? You know, I really think it's going to require a national movement of people to step up to preserve our democracy. This is not something that I think Congress can do alone. We're going to try to protect those institutions, but Republicans

are fighting us tooth and nail. It's difficult to get through a Senate where Mitch McConnell can filibuster things. And we saw from the very beginning when we wanted to have an independent commission look into these issues, McConnell went out of his way to call in personal favors to get senators to oppose an independent commission because Donald Trump didn't want to look into. So I think it's going to require ordinary citizens that the courage of people like we saw today, Shea Moss, Ruby Freeman, it's going to require elected officials of the courage of Rusty Bowers and Brad Raffensperger to step up and be vocal, be heard and defend our institutions and push back against this big lie. stop someone from overturning election being political is horrifying. So I guess, what is your message to Americans watching these hearings ahead of the first general elections since the

insurrection with a DOJ that might not do what you're hoping that they do? My message is this, we don't have the luxury of despair when it comes to what we're seeing around us. We have the obligation to do what generations did before us, and that is defend our democracy. You know, we had to go to war in World War II to defend our democracy from the threat of fascism. You know, we're not called upon to make those kind of sacrifices. So we see the bravery of people in Ukraine putting their lives on the line to defend their country, their sovereignty, their democracy. Thank God we're not asked to do that, to put our lives on the line in the way they are in Ukraine. So what we have to do is by comparison so much easier,

but it does require us to step up, to be involved, to rally around local elections officials who are doing their jobs, who are facing death threats, and to protect them, and to push back against efforts around the country to pass laws to make it easier for big liars to overturn future elections. You know, we can do this. We must do this. You know, I believe we will do this. I understand the, you know, the concern. Believe me, I share it. But but we're not passengers in all of this, unable to affect the course of our country. We can grab the rudder and steer this country in the direction that we want.

Congressman, thank you for the time. Thank you. So thank you again to Congressman Schiff for making the time to talk about this. And whether you've been keeping up with the January 6th hearings from this show or elsewhere, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on any and all things we've seen so far.

Right, as we were putting up the show, the fifth hearing was kicking off. With that focused on Trump's efforts to pressure the Justice Department to overturn the election. Well, we can't dive into details because this is ongoing and honestly, if the show gets any longer, I'll be eligible for a daytime Emmy. This hearing is already shaping up to be a very,

very important, juicy one. But ultimately, that is where that story and today's show end. Thank you for watching, liking, and being a part of that conversation down below. If you need more news, I got it covered here or here. Let's close this damn thing out. My name's Philip DeFranco.

You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you next time. Might be tomorrow because there's some news that we're probably gonna have to cover. Oh, hi. Hi. Wait, let's see. Oh, this is just a video test.

You let me know if I need to change any settings. You seem to have grown another head on your shoulder. I don't know I won. Oh.