The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 6.24 We Need To Talk About Britney Spears & These Disgusting Leaks, McAfee, Giuliani, & More

Episode Date: June 24, 2021

Go to http://www.vessi.com/defranco and use code ​DEFRANCO to get $25 off of your Vessi shoes! ​Free shipping to CA, US, AUS, NZ, JP, TW, KR, SGP Thank you to Emily D. Baker for joining us today: https://www.youtube.com/c/theemilydbaker  -- WATCH Rhett & Link Podcast: https://youtu.be/1Hy6BKjjAQQ  WATCH Full “A Convo With” Podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/ACW   LISTEN On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://LinksHole.com  WATCH the ACW Clips channel!: https://youtube.com/ACWClips  -- 00:00 - #FreeBritney 06:06 - Sponsor 07:25 - Emily D Baker Interview  23:21 - Former NRA President Tricked Into Speech 24:57 - Biden’s Background Checks 27:57 - Infrastructure Compromise 29:18 - Rudy Giuliani Suspended 31:10 - John McAfee -- ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭ BUY our GEAR, Support the Show!: http://ShopDeFranco.com  ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩  Britney Spears Asks For Conservatorship to Be Revoked: https://roguerocket.com/2021/06/24/britney-spears-wants-out-of-conservatorship/ Transcript: https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-full-statement-conservatorship-1235003940/ Ex-NRA President Tricked into Giving a ‘Graduation Speech’ to Empty Chairs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/24/david-keene-nra-fake-graduation-speech/ Biden Admin Pushes New Gun Control Effort: https://roguerocket.com/2021/06/24/biden-background-announcement/ Group of Senators Say They Reached Infrastructure Deal: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/24/biden-meeting-senate-bipartisan-infrastructure-talks-495941 Rudy Giuliani’s New York Law License Suspended: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009881665/n-y-state-court-suspends-giuliani-from-practicing-law-over-2020-vote-fraud-claim John McAfee Found Dead in Catalan Prison:  https://english.elpais.com/usa/2021-06-23/john-mcafee-founder-of-mcafee-antivirus-company-found-dead-in-barcelona-prison.html ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Black TikTokers Refuse To Make Dances To Meg Thee Stallions New Song: https://roguerocket.com/2021/06/24/black-tiktokers-strike/ ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg, Maxx Enright Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst  Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor ———————————— #DeFranco #BritneySpears #JohnMcAfee Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. It is Thursday, June 24th, 2021. Hit that like button to support the video and let's just jump into it. The first thing that we need to talk about today is this Britney Spears situation. Maybe yesterday you saw some of the quotes,

but hearing the audio, looking into the legal aspect, in fact, in today's show, I'm bringing a lawyer on just so we can get a full understanding about what could happen next and maybe some of the most concerning parts of this story. But here we go. Right, so yesterday, Britney Spears asked for a court to end her conservatorship without an evaluation.

And a quick refresher, a TLDR, Britney Spears has been in a conservatorship for 13 years and it's split into two parts, one of the person and one of the estate. And there, her father, Jamie Spears, was in charge of both until 2019 when he stepped back from her personal conservatorship due to health reasons that a woman by the name of Jodi Montgomery was named as his temporary replacement and has been in that role since.

But Jamie was still in charge of Britney's estate and eventually Bessemer Trust was added as a co-conservator at Britney's request. And you know, with this, we always knew that this meant that Britney did not have control of her finances, her career, and most other aspects of her life, but we didn't hear until yesterday from her and it was, it was something.

Heartbreaking and troubling are the words that come to mind, right? Yes, this week we had the New York Times reporting that there were court records finding that she had previously tried to get out of the conservatorship, saying that it was oppressive and controlling. Yesterday, Britney Spears phoned into

a Los Angeles courtroom and spoke for over 20 minutes telling Judge Brenda Penny that she believes her conservatorship is abusive and she wants out. Now since her statement was so long, we're not gonna be hitting everything, but we're gonna be hitting some of the highlights and I'm gonna link to a full transcript down below. So Britney starts her story by saying that back

when she last spoke to the court, she felt like she wasn't heard. Also saying that starting in 2018, she was forced to go on tour, work with little to no breaks and switch medications to lithium against her will. And continuing about this instance and in general. Not only did my family not do a goddamn thing, my dad was all for it.

Anything that happened to me had to be approved by my dad. But they're also saying that her father, Jamie, loved the control he exerted over her. And from there, the accusations only get more damning, saying that at one point her father told her that she had failed a psychiatric test and had to go to a home in Beverly Hills for rehab, where she had no privacy, had to work 10 hours a day, 7 days a week with no days off,

and was not allowed to see her own children or boyfriend, explaining, The only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking. Making anyone work, work against their will. Taking all their possessions away, credit card, cash, phone, passport. With Britney also claiming that one of her longtime therapists, Dr. Benson, who has since died, illegally 100% abused her in his treatment and the trauma from that left her with phobias of small rooms. And then one of the parts of her statement

that ignited the most outrage, she said that she has not been able to make her own decisions about getting married or family planning, saying. I have a ID inside of myself right now so I don't get pregnant. I wanted to take the ID out so I could start trying to have another baby, but this so-called team

won't let me go to the doctor to take it out because they don't want me to have children. Also saying that she's forced to go to therapy two to three times a week to a facility where she gets harassed by paparazzi. And regarding her entire situation, she said, I've lied and told the whole world I'm okay and I'm happy. It's a lie.

I've been in shock. I am traumatized. I'm not happy. I can't sleep. I'm so angry. It's insane. And I'm depressed. I cry every day.

Britney revealing that she didn't even know for a long time that she could petition to end the conservatorship, which she barely talked about openly because she found it demoralizing. But then with that and all of this, she made the request. The main reason why I'm here is because I want to end the conservatorship without having to be evaluated. I've done a lot of research, ma'am,

and there's a lot of judges who do end conservatorships for people without them having to be evaluated all the time. Also explaining she's already done so many evaluations and therapy sessions, and she doesn't feel like she owes anyone anymore. Also asking for other little things as well, like being able to have her boyfriend drive her in his car, limit therapy to just once a week at her house

instead of a location where she gets photographed. Also, and these are big ones, saying that she wants to be able to sue her family, hire her own attorney, and that her father and the management behind her conservatorship deserve to be in jail. But they're also saying she wants to be able to tell her full story publicly in an interview

or in an open call to Judge Perry herself that can be accessed freely by the press. This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good. I deserve to have a life. With Britney also taking the time to advocate for conservatorships in general to change, claiming there could be way more people like her being similarly abused and adding.

I shouldn't be in a conservatorship if I can work and provide money and work for myself and pay other people. It makes no sense. The laws need to change. And since all of this came out, there's been this massive swell of support for Britney Spears and just kind of outrage around the fact that she has had to deal with this. People speaking out left and right in support of Britney Spears. Once again, kind of just a lot of shock and horror about the fact that Britney Spears has had a forced IUD. With regular people and even the president

of Planned Parenthood sounding off, saying, we stand in solidarity with Britney and all women who face reproductive coercion. Your reproductive health is your own and no one should make decisions about it for you. As far as anything being said by people that were close to this situation, you had her father saying in a statement given

by his attorney, he is sorry to see his daughter suffering and in so much pain. Mr. Spears loves his daughter and misses her very much. Though based of the reaction, I think a lot of people have been calling bullshit on that. With many seeing him as one of the villains in this situation. Right, and that's kind of across the board,

whether this is just getting in front of people in the past few days, or, you know, we've been talking about this for the past few years, or I mean the Free Britney movement's been out there for a very, very long time, and I think as far as the mainstream has become more and more validated over the past year,

but especially now. Yeah, I mean, as far as my opinion, this is not a unique reaction. This sounds like a nightmare. It's bizarre, it's horrible. If everything is as she is saying it is, people should be held accountable and responsible and punished.

But also to that point, my reaction, like most other people, it's emotional. Where we relate on a human level, whether we care specifically about Britney Spears or we put ourselves or someone else in her shoes and we think of how we would react, that's how we're reacting now. So for this story, this news,

I wanted to bring in a lawyer to talk about the legal aspects of this case. And so today I reached out to the resident badass YouTube lawyer, Emily D. Baker. But before we jump into that, because today's show is so long and I didn't want to just include, you know, like a small sound bite or a little clip here or there

of Emily for the sake of being able to get to the sponsor where it normally goes, I just want to knock that out first so that we can then enjoy the rest of the show. So with that said, I just want to take a second to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Vessi. Without fantastic sponsors like Vessi, I don't get to make shows like today,

which are more inclined to get hit by YouTube. So a big thank you to Vessi for the support in both a creative sense, and for the sake of this transition, the support of amazing shoes. I mean, finding a lightweight shoes that actually keep your feet warm and dry through rain, snow, mud, it's very hard.

And Vessi definitely surprised me with these. Vessi makes 100% waterproof and snowproof sneakers that are incredibly comfortable, breathable, and actually pretty stylish. Personally, I wear both their Cityscape sneakers and their latest release, the Weekend Shoe. The Diamond Tax material is also dual climate knit that keeps you cool in the summer and warm in the winter,

which truly makes this the everyday sneaker, even for the wet season. The shoes are also perfect for whether you're running errands, going to the gym, going to the park with the kids, or even on muddy hikes. And with the weekend shoe, you can just rinse them off or even throw them right in the washing machine. It is really that easy.

Honestly, yes, it's a great thing to buy for yourself, but also it's a great gift for your loved ones. Which, by the way, be sure to grab some now while they still have your size, and you'll definitely be thanking me later. So just go to Vessi.com slash DeFranco right now, and be sure to use code DeFranco at checkout to get $25 off.

But with that said, let's now jump into the interview with Emily D. Baker on what is happening with this whole Britney Spears situation. So Emily, where I do wanna start is yesterday, I think in a Twitter thread, you pointed something out. It didn't get the most attention, but I think it is a key thing. You said the court indicated again

that this was a status conference, that there is no petition or motion before her to decide to terminate the conservatorship. The attorneys need to discuss dates and figure out how they want to proceed. So yeah, I guess that's the question is like, what actually happens from here? There's the 14th date, right? That's the next big milestone. Can you tell me what happens there? Well, we're not sure what's happening on the 14th. The 14th was what happened at the last court hearing when Sam Ingham, Britney's court appointed attorney said, you know, Britney wants to address the court.

And then they pushed everything over. There's a whole bunch of motions and petitions and financial stuff going on behind the scenes. Remember, Britney's in two conservatorships, one of the person and one of her finances. And she is paying for a boatload of lawyers on all sides of this thing. She pays for her father's extensive legal team. She pays for Jody Montgomery, her court appointed, or her conservator of the person, her attorneys, her court appointed attorneys. And one of the things on the docket for the 14th is finances. There's some objections because Jamie Spears' legal team has a bunch of line items

for media. And we've seen Vivian Thurin go out and do media appearances. And Britney's being charged for all of that. And her mother's attorneys objected to that. And Sam Ingham objected to that. court appearance, most of its financial, one of its to formally appoint Jody Montgomery as the permanent conservator of the person, because that hasn't happened yet. She's still the temporary conservator since Jamie Spears stepped down almost a year ago at this point. But we heard that Britney has some displeasure with that in her own statements yesterday as well. But this was not a conference where anything was ever going to be decided. And I know that that's very frustrating for the Free Britney movement. They were hoping Britney would speak and that the court would be like, you're right, that's it. And that's not how this is going to work. And there is lengthy court process here. This was just a status conference really to allow Britney to speak her mind to the court.

She seems very frustrated that she wasn't heard when she spoke to the court in 2019 and wanted to be heard. The thing that happened at the end of this conference that I've not seen anyone cover is that her attorney asked for the proceedings to be sealed going forward. So we might not know what happens next. And after the amount of leaked audio, again, it's illegal to record the court proceedings, but it has been obviously recorded and leaked. It's been transcribed and uploaded. After that, I think the court will have justification to seal these proceedings going forward. And we won't know what happens next, which is very disappointing to me. But is there a specific reason why they would, or why for Britney, they would want to do that? For Britney, they'd want to seal the proceedings.

Yes, if they're going to get into more medical stuff, if they want to remove the conservatorship, they're going to have to get deep into the medical records. The medical has not ever been released. The cause of the conservatorship has never been released. There was that leak to the New York Times that the court brought up and was very, very upset about. And protecting Britney's medical information is the goal of the court and should be the goal of all the attorneys involved. You heard her say yesterday how deeply frustrated she was with the lack of privacy and going to therapy in Westlake, where she felt very exposed and talking about how she feels that even when she's allowed to go out to dinner, it's somewhere where there's windows and she can be photographed. She feels very exposed. So keeping those things private in these court proceedings, I think is appropriate just to protect her from the public. Clearly, there's this voracious want to know what one moment where it happened it's a to validate the

movement to validate the things that have been rumored and speculated and talked about in the recent documentaries it felt necessary because otherwise there was this big question as to to what she actually felt so i guess one of the bigger questions and it's it's the big question mark and uh stop me if it gets into territory that you don't feel comfortable with as far as a league professional. But no, but so she needs to file the paperwork based off of the legal parameters of a conservatorship. What are the odds that they actually grant her control of her life and to some degree? Oh, odds are really tough. But here's what I here's my optimistic hope of what how this would go forward. They've already brought in Bessemer Trust as one of the conservators of her finances. It's clear she wants

her dad removed. I hope that they will remove him from conservatorship of the finances. She didn't have a lot of complaints of that part of the conservatorship, other than her management was forcing her to work, which is very unusual in a conservatorship. Most conservatees are so incapacitated. That's why they're in a conservatorship that they cannot work. That was something clearly very frustrating to her. So removing him from the conservatorship over her finances, and then changing the care plan, which you heard the court talk about, and Brittany touched on the amount of going to therapy, the people giving her her medication, those sorts of things are going to be a private discussion, hopefully giving her back more control of her life and changing and reducing the amount of control the conservatorship of the person has.

I think it will be phased. And I think if she's going to be removed from any conservatorship, that removing her from the conservatorship of the person would happen first, and then dealing with the finances second, because the concern is that she could be financially taken advantage of. And Bessemer Trust is a professional organization that deals with, you know, substantial estates of wealth. And she might not be super frustrated with that if she has the choice in her own life and the choice to work or to not work and knows that someone is actually looking out for her money and not just really existing off of her back, which seems to be what she was so frustrated with. So I think we'll see the conservatorship of the person become less restrictive, I hope, before it is removed. Britney said she didn't want to be evaluated,

but that would have to happen before this was removed. And that's probably why my assumption is that's why Sam Ingham hasn't filed a petition to end the conservatorship, because Britney has said, I do not want to go through another evaluation. And I am assuming that what her attorney said is, if we want to end this, you have to do this. And she's like, I don't want to do that. And he's like, then we're not going to file this petition. It seemed from his statements that that was a big factor in this. And he told the court he didn't want to talk about it more, because it would get into attorney client privilege. There is actually a petition to terminate the conservatorship filed, but it was

filed by a fan whose name is actually Stan, who wants Britney freed. Yep. Stan the Stan has filed a conservatorship petition. He doesn't have standing, so the court will probably throw it out on the 14th. But there is that petition out there. It does exist. It's just not going to be well taken. It's truck month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in the 2025 Sierra 1500 Pro Graphite at 0% financing for up to 72 months. With an available 5.3 liter V8 engine, 20 inch high gloss black painted aluminum wheels,

off-road suspension with available 2 inch factory installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds, you'll be ready for anything this truck month. Truck month is on now. Ask your GMC dealer for details. So you've always been picky about your produce. But now you find yourself checking every label to make sure it's Canadian. So be it. At Sobeys, we always pick guaranteed fresh

Canadian produce first. Restrictions apply. See in-store or online for details. So you touched on it a moment ago, Brittany saying she wasn't allowed to get her IUD removed. With the way that a conservatorship is set, is that an overreach given the power? Or no, that's what it's there to do? Sadly, I was really not surprised by that. We know that Brittany's not allowed to get married

and not allowed to have children under the powers granted in this conservatorship. And one of the ways to allow her to still have a life with her boyfriend, but also guarantee that she is not going to get pregnant is to force her on to birth control. Now, that would have been a decision made between the conservators and the doctors. Britney doesn't have the right to go to her doctor and say, I don't want to do this. The medical plan is made by the conservator of the person, which feels horrible. And I understand that it feels horrible because Brittany is a very aware individual. Most conservatees can't go to their doctor and have that medical discussion. Now, conservatorships are supposed to be the least restrictive methods. I think from what we saw in Brittany in court, what she's saying to the court, really without being an attorney is this

is no longer the least restrictive method necessary to help me anymore. I am open to help, but I don't need help in this restrictive fashion. And you know, it's so weird, because we just saw Tom Girardi, Erica Jane's husband, who's now in a conservatorship, out to lunch by himself with his realtor. And so you're seeing a conservatorship that may or may not be appropriate with somebody who is in the age range you normally see these things and still able to go about and live their life in a less restrictive way. Britney's conservatorship is highly restrictive. She's not allowed to vacation in a state where the conservatorship papers have not been extended. So there are very limited places where she can go. So she's still under the conservatorship papers have not been extended. So there are very limited places where she can go. So she's still under the conservatorship when she travels,

Louisiana and Hawaii. So for a legal standpoint, though, the IUD, the rehab treatment, the lithium, preventing her from getting married, all of that legal? All of that legal. Yeah. And because I know that's horrible, but legal. Was anything that was described yesterday, could it be considered illegal, whether it be the forced working during sickness or no, nothing at all? All of this has been approved by the court. So these care plans and everything's been approved by the court. Brittany was talking about how abusive it felt. I can completely understand that. It sounds abusive, but we don't know the underlying

medical to make those decisions. But now it's the time for the court to actually re-evaluate. The problem is going to be if Brittany won't submit to additional evaluation, the court is not going to be comfortable re-evaluating it without medical professionals saying, now is the time that we need to go to a less restrictive means in this conservatorship, or less restrictive care plans inside the conservatorship. And when that care plan gets filed with the court by Jodi Montgomery, we're not going to see it, because it's going to be sealed. So we're not going to know if Brittany gets the things she asked the court for. We will know if the conservatorship gets terminated, or if a petition to terminate gets filed. I don't know

if that will happen, because she does not want to submit to further evaluation. Right. Now, Britney also expressed that she wanted to be able to sue her family. Is there any road that this goes down where that is actually a possibility? Or no, because there is a conservatorship and the court granted this power, there's going to be no possible successful retribution. I know it's America, we can sue for everything. But yeah. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's going to be interesting to see if Britney's allowed to hire her own attorney. This is something she's brought up consistently. She's not been allowed to hire her own attorney. And there are motions

going back years, arguing over whether she has the capacity to hire her own attorney. And the court had said previously, no, she doesn't. Sam Ingham had argued just because she's in a conservatorship doesn't mean she lacks capacity to hire an attorney. If she's allowed to bring in her own attorney, they can start digging around to see if there's been any fraud perpetrated on the court. And that would open a door to see if people had misstated things, misrepresented things, if process had been subverted. But Britney doesn't have the due process rights that an ordinary individual in society would have because of this conservatorship.

And I think that's what's so frustrating to many is they don't understand how someone can be so thoroughly stripped of all of their rights and still work. And so also on the note of, so you mentioned the New York Times, the leaked documents. This is not the first time that she's expressed a desire to get out of this. Is there any reason to believe that this time is different for any number of reasons? Like could the documentary as the new public pressure, does any of that play a role? I think that plays a role in Britney wanting to be heard by the court and the court adhering to that and allowing it to be heard.

But at the end of the day, the conservatorship has to do what's in the best interest of the conservatee, though it doesn't feel like that's happening because Britney has said it's not in her best interest. But whether the attorneys, all of them, and there are lots, decide that that's changing the care plan, decide that that's stepping down the restrictiveness of the personal conservatorship, or decide for medical reasons, this is the way it has to be. And though everyone perceives it one way, they're going to continue doing it. It will be interesting to see how that moves forward. I hope a less restrictive personal conservatorship comes into play. But if there are substantial

mental issues that the court believes exists, then they're not going to allow her to have children there, they might not allow her to get married and bring Sam Asghari in as a conservator of her person, which would generally happen if she were to get married. It is heartbreaking seeing how frustrated she is and how much she feels like no one's in her corner. I hope that this starts with, again, lessening the restrictiveness of the personal conservatorship and perhaps letting her hire her own attorney so she feels like someone's in her corner because it's clear she feels that no one is listening to her. And I mean, Brittany also said that she feels like she's not alone in this conservatorship,

that there are thousands of people in this same boat. As a legal professional yourself, do you feel like that is true? And do you also feel like the system is built in a way that is easy to abuse? That's such a hard question because there are so many conservatorships that are actually necessary for severe mental impairment so that people aren't taken advantage of. But when you see the limited amount of documents that can be filed to promote a conservatorship, it's checkboxes on a form. It doesn't extend to extensive medical documentation. It makes it easier for people to get a conservatorship. And the thing is, when there's lots of money involved, these things can't be easy to abuse because the conservatee pays for everything. You don't see a lot of conservatorships when people can't pay for all of the doctors and all of the lawyers. Whether powers of attorneys and business managers would have helped for Britney or would help now,

I can't say. I don't have the medical documentation. The court needs to look out for her best interest. And I know lots in the Free Britney movement feel that the court's not doing that. And Emily, is there any final thing that I didn't ask you about that you think is incredibly important to this case and situation? I think the most important thing is looking at Britney as a human who is fighting to have her voice, but also realizing that court process does not move quickly. And that just because court process feels wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. I say this a lot in my content, that legality and morality don't always mesh. And I think that's where we're finding the Free Britney movement feeling so frustrated and

the public feeling so frustrated that Britney's in this and is so restricted. But what's happened in the court process is not legally improper. I have big questions about whether this is the least restrictive means at this point. And I hope that's addressed in court. And I hope that we continue to see the documents and everything is not sealed going forward. But I worry that it will be based on Sam Ingham statements to the court that Brittany wants it sealed going forward. Emily, thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Phil. And so with that interview, once again, I want to say a big thank you to Emily D. Baker. If you found her very interesting, I'm personally a fan over the past few months.

I'll link to her channel down below. Yeah, I mean, one of the biggest things to take away from it is it does appear that a lot of this may center around a medical evaluation, which may or may not happen. I mean, we even had Brittany saying that the last time she had an evaluation, everything got worse, right? So there is an understanding of why she might not want one. Yeah, with all of that, of course, one, I'd love to know your thoughts in the comments down below regarding the emotional

and legal aspects of the story. And two, I know today's show is longer and thus different because of that interview, but if you did like it, you wanna see more of that, hit that like button so I know. YouTube in general, whether it be the people or the algorithm, I often don't like change, you want to see more of that, hit that like button so I know. YouTube in general, whether it be the people or the algorithm, often don't like change, but yeah, I want to know.

Then in really interesting and very powerful news, let's talk about what happened with former NRA president David Keene. So Keene was set to deliver a commencement speech for a private school by the name of James Madison Academy. Right, it's that time of year. You usually have, you know, famous people, leaders of big industry giving these speeches

to the future of the country. So Keene apparently agrees to do this. He goes out there. We see a video of him, you know, practicing his speech in front of empty seats. But as it turns out, the James Madison Academy that he thought he was giving this speech for does not exist.

And it turns out this was all a stunt organized by the gun violence prevention group Change the Ref, which is run by Manuel and Patricia Oliver, whose son, Joaquin, was killed in the Parkland shooting shortly before his graduation. In the speech that Keene is delivering, he is delivering in front of 3,044 empty white chairs that will never be filled because, as it turns out, they represent the 3,044 students who died from gun violence that would have graduated high school this year. And in this speech, where I can't play you the audio for reasons I'm about to explain, we have Keene say,

"'There are some who continue to fight "'to gut the second amendment, "'but I'd be willing to bet that many of you "'will be among those who stand up "'and prevent them from succeeding.'" But interspersed with his video and audio, we get the audio from 911 calls made during mass school shootings as well

as various facts and figures. And while many were quick to commend this group and mock the president of the NRA, Manuel Oliver also added, "'This is not about bragging about doing this "' and mock the president of the NRA, Manuel Oliver also added, "'This is not about bragging about doing this "'to the former president of the NRA. "'No, this is about pushing our reps to move on "'with universal background check laws.

"'We lost Joaquin three months before his graduation. "'We know exactly the feeling of being there "'and receiving the diploma without your kid being there. "'Because we understand that, "'we know there are a lot of people "'going through that same experience right now.'" Also, in other news connected to guns and gun violence, we should definitely talk about President Biden announcing several new actions that his administration will now take in an attempt to curb a recent rise in violent crime and gun violence. Most notably, Biden saying infully fail to run a background check, if you willfully

falsify a record, if you willfully fail to cooperate with the tracing request or inspections, my message to you is this, we'll find you and we will seek your license to sell guns. We'll make sure you can't sell death and mayhem on our streets. With the administration now adopting a zero tolerance policy that will revoke a gun dealer's license on their first defense. Also in another crackdown, Biden highlighted a recently announced initiative by the Justice Department

to form new gun trafficking strike forces in five major metropolitan areas, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington, DC. And in addition to crackdowns, Biden said local governments will be able to redirect their leftover COVID-19 funds into several new avenues if they choose.

With that, including hiring more police officers, paying officers overtime, and buying new police equipment. Which, I mean, may shock some, but it really shouldn't. While certain people say, you know, "'Biden says yes, defund the police.'" I mean, since the movement went mainstream last summer, Biden has repeatedly said that he actually believes that the police need more funding.

And in fact, yesterday he reiterated that stance, saying that now is not a time to turn our backs on law enforcement and adding. Crime historically rises during the summer. And as we emerge from this pandemic, with the country opening back up again, the traditional summer spike may be more pronounced than it usually would be.

Additionally, COVID funds can now also be used for investing in community-based intervention programs for both potential perpetrators and victims of gun violence. For example, one kind of program would be a summer jobs initiative for teenagers old enough to work. On top of that, Biden indicated that his administration will seek more transparent gun data

and better coordination amongst states, as well as pushing Congress for more funding to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws and regulates gun dealers. But Biden here also ultimately ending by stressing that he's holding out hope for the reinstatement of an assault weapons ban. Talk to most responsible gun owners and hunters.

They'll tell you there's no possible justification for having a hundred rounds in a magazine of a gun. Like I said before, what do you think? The deer wearing Keplar vests? You know, as expected, while a number of groups advocating for stricter gun control have applauded Biden for these newly announced efforts, the same cannot be said for conservatives and Republican lawmakers.

Representative Kevin McCarthy and Senator Marsha Blackburn saying that Biden is blaming lawful gun owners and trying to strip their second amendment rights. Really, I mean, with this whole situation as it has been, compromise in Congress is gonna be the biggest hurdle for anything to happen here. And really, I mean, with this whole situation as it has been, compromise in Congress is gonna be the biggest hurdle for anything to happen here. For example, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy has been negotiating for weeks with Republicans

to secure currently stalled legislation that would expand background checks. And so far it appears that the most likely option for it to actually pass would be limiting its scope to only requiring background checks for commercial sales, such as gun shows, rather than private sales between individuals as well. Although in other news regarding bipartisanship,

negotiation and compromise, we may have actually seen it happen. And this because just this morning, President Biden announced that he and a bipartisan group of senators said that they had finally agreed to a nearly $1 trillion infrastructure deal. According to reports,

the framework would allocate $579 billion in new federal spending on roads, broadband, electric utilities, and other infrastructure projects. Although, and very notably, it will leave out many key aspects of Biden's initial plan, including much of his proposed climate change spending, as well as investments in human infrastructure like education and childcare.

But, and this is the big thing here, Biden and the senators did agree to a general scope of options for how to pay for the plan. As we've talked about numerous times, funding sources have been one of the biggest disputes between the parties here. While the full details still remain to be seen, reportedly the financing options

that lawmakers have discussed include revenue increases from a ramp up of IRS enforcement efforts, a mix of public private partnerships and unspent federal funds. Now that said, as far as what happens next, Democrats have voiced support for the bill in theory. The reason I say that is because numerous members in both chambers, including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi,

have said that they will not pass the bipartisan infrastructure package unless their Democratic colleagues also agree to a separate reconciliation bill that contains other key elements of Biden's initial plan. And then as far as the other side here, I mean, Republicans have largely expressed openness to the bipartisan plan,

though some top lawmakers have voiced reservations that will need to be hashed out. Then we should talk about the breaking news today that Rudy Giuliani has been suspended from practicing law in New York state because of his false claims about the 2020 election. With this ruling being made by a New York appellate court after a disciplinary panel concluded that there was quote,

"'Uncontroverted evidence that Giuliani communicated "'demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, "'lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former president, Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020. And adding, these false statements were made

to improperly bolster respondents narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondents conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law. And as far as what happens next,

Giuliani will now face disciplinary proceedings and can fight the suspension. But very notably here, the court specifically said in its decision that Giuliani is likely to face permanent sanctions after those proceedings. And this, I mean, it genuinely is a massive move for two main reasons. First, as legal experts have noted,

it is actually a very rare thing to see such extreme action taken. And secondly, because it comes the same day that he was set to appear in court for a defamation suit against him from Dominion Voting Systems, which of course is suing him for his election fraud claims. So now this decision may bolster Dominion's case,

as well as an nearly identical one from the election machine manufacturer Smartmatic. But also even beyond the multi-billion dollar defamation cases, Giuliani is also the subject of a federal investigation into his dealings with Ukraine on behalf of Trump, which of course ultimately led to the former president's first impeachment.

Giuliani, for his part, has denied all the allegations against him, and in a statement today, his lawyers said that they were disappointed in the panel's decision, saying, "'This is unprecedented as we believe "'that our client does not pose a present danger "'to the public interest. "'We believe that once the issues "'are fully explored at a hearing, "'Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated "' pose a present danger to the public interest. We believe that once the issues are fully explored

at a hearing, Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years." Or not that in any way, but we won't know. We have to wait and see what's gonna happen from here. And then the final thing that we're gonna talk about today is of course that John McAfee, the 75 year old founder

of the antivirus software that bears his name, was found dead in his Catalan jail cell in an apparent suicide yesterday. And reportedly just hours before his death, McAfee was told by a three judge panel that he would be extradited to the United States over tax evasion and fraud charges. And McAfee, for those that don't know, had been held in Spanish custody since October of 2020

after attempting to board a flight to Istanbul from Barcelona because of pending American charges. Because according to American authorities, he had failed to file taxes between 2014 and 2018. Something that he more or less admitted to, saying in the past that he had not paid taxes in eight years due to ideological reasons. Also, reportedly during that time period and beyond,

he allegedly made over $13 million promoting cryptocurrencies, consulting work, speaking engagements, and selling the rights of his life story for a documentary. And on top of failing to file taxes, the SEC also wanted McAfee due to alleged pump and dump schemes tied to how he promoted crypto. With the SEC claiming that McAfee would promote

smaller cryptos and coin of the day tweets days after associates would buy up the coins. Now with that said, in prior Spanish court hearings, McAfee argued that the charges against him were politically motivated and urged officials there to keep him in Spain rather than spend what would likely be the rest of his life behind bars in the United States.

Right, because if he was found guilty back here in the States, McAfee was looking at over 30 years in prison. Also, notably during his time in prison, McAfee seemed to have access to his Twitter in some capacity, using it to deny having any crypto and posting a fairly dark tweet last week, writing, "'The US believes I have hidden crypto.

"'I wish I did, but it is dissolved "'through the many hands of Team McAfee. "'Your belief is not required. My remaining assets are all seized. My friends evaporated through fear of association. I have nothing, yet I regret nothing." Now, with all that said, as far as his death, officials at the jail where McAfee died

claimed that when he was found, they attempted life-saving procedures, but it was too late. Also, reportedly he normally had a cellmate, but during this time period, that person was doing other normal activities at the prison. Also, according to a report, one unnamed official said that he was not aware of any special monitoring measures for McAfee.

Also, there have been people looking to how McAfee kind of enjoyed prison, with McAfee most recently claiming that he was content, but he could see how it would affect younger people, writing two weeks ago, "'There is much sorrow in prison, disguised as hostility. The sorrow is plainly visible, even in the most angry faces. I'm old and content with food and a bed,

but for the young prison is a horror, a reflection of the minds of those who conceived them.'" Although prior to this, most of his tweets about prison showed that it was not a great experience. And he had at least on one occasion spoke about suicide with an inmate. Also, McAfee's life was a weird one.

One, where he'd also been on the run from various authorities for years. In 2012, for example, he fled his home in Belize after authorities wanted to question him over the death of his neighbor, a man who allegedly poisoned McAfee's dogs, with him ultimately making an escape to Guatemala with no charges ever being brought against him.

But also with this, McAfee's death has seen the same attention and social media interest as Jeffrey Epstein's did, and many claim that McAfee was targeted by various governments for a variety of reasons, a narrative that McAfee himself actually promoted prior to his death. As recently as last month he said that he was a target because his promotion of crypto tweeting, three years ago

I predicted a war between governments and crypto. Fed now calls crypto a threat to economic stability and China is outlawing it. The war is on and I am a major target. Do not be afraid. Crypto is our last hope for financial independence. Also back in 2019, making a series of tweets alleging that I had a trove of information about government corruption saying, I've collected files on corruption in governments. For the first time, I'm naming names and specifics. I'll begin with a corrupt CIA agent

and two Bahamian officials. Coming today, if I'm arrested or disappear, 31 terabytes of incriminating data will be released to the press. But I'm also justifying keeping this alleged stuff secret as a dead man switch. Writing, why am I keeping this information private if it could help the world?

Because I am a dead man the moment it is released. Forgive my selfishness. I am doing what I can in ways that a living person can do. That will have to be enough. I am old. You will not have to wait long. In 2019, he also claimed that US officials told him, in effect, we're coming for you McAfee,

we're going to kill yourself, and saying, I got a tattoo today just in case. If I suicide myself, I didn't, I was whacked, check my right arm. Also, it happens that there's a whacked altcoin on the market that was released just days before he posted that tweet, which itself is branched off into two theories,

either this was another gimmick and pump and dump scheme or a push to an altcoin, or if people saying the tattoo was a hint to where the dead man's switch actually is. Also notably since his death, the number of holders of that crypto has exploded to 31,000 with each getting more or less a thousand coins, which then has resulted in people saying,

that coincides with the supposed 31 terabytes of information that he had about corrupt government officials. And so as this theory goes, they say most of these holders are actually bots set up by McAfee to protect the information or members of the media who will soon release it. Although many people have said none of that makes sense. Right, some users posting the theory claim that because

31 terabytes of information is so much, it has to be spread out and not one computer can handle it. But also that's not true. Or even consumer products like Windows 10 can support up to 16 terabytes of storage. Right, so that's two desktops. Also kind of the cherry on top of all the other conspiracies is actually on McAfee's Instagram account.

Because likely after his death, based on the time of the now deleted post, someone posted a giant Q onto the account, which led to many speculating and theorizing that he was actually behind the movement or he knew who was, or that his information that he allegedly had would validate them.

Or possibly as people like Mike Rothschild, an author about the QAnon movement, think, McAfee or someone on his team knew exactly what to do to achieve maximum shit posting effect. And that is also something that I want to make clear here. I do not want to legitimize any of the conspiracy theories. I'm trying to talk about what happened and what a number of people on the internet are saying.

Without a doubt, McAfee was an eccentric guy with a crazy life, but whether or not he actually had information relating to corruption, that remains to be seen. Any idea about him being killed instead of this being a suicide, that is going to persist no matter what. Because there's always gonna be a part of my brain that goes, yeah, it is completely possible

that someone killed him. But also at the same time, whenever we see a situation like this, there's the other part of my brain that goes, okay, let me think about it. If I was able to live like a king, like this guy was able to do for so much of his life, and then all of a sudden, his own tweet saying, you know,

everyone's left him, they've run away, he's alone. All of a sudden there's this prospect that he's gonna go back to the States. He's gonna essentially be in life till he dies. Maybe he doesn't get the opportunity there in the States to make it all go away. I don't know what was in his head. Maybe he realized when he goes back to the States,

he's gonna be in a tiny little box. He is not, he is a king no more. So with one of the last chances that he thinks that he may have, maybe he does something about it. We don't know. I get the skepticism around his death. A lot of the crazy theories, especially stuff tied with Q, insane people.

Yeah, ultimately that is where we are with this today. But ultimately that brings us to the end of today's show. Of course, as always, I'd love to know your thoughts on any of the stories that stood out to you in those comments down below. Like the video to help support it. We're getting just destroyed by YouTube right now. Subscribe if you're new, join the family.

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 next time.