The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 6.29 Shane Dawson's Jeffree Star "Drama" Spirals Into Mass Disgust For Sexualizing Willow Smith & More

Episode Date: June 29, 2020

Go to https://dropps.com/defranco to get $15 OFF your first order with a $40 minimum! Subscribe and save 30% on auto-shipment! Follow me off of Youtube: https://linktr.ee/PhilipDeFranco Watch my new podcast w/ Linz: https://youtu.be/ObAY-NiRM8k -- 00:00 - Shane Dawson Apology & Backlash 10:34 - TIA 12:27 - SCOTUS Rules Against Abortion Law 14:54 - Russian Bounties -- 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 ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭ BUY our GEAR, Support the Show!: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✭ Lemme Touch Your Hair: http://BeautifulBastard.com ✭ Paid Subscription: http://DeFrancoElite.com  ✩ TODAY IN AWESOME ✩ ✭ EUROVISION SONG CONTEST: The Story Of Fire Saga: https://youtu.be/7q6Co-nd0lM ✭ Fugitive Detective Reviews Manhunt Scenes: https://youtu.be/q6vPE6ioZsU ✭ Airline Pilot Breaks Down Airplane Scenes from Movies: https://youtu.be/Y5qjj9618zE ✭ MinuteEarth Explains: Unintended Consequences: https://youtu.be/FydLdwwnGeI ✭ Candyman - In Theaters September (A Story Like That): https://youtu.be/i9uXxOxVe4w ✭ Secret Link: https://twitter.com/EricFeurer/status/1276954198823796737?s=20 ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩  SCOTUS Decision: https://apnews.com/c9c6eee97277d6e8e71f568cde830e46?utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/abortion-louisiana-law-blocked-supreme-court/index.html Shane Dawson Apology:  https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/29/shane-dawson-apology/ https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/29/shane-dawson-content-history/ https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/22/shane-dawson-exits-beauty-community/ Shane’s Full Video: https://youtu.be/ardRp2x0D_E Russia Bounties on U.S. Soldiers: https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/29/russian-bounties/  ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Mississippi Legislature Votes Remove Confederate Symbol From State Flag https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/29/mississippi-to-change-flag/ Viral Mask Disputes Continue as States Slow Reopening Plans:  https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/29/viral-mask-disputes/ ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst  Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor, Luke Manning  ———————————— #DeFranco #ShaneDawson #JadenSmith Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you've had a fantastic Monday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is massive news on its own, as well as an update to a story we talked about years ago. And at the center of this story, we have the massive YouTube creator that is Shane Dawson. So this whole situation that blew up over the past week is actually connected to the James Charles Tati Westbrook, Jeffree Star situation that we saw back in 2019.

If you don't remember, beauty YouTuber Tati Westbrook posts a video called, By Sister Announcing the End of Her Friendship with Fellow Beauty YouTuber James Charles. Along with essentially saying that he's a horrible friend, there's this whole controversy around vitamins. He also made a big accusation saying that James Charles used his fame, his money,

and his power to manipulate and go after straight men he was attracted to. Right, and quickly after that, we saw more accusations thrown against James Charles, one notably being Jeffree Star, who specifically called James a predator and a danger to society. Jeffree then saying he would release more details

and evidence, though he never actually did. But still, this becomes big international news. We see James Charles losing around three million subscribers. Ultimately, we end up seeing Jeffree and Tati both kind of agree to publicly end this situation after that James Charles response video, right? His defense really changed a lot of people's minds. And keep in mind me kind of trying to explain this, it's a big oversimplification of a very messy, complicated, crazy situation. So as far as how Shane fit into that situation, when all of the the Tati and James stuff was happening, he was actually filming his second series with

Jeffree Star called The Beautiful World of Jeffree Star. It was supposed to be about the beauty community, their makeup collaboration, also in the of Jeffree Star. It was supposed to be about the beauty community, their makeup collaboration. Also in the first trailer, it seemed like there was gonna be drama. And ultimately it ended up being an incredibly successful marketing tool for the launch of Shane and Jeffree's products.

But then we fast forward to just a few weeks ago, because that is when we see beauty influencer, Cameron Lester, making a video about his experiences working with Jeffree. It had a number of accusations in it, but one of the biggest allegations was that Shane actually knew Tati was going to make her video about James Charles months before it happened, saying that he overheard Shane on the phone

with Jeffrey cursing and going off about James, and then a few months later, everything unraveled, which led many to believe that Shane may have had a hand in orchestrating all of this drama. And so we see people flooding Shane with accusations, questions, frustrations, prompting him to eventually release a statement on June 21st. And so he starts off by responding to a few questions questions essentially saying that he knew Tati was planning the video

But he did not orchestrate it himself at all saying he had huge regrets about how he could have helped everyone handle it overall But in this massive wall of text there were seemingly at least two things that really rubbed the beauty community the wrong way one Shane wrote the beauty gurus who are always involved in scandals are all the fucking same. They are all attention seeking, game playing, egocentric, narcissistic, vengeful, two-faced ticking time bombs ready to explode and I'm over it. Also saying that he knows that Jeffree is in that group but saying, he will always be family

and I love him despite those characteristics. Adding he's very aware of the fact that I don't agree with many of the ways he approaches situations and I've been very honest with him about needing to make some changes. And then saying as far as the beauty world, I'm out. And so that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it came just after he restocked

his conspiracy collection and essentially profited a ton off of the same community that he appeared to be bashing. But also on top of that, you had people saying, "'How are you gonna call out toxic behavior "'when you're friends with a person that's involved "'in almost every scandal?'' Especially because in this, he also seemingly kind of speculates that Jeffree enjoyed a competitor

being taken out by the drama. Writing, "'Was Jeffree excited to see a competitor fall? Probably. He's Jeffrey fucking Starr, what do you expect? I guess I missed the part where he got baptized and devoted his life to Christ. Then secondly, and I think one of the key reasons that this whole situation blew up to the point

that it has now, he wrote, "'Do I think James is the devil?' No. Do I think he was a young, egocentric, power-hungry guru who needed to be served a slice of humble pie the size of the fucking Empire State Building, yes. And so it seems, and I use the word seems because every individual,

even if they're a part of a group, is an individual. Seems like the general reaction from the beauty community was okay, let's see. Taking swipes at the community while seemingly giving your friends a pass because they're family, and essentially asking who are you to be talking about humble pie.

And what quickly followed was a resurgence of actually a number of videos that we've seen come up in the past. So some of that, including Shane Dawson dressed up in black and brown face, other examples of him using the N word. Notably, these are not new actually in the past,

Shane has also released apology videos around this. Back in 2014, he made a video saying that he didn't really know what black face was and what it meant, saying that in his head, he was just doing impressions of celebrities, but adding, I made a mistake and I shouldn't have done that. Shouldn't have put makeup on my face to look black. I shouldn't have done it.

It was stupid. Also along with those blackface clips, you had people sharing once again, a clip from a 2013 podcast. And here there are two versions of this audio being shared. But in that audio, it sounds like he's talking about a girl that he's describing as a six-year-old as sexy. He also says,

People have foot fetishes. People have fetishes about, you know, you know everything fine everybody do your thing so why is it when somebody looks at a google's like naked baby on google and jerks off to it they can get arrested here's the worst part of it i actually went to google and i'm like oh god i want to see you i don't want to rest it i know but i just wanted to see like okay let me pretend, let me pretend like I'm a pedophile for a sec. So I typed in naked baby. First of all, they were sexy. Though back in 2018, we saw him respond to this saying that they were jokes that were taken out of context.

Uploading a video on YouTube where he shared more of what he said. I didn't want to see child porn. I typed in naked baby. First of all, I don't understand why anybody would be turned on by that. But. That's the first good thing you said. But... They were sexy.

You're just kidding. I'm kidding. It's disgusting that people are saying I'm a pedophile because of some jokes from six years ago. I am sorry that I used to make really jokes. I am sorry that I was so like insecure and like playing this character of this guy who's like crazy and will say anything and like tries to make people laugh by shocking them. That was my thing. That was what I did on YouTube. But when you hear that clip, you hear my co-host laughing, which

was my goal. I wanted to always make her shocked and laugh. That was like, that was our thing. Our thing was like, oh, I'm going to say something super crazy to get her to be like, oh my God, Shane, you can't say that. But here's the thing, in this newest wave, those were far from the only things resurfacing. In one of the resurfaced videos, there's a vlog where he's asking his cousin, who's around 12 or 13 at the time. Is she a virgin? Shane also joking about a dick ring, asking her if she's on her period. And then in another, for example, he fakes masturbating in front of a poster

of an 11 year old Willow Smith. And I mean, these videos are hard to describe as anything other than incredibly disturbing. We're gonna jump back to the Willow Smith one in a second, but we end up seeing on Friday, Shane posting a video titled, Taking Accountability. And in this video saying, you know, he's apologized in the past, but.

Those apologies suck. I don't know who that person is anymore. Every apology video I've ever made has been from fear. It's me sitting at home thinking the whole world hates me and crying and hyperventilating and then just turning on a webcam and just saying I'm sorry and then hoping people know I'm a good person

and then it'll go away. And that is stupid. That is something that a child does. With him saying that he wants to own up to his actions, admitting that he's hurt people. Regarding the blackface and things like that, he said, I'm so sorry. I am so sorry to anybody that saw that and that also saw that people were lifting me up and were saying, you're so funny, Shane. Oh my God, you're so funny. Like, I can't even put myself in that heads. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be black and to see this white guy do blackface and the whole internet at that time being like, LOL.

Of his use of the N-word, he said, Me as a white person wearing a wig and playing a character and doing stereotypes and then saying the N word is something that I should have probably lost my career for. Shane then goes on to once again address that podcast clip saying, "'Yes, the clips that people have been sharing "'have been edited, but'."

I would never say that. But also, I shouldn't have been joking about it anyways, which is my problem, my fault. Shane also apologizing for that video that he made with his cousin, saying that he apologized to her mom a few years ago, but adding, I can't believe I did this like this is insane I can't believe I talked to you know, my cousin like that and you know, she was like, oh my god

We know we know it's okay. It was funny. Like we all thought it was funny Like that's just how our family is so I kind of took that as like, okay Well, then I don't need to apologize for it But I do Jane also trying to say that some of this humor was projection my childhood my past I've had a lot of pain. I've had a lot of bad things happen to me. I've had a lot of issues with my family. And I took that pain and I turned it into jokes. And I think instead of joking about them so much,

I probably should have just went to therapy earlier and talked about them. I swear on my life, I am not somebody who would ever talk about a child, like in seriousness, I would never talk about a child in any way that was inappropriate. That is disgusting, that is gross, it is not something I would ever do,

it is something I did for shock value or because I thought it was funny or like, oh my God, my child molester character, or whatever, it's all gross. And I my God, my child molester character or whatever. It's all gross. And I promise that is not real. That is not me. He also addresses some other things in this video,

like the James aspect to this story. But for the sake of what we're talking about today, that's where we'll end that. And I'll link so you can watch his full video below. Yeah, Shane posts this video. And as far as the reaction, initially it was kind of mixed, but actually more positive. I want to say that initially the likes to dislikes,

it was close to 85% like, 15% dislike, but that drastically changed and it was specifically connected to that video of Willow Smith. And this because Willow's brother Jaden and her mom responded on Twitter. And here I will say, I saw some people going, "'Oh look, celebrity is getting involved in YouTube drama.'

No, that's not what this is. Looking at just those clips of Shane with his cousin, the video with Willow's poster, right? Everyone's having their reactions to this situation, but imagine if one of the videos in question was about your child, was about your sister. So that's not celebrities getting involved in drama. That's family standing up for something they saw as horrible. And so we saw Jaden Smith tweeting, Shane Dawson, I am disgusted by you. You sexual sexualizing an 11-year-old girl "'who happens to be my sister is the furthest thing

"'from funny and not okay in the slightest bit.'" Also adding, "'This man was also doing blackface on the regular. "'As the youth, we need to support creators who support us "'and our morals. "'This is not okay.'" Jada Pinkett Smith also tweeting, "'To Shane Dawson, I'm done with the excuses.'"

And from there, as far as public reaction is concerned, we saw things get incredibly negative towards Shane. With his video, as of recording this, at 544,000 likes, 333,000 dislikes. That like to dislike has greatly changed. Over the last week we've also seen him losing hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Yeah, ultimately to a degree that is where we are right now. Also, please keep in mind this is in no way representative of all of the videos and all of the criticisms that are coming out right now. These are just some of the main ones. There's other things popping up here and there.

There's also a whole different aspect of the story now around Jeffree Star that we're watching kind of develop. Yeah, that's where we are with this story now. And I do want to pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this? And then let's briefly talk about the Supreme Court. So if you're unfamiliar, there was this Louisiana law that was put into place.

It was highly controversial. More importantly, it was seen as a law that was made to get to the Supreme Court to slowly try and ship away at abortion rights. As far as what this law did, it was seen as a law that was made to get to the Supreme Court to slowly try and ship away at abortion rights. As far as what this law did, it required abortion providers to maintain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. And it's important to note that very few doctors in Louisiana provide abortions to begin with, and only two actually have admitting rights. Meaning that access to the procedure would be even more limited. Especially because one of those doctors says he can't take on his clinic's work alone, so that would effectively leave just one doctor in Louisiana able to perform the procedure.

As the New York Times explains, the law's supporters said the law protects the health and safety of women seeking abortions, and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helps ensure the competence of doctors. But also noting opponents disputed that, saying that hospitalizations after abortions are rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals

whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not, and that abortion providers are often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence. Also, if this story sounds familiar, it's because this law is almost virtually identical to one that we saw in Texas. And notably, the Supreme Court back in 2016

struck down that Texas law, but, of course it is now 2020, we have a different Supreme Court. Two Trump justices in there. Many looking to see what Kavanaugh might do. Yes, of course he is a conservative, with some saying, you know, maybe he'll stick with precedent because you have the Supreme Court decision on Texas,

maybe he'll follow suit. But what we ended up actually seeing today is a Supreme Court striking down that Louisiana law five to four, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's more liberal justices. And the reason that's interesting is because actually Roberts has explained

that he continues to think that the Texas case was wrongly decided, but he believes it's important for the court to stand by its prior decisions. But also, here's the thing around that. As has been noted in some reports, you had Roberts saying, "'The validity of admitting privileges law

"'depends on numerous factors that may differ "'from state to state.'" According to Steven Vladeck, who's a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas, "'In the process, the Chief Justice's narrower opinion "'implies that states making different arguments "'in different cases might be able to justify

similar restrictions going forward. In that respect, the Chief Justice may have sided with abortion supporters today, but their victory may be short-lived. Which also explains why we saw Nancy Northup, the President and CEO for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which actually brought this case, saying, we're relieved that the Louisiana law

has been blocked today, but we're concerned about tomorrow. With Northup adding, the court's decision could embolden states to pass even more restrictive laws when clarity is needed if abortion rights are to be protected. But ultimately, that is where we are with the story today. It's gonna be very interesting and important to pay attention to what states do what moving forward.

And with this story, I do wanna pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court decision today? And the last thing we're gonna talk about today is Russia, Afghanistan, and the Trump administration. So on Friday, the New York Times reported that US intelligence officials had concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit

had secretly offered Taliban linked groups money to kill Western forces in Afghanistan, including US troops. Officials also reportedly told the Times that President Trump had been briefed on this intelligence finding and that the White House's National Security Council had discussed it at an inter-agency meeting in late March.

And in response, US officials came up with a number of potential options, including making a diplomatic complaint to Russia demanding that it stop, as well as an escalating series of sanctions and other possible responses. Notably, the officials who reportedly spoke to the Times said that the White House has yet to authorize any step. But those officials also saying the intelligence

had been treated as a closely held secret, but that the Trump administration expanded the briefings about it this week. Also sharing that information with the British government whose forces said that they had also been targeted. Very notably, that report has also been backed up by British and European officials. With British security officials telling Sky News that the reports about the plot are true

and a European intelligence official confirming the same to CNN. Okay, so after the New York Times came out with this story, we also saw several other outlets confirming that report. And then on Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Russian bounties are believed to have resulted in the deaths of several US service members. But noting there that several people familiar

with the matter said it's unclear how many troops from the US or other countries had been killed or targeted. The Post also reporting that the information had been passed up from the US Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan. And shortly after that, the Times reported that those forces along with US intelligence forces had told their superiors about the Russian bounties as early as January. With two officials that, the Times reported that those forces, along with US intelligence forces, had told their superiors about the Russian bounties

as early as January, with two officials there telling the Times that they believed at least one US troop had been killed as a result of the bounties. The Times also reporting that the information that led military and intelligence officials to focus on these bounties included the recovery of a large amount of American cash

from a raid on a Taliban outpost that prompted suspicion. With an official also saying that interrogations of captured militants and criminals "'played a central role "'in making the intelligence community confident "'in its assessment that the Russians had offered "'and paid bounties in 2019.'" While multiple reports have said

that officials are confident about this intelligence, they are more uncertain about why they would do this. According to the Times, some officials have said that the Russians might be trying to get revenge for a battle in Syria in 2018, where US military forces killed several hundred pro-Syrian forces, including Russian mercenaries,

after they began advancing on an American outpost. Other officials have said that the Russians might be trying to derail peace talks between the United States and the Taliban to keep the United States weighed down in Afghanistan. And at the same time, other officials have speculated how far up in the Russian government this alleged operation goes,

with officials reportedly saying that the US government actually pinned the operation to Russia's military intelligence agency, commonly known as the GRU, and even more specifically, a unit housed within that agency. Per the Times, Western intelligence officials have said that the unit, quote, has been charged by the Kremlin with carrying out a campaign to destabilize the West

through subversion, sabotage, and assassination. And more specifically, that unit was also linked to a very high profile international incident in England back in 2018. We've actually talked about this on the show before. There, a former GRU officer who had been working with the British intelligence and his daughter were poisoned by a nerve agent.

But the GRU itself as an organization also has a more recent history of trouble with the United States. American intelligence officials have said that the GRU was at the heart of Moscow's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. American officials also say that two GRU cyber units were behind the Democratic Party hacks which resulted in the 2016 DNC. American officials also say that two GRU cyber units were behind the Democratic Party hacks,

which resulted in the 2016 DNC email leaks by WikiLeaks. But regardless of why the GRU would put bounties on American troops, if this intelligence is true, it would be a massive deal for a number of reasons. First of all, according to the Times, it would be the first time GRU is known to have led attacks on Western troops. But also, this would represent a serious escalation

between the United States and both the Taliban and Russia. I mean, back in February, the United States actually struck a peace agreement with the Taliban, and since then they have not attacked US position. While both the United States and Afghan officials have accused Russia of supplying small arms to the Taliban. Recently, US officials have said that Russia has actually been cooperative and helpful

since that deal was signed. Now with all of that said, as of right now, both Russia and the Taliban have denied the existence of the bounties program, with the Russian embassy in Washington calling the Times report fake news in a tweet on Saturday. And as far as the US response, it has kind of been all over. As of recording, the CIA and both the defense

and state departments have declined to give comments to the media. When asked to give a comment, a spokesperson for the National Security Council said that the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated. Saturday, we also saw Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence,

denying that Trump had ever been briefed on the matter. But very notably there, they also didn't push back on the substance of the intelligence assessment itself or say that it was not true. And as far as Trump's reaction, early Sunday we saw him tweet, "'Nobody briefed or told me, VP Pence, "'or Chief of Staff Mark Meadows

"'about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan "'by Russians as reported through an quote anonymous source "'by the fake news New York Times. "'Everybody is denying it "'and there have not been many attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an quote anonymous source by the fake news New York Times. Everybody is denying it and there have not been many attacks on us. And adding, nobody's been tougher on Russia than the Trump administration. With corrupt Joe Biden and Obama, Russia had a field day

taking over important parts of Ukraine, whereas Hunter, probably just another phony Times hit job, just like their failed Russia hoax, who is their source. There of course, you also didn't have Trump saying anything about whether or not the report itself was actually true. And so as a result you had both Democrats and Republicans calling on Trump to address the situation. Many Democrats condemning the President for not doing

anything and being indifferent like Senator Elizabeth Warren who tweeted, President Trump doing absolutely nothing while a Russian spy unit pays the Taliban to kill US soldiers is a profound betrayal of our troops. It's also the definition of a failed Commander in Chief. We all saw Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden taking it a step further with Pelosi going on this week on Sunday and accusing Trump of wanting to ignore any charges against Russia and adding, Russia's never gotten over the humiliation

they suffered in Afghanistan. And now they're taking it out on us, our troops. This is totally outrageous. You would think that the minute the president heard of it, he would want to know more instead of denying that he knew anything. This is as bad as it gets. And yet the president will not confront the Russians on this score, denies being briefed, whether he is or not his administration knows. And other our allies who were some of our allies who work with us in Afghanistan have been briefed and accept this report.

With Pelosi also saying that, okay, if Trump had not been briefed, the country should be concerned that his administration was scared to share information regarding Russia with him. Biden also making similar remarks, saying during a virtual town hall event on Saturday. Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia

for this egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. His entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale. It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them in the harm's way. We also saw a number of Republicans pressuring Trump

to give a better explanation, like Representative Liz Cheney who tweeted yesterday, if reporting about Russian bounties on US forces is true, the White House must explain one, why weren't the president or vice president brief? Was the info in the presidential daily briefing? Two, who did know and when? Three, what has been done in response to protect our forces

and hold Putin accountable? Multiple Republicans retweeting Cheney's post, this including Representative Daniel Crenshaw, who also added, we need answers. Senator Lindsey Graham, who of course is a big Trump ally these days, also pressed the question, tweeting, "'Imperative Congress' get to the bottom

of recent media reports that Russian GRU units in Afghanistan have offered to pay the Taliban to kill American soldiers with the goal of pushing America out of the region." And later tweeting, "'I expect the Trump administration to take such allegations seriously and inform Congress immediately as to the reliability

Of these news reports we actually had Trump responding to that tweet later last night writing Intel just reported to me that they did not Find this info credible and therefore did not report it to me or VP possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax maybe by the fake news New York Times books wanting to make Republicans look bad just this morning We saw a press secretary McEnany seeming to echo that while speaking to Fox News, saying that media reports have been based on alleged intelligence that was never briefed to the President of the United States, and adding that as a matter of practice, Trump has only briefed on intelligence

that's found to be verifiable and credible. Though, she also said that there was no consensus about the validity of the report within the intelligence community, which includes dissenting opinions. Also saying that lawmakers would be briefed later in the day, but not saying which lawmakers. And while I was recording today,

we saw reports that the White House briefed a group of House Republican lawmakers today. But meanwhile, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, have called on intelligence officials to provide all member briefings to Congress. And key Senate Republicans have also reportedly said they are trying to get more information from the Trump administration.

And that is essentially where we are with this. You have the Trump administration remaining firm that Trump was never briefed, despite accounts given to reporters that indicate otherwise. You have numerous current and formal officials saying that it is unlikely Trump would not be informed of such a significant accusation.

So as a result, there has been a lot of speculation over the argument that Trump wasn't briefed and whether or not the White House is basing this on a technicality. What I mean there, as the LA Times explains, intelligence experts suggested that the White House defense appeared to be largely a semantic one, perhaps resting on the material being included

in the written daily intelligence brief that the president is known to avoid reading rather than presented to him orally. And there have been a few indicators that that could be the case. I mean, for one, at least one official told the New York Times that the report was included in that daily intelligence brief,

which is called the presidential daily briefing. And really notably today when McEnany was pressed by reporters as to whether that information was included in the daily briefing, she only said, "'Trump was not personally briefed.'" Which is a response that some have said seems to back up this sort of technical argument. That no one told him about it orally,

but it doesn't rule out the fact that it could have actually been given to him in the form of a report that he didn't read. But yeah, ultimately, like I said, that is where we are right now. We're gonna have to wait to see what happens next. Do we get more information? And that is where we're gonna end today's show.

As always, thank you for being a part of this, taking these daily dives into the news, liking the video, sharing it, being a part of the conversation down below. Also, if you're new here, definitely hit that subscribe button, tap that bell so it looks like this, so you make sure you don't miss any videos.

But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in, I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow. I hope you like this video. Subscribe if you like it.