The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 7.01 “BIDEN CAN LEGALLY KILL TRUMP WITH SEAL TEAM 6 NOW” Thanks to the Supreme Court, Dr Disrespect, &

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Head to https://tryfum.com/defranco and use code DEFRANCO  to get a free gift with your Journey Pack!  Today. Go to http://zbiotics.com/DEFRANCO and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order. ==== ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩- – 00:00 - SCOTUS Says Presidents Are Basically Kings Bound to No Rules 4:31 - Dr Disrespect Allegedly Knowingly Messaged Minor 6:20 - Rick Ross Jumped by Drake Fans After Playing Kendrick’s Diss Track in Canada  7:27 - Newsweek Slammed For Sexist Taylor Swift Op-Ed 11:49 - Sponsored by Fum 12:55 - Oklahoma’s Top Education Official Orders Public Schools to Teach the Bible 16:55 - Far Right Wins Big in Round One of France’s Elections 20:05 - Sponsored by Zbiotics 21:15 - Europe Is Preparing for War ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino Associate Producer on Europe Preparing for War: Jared Paolino ———————————— #DeFranco #DonaldTrump #DrDisrespect ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did the Supreme Court just give President Biden the green light to assassinate Trump with SEAL Team 6? That has actually become one of the main questions following the Supreme Court ruling 6-3 in the decision along ideological lines. It's actually a huge win for Trump, with him ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution. Although there's some caveats,

such as the fact that the immunity can only apply to clearly official acts. And when you hear that, you go, okay, well, what is a clearly official act? And there, the court decided to do the super fun thing by not defining what that meant and what constitutes an official act. Instead, that'll be left up to lower courts

to figure out the details. And so the new immunity standard means that the president is presumed to have it. Although the stance wasn't shared by all the conservative justices. Ray Barrett instead wanted the court to take a two-step standard when considering whether a president is immune from prosecution,

whether a statute actually applies to what the president did, and whether it would interfere with the powers of the president while in office. But really, other than that small difference, the decision was a huge expansion of the president's immunity. Previously, it was just thought that they were barred from prosecution while in office,

other than with impeachment, which is why we saw special counsel Jack Smith argue that a former president had no immunity as long as a prosecutor got an indictment from a grand jury. But now, former presidents have a huge shield against prosecution, and the bar for overcoming it is really high because you'd need to show that what the president did

wasn't a clearly official act. And what's big and wild here is that this is just the second decision today that could affect Trump's prosecution. Because before they dropped this decision, the court had handed down a ruling that severely narrowed the scope of an obstruction law that prosecutors were sometimes using

to go after January 6th insurrectionists. With that also being a six to three decision, but with a twist, because Jackson voted with the conservatives while Barrett voted with the liberals. So another question with all this is like taken together, what does this mean for the case against Trump? And there, well, it doesn't completely kill it.

First off, the court rejected his arguments that only presidents who were impeached and removed from office could be prosecuted. So instead the presidential immunity case will likely result in Trump and Smith arguing to lower courts over whether Trump's actions to appoint fake electors to hand him the 2020 presidential election was an official act. Also, even before the court made their obstruction ruling, Smith was arguing that Trump's efforts to send fake

electors, that clearly falls under evidence tampering sections of the obstruction law, which arguably fall under the court's narrow view of the law. You know, as you'd expect with all this, we have seen a lot of reactions to the news. Trump himself feeling that the court's decision, quote, should end all of crooked Joe Biden's witch hunts against me, including the New York hoaxes, the Manhattan scam cooked up by Soros-backed DA Alvin Bragg, racist New York attorney General Tish James' shameless attack on the amazing business that I have built, and the fake Bergdorf's case.

Proud to be an American. Although there, a lot of those cases arguably don't deal with official actions at all. Though they'll all likely have another speed bump to overcome because of the decision. This is also understandably led to a lot of people wondering about what ifs, such as the Supreme Court just ruled

that if the president ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political opponent, he would be immune from criminal prosecution. And actually, I mean, the thing is there, like that is only slightly hyperbole, maybe. And that's because ordering SEAL Team Six to do something is an official act. But as commander in chief, that is an official act. Which as commander-in-chief, that is an official act.

Which is why you've also seen so many commentators online saying that Joe Biden has the opportunity to do the funniest thing right now. So it feels insane that there is an actual argument that could cover this. And as far as what the justices had to say, with the majority riding in the immunity case, the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts

and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law, but Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the constitution. So there, just as Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, they weren't buying that take, that the president is not above the law,

with Sotomayor dropping this bomb, saying, this new official acts immunity now lies about like a loaded weapon for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain above the interests of the nation. When he uses his official powers in any way under the majority's reasoning,

he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power, immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office

for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. In closing, even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do,

the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably in every use of Official power the president is now a king above the law Well, you have to leave that comment or you just sit back trying to take in what we just talked about I gotta say hi Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show you daily dive into the news and we have a huge show today because so much has happened Today so much happened over the weekend that we just have to talk about which on that note. There's a lot more

So let's just jump into it. This is a news show. So we've got to talk about this Dr. Disrespect situation again, because there've been some big updates, but there's also been some misinformation going around. And we'll start with what's true, like the fact that he was demonetized on YouTube,

with a spokesperson for the platform also telling The Verge that he was suspended from the partner program because of the allegations against him. Also with all this, there were people wondering if Doc knew that the person that he was messaging was a minor, and actually with that, you had Rolling Stone publishing a pretty big update, with him reporting that a former Twitch employee told him that Doc sent sexually graphic messages while knowing the minor was underage. With that source claiming, I recall that Dr. Disrespect was made aware by the individual

that they were underage during the conversation, after which he indicated that this was no problem and continued on. There was no confusion. Messages sent after this was acknowledged were no less graphic and in sexually explicit nature than before, and I think more than the categorization of leaning too much in the direction of being inappropriate might indicate." Which notably is how Doc described it in his statement.

Rolling Stone also reported that Dr. Disrespect was reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children on the day of his ban, but it's unclear if an investigation followed, which then brings us to the potential misinformation that's starting to surface. There were a ton of people sharing this screenshot all over Twitter, with that saying that the NCMEC

did investigate Doc and it cleared him, also claiming that the minor in question may have been a Twitch employee pretending to be 17. There we've seen the reporter behind the most recent Rolling Stone piece pushing back against it on Twitter over the weekend, saying that that is false and the only source backed reporting on this right now is his story.

It also appears there's been some confusion as some people thought that Doc had been arrested, but no, that has not happened. There is another conversation happening from those who wonder why it took so long for all this to come out. But as it seems that this was just open knowledge among certain groups of people since 2020,

Rolling Stone noting that the author of the piece had learned of the reason behind the ban back then, but he didn't report it due to the extreme sensitivity of the topic. Report also claiming that people at YouTube back then had at least heard rumors about this. And then of course, people at Twitch knew, though they claim that their top priority

was protecting the identity of the alleged victim. But still, understandably, a big part of this conversation is people wondering how could so many people know about this for years and just sit on it? But for now, that's where we are on this. And then, Kendrick Lamar Drake beef that you thought maybe was over, it just turned violent over the weekend.

With it going down at the Ignite Music Festival in Vancouver, where Rick Ross was performing. Which also, like, it shouldn't be a surprise that Rick Ross was involved. He and Drake used to be friends. He's taken Kendrick's side, or more accurately, the fuck Drake's side. He's been egging on and loving this whole situation since kind of the beginning. I mean, hell, he even released his own diss track titled Champagne Moments back in April. Calling Drake a white boy,

claiming he got a nose job, among other things. And so unsurprisingly, Rick Ross played Kendrick's diss track Not Like Us at the end of his set. Thing is, it turned out some Drake fans were in the crowd. Seemingly, they weren't pleased, because when he walked off, a group of men confronted him, with one apparently exchanging some words. You could hear someone yell and turn that shit off.

And then in the videos, you can see someone throw a fist that appeared to connect with Ross's face. And after that, it just chaos as people from both sides just launching into this all out brawl. You got punches and kicks flying, one dude's on the ground getting absolutely fucking pulverized. Ross's DJ, Sam Sneak, also getting caught in the beatdown.

And as far as, you know, how it all ended, was anyone hurt seriously? Was anyone arrested? Right now, we don't know. In fact, one of the only things we know is that reportedly Drake liked an Instagram video of the fight. So you can interpret that however you'd like.

And then there is a lot of inexcusable horrible in the world right now, but possibly the worst are 34 year old women out there not having kids. I mean, just thinking about that, oh, I get nauseous. That is pretty much the gist of a recent op-ed in Newsweek that took aim at Taylor Swift

and has garnered a lot of attention. It's called Taylor Swift is not a good role model. And it starts by acknowledging her many successes, but it then quickly transitions to say, at 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless. A fact that some might argue is irrelevant to her status as a role model. But I suggest it's crucial to consider

what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model by definition is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift's musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate. This might sound like pearl-clutching preaching, but it's a concern rooted in sound reasoning. And the sound reasoning provided is a list of her exes with the author questioning if she should be promoting this, quote, revolving door of men or encouraging something more wholesome." Saying, would any loving parent reading this

want their daughter to date 12 different men in the span of just a few years? This is not an attack on Swift. It's a valid question that is worth asking. Which I will say, just like having read through this, I was wondering how many times the author like had to remove the word whore from previous drafts. They're just sitting there in front of their glowing laptop

and they're like, is Jezebel too old of a word? Trollope? Because, you know, it's a valid question to ask, is it okay for a woman to have dated a number of men in her 34 years of life on the planet? Is she less of an aspirational figure because she didn't opt to be a baby making machine? And to me, it all just feels like a weird argument to have, although weird's probably not the right word. Writing the quest for views, rage bait, is an avenue that people can take. Because I look at this and I go, you know, men, women, fucking whoever, they can all have different aspirations. There can be trad wife-esque aspirational figures

where a woman just wants to be in the home and have lots of kids and raise the kids. And that's the focus. And that can be cool while not shitting on the aspirational figures of a woman going, that's not the life for me. I want to do all this other shit. I want to create, work, thrive,

do different sort of things than that. And that's not the life for me. I want to do all this other shit. I want to create, work, thrive, do different sort of things than that. And that's awesome too, without shitting on fantastic moms at home. It's so weird to me that so many people feel like these different lives and these different avenues can't exist without them hurling bombs at the other. But then to go back to the piece, the author goes on to call Taylor Swift a hypocrite for being critical of the patriarchy

while also dating successful men. Because apparently not only should she not be dating to find someone she wants to be with for a long time, she shouldn't have standards. And the article closing by essentially saying, "'She' and Travis Kelsey, "'they won't make their way down the aisle "'and girls should look for inspiration elsewhere.'"

Which in addition to that being a number of other things, that's a cheap move. The author gets to claim a victory if that relationship doesn't work before they get married, or if they do get married and they get divorced, they're like, I was right. This somehow validates all the other shitty stuff I said. Also, I will say, the timing of this feels weird.

Like, this isn't even the first time in the last week that someone tried to make a case about Taylor Swift's age. Just last week, the likes of Andrew Tate tweeting, I could easily fuck Taylor Swift and end her feminism shit, real G dick moves, but she's ancient. Pyramids were brand new when she was born. 34, if you're a girl, why even live past 30 unless you have kids? You know, the rage bait they'd expect from the likes of Andrew Tate

or kind of anyone in the Manosphere podcast space looking for attention. Which has also made so many people angry at Newsweek, because they were like, you know, I expected from people like that, but why from Newsweek? With people calling it a shallow, lazy, sexist piece of trash, adding young girls do not need to aspire to marriage and children, and saying, I personally have no interest in Taylor Swift, but there are worse role models

than someone who evidently works hard and is financially independent and also made huge donations toward food banks, as well as Newsweek and its ilk can fuck right off back to the Stone Age. With all of that then getting us to my favorite update with this story, Newsweek, they published a different op-ed

from a different author titled "'Taylor Swift, the Generous Role Model." And they're making the case that Taylor Swift has done some impressive things and isn't that neat. Well, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on the op-ed. I do wanna close this by saying, well, it's usually independent creators and commentators

that are accused of rage baiting and clout farming and all that bullshit. And also it's oftentimes true. Mainstream outlets like Newsweek and so many others, they are guilty of the same thing. They don't care why you're on the site reading, they just want you on the site reading. If you love the op-ed, fantastic, click an ad.

If you hate the op-ed, hey, maybe accidentally click the ad. It's not a new tactic, it's just now everywhere and on overdrive. And it's really gotten to the point that wherever I look online, I never know if someone actually believes the shit that they're saying or putting out there, or they're just trying to get attention.

And the two dueling op-eds with this Taylor Swift situation, it just seems like a transparent example of all that. And then, have you ever tried to break a bad habit and you just felt like you were climbing Everest in flip-flops? Yeah, me too. But here's a breath of fresh air from today's sponsor, Fume, because it's not about giving up, but switching up.

And Fume takes your habit and simply makes it better, healthier, and a whole lot more enjoyable. No artificial flavors, nasty chemicals, or batteries are involved. And it's founded on the flavor, fidget, and fixation principle, right? If you ingrain your good habit into everyday life, it makes healthy changes feel easier and less intrusive.

It's a guilt-free alternative, and the fidgeter in me likes the movable parts and the magnets. You know, it's balanced just right to keep your fingers busy, which helps me with the anxieties that come with these types of changes. You can even adjust the airflow to your liking. It also tastes great, and they've got tons of flavors to choose from, which last three days

a pop. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the new Retro Sweets flavors, especially the Cinnamon Hearts. They're tasty, exciting, and subtle, not overwhelming. And Fume has served over 300,000 customers, and you can be the next success story. Like, guys, if you are struggling with kicking bad habits, this is the product for you, seriously. Just go to tryfum.com slash defranco and use code defranco to get your free gift with your journey pad. That's tryfum.com slash defranco, code defranco.

And then, y'all this is big. Move over to Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, Animal Farm. There is a new required school reading in town and it is the Bible. Because you might have seen the news, Oklahoma's top education official is literally requiring public schools to teach the Bible. And not like in an around about, hushed tone, secret way. With Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters proudly and publicly announcing the move.

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. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door.

A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. The Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system,

and it's frankly, when we're talking about the Bible, one of the most foundational documents used for the Constitution and the birth of our country. Every teacher, every classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom to ensure that this historical understanding is there for every student in the state of Oklahoma in accordance with our academic standards and state law. But despite that very broad statement that every teacher will be teaching from the Bible, Walters has not provided any specifics

on what this looks like in practice, which is especially notable because like some other conservative states, Oklahoma already explicitly permits Bibles in classrooms and allows teachers to use them in instruction. But experts say that in those states, the Bible is generally used as a historical text or alongside other religious texts or literature.

So it's unclear right now how that can be expanded in Oklahoma, unless we're literally just talking about straight up teaching Sunday school lessons to public school kids. And this is the memo from Walters's office making this directive official also didn't really provide any clues with him writing.

Effective immediately all Oklahoma schools are required to incorporate the Bible, which includes the 10 commandments as an instructional support into the curriculum for students in fifth through 12th grade. Explaining only that the Bible and the 10 commandments will be referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like,

as well as for their substantial influence on our nation's founders and the foundational principles of our constitution. And then to just make matters even more confusing, in an interview with the New York Times, Walters said that the Bible would be tied to other subjects not mentioned in the memo, including math and science,

with students being directed to study its influence on thinkers and ideas, with him then also seeming to contradict the grade-specific instruction outlined in his the memo, including math and science, with students being directed to study its influence on thinkers and ideas. With him then also seeming to contradict the grade-specific instruction outlined in his own memo, saying the Bible can also be taught in younger grades when applicable. But still, he refused to provide any more specifics. And despite his repeated failure to explain

how teachers are supposed to actually implement this policy that's already in effect, he told NBC News that teachers who don't follow the mandate could lose their licenses, saying, any teacher that would knowingly, willfully disobey the law and disobey our standards, there are repercussions for that. So we deal with that on a case-by-case basis,

but yes, teachers have to teach Oklahoma academic standards, and this is absolutely going to be part of them. But also, despite Walters' hardline stance, it's not even clear if he can legally do this for a number of different reasons. I mean, just at the very top level, it's totally unclear if he even has the power

to do this in the first place. With the AP reporting that state law says individual school districts have the exclusive authority to decide on instruction, curriculum, reading lists, instructional materials, and textbooks. I mean, hell, you even had the office of Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General

telling reporters there's no legal authority for a memo from the superintendent to require content. And then of course, there's a very big question of whether this is even constitutional. Because you've got tons of rights groups, legal experts and other critics arguing this is a clear violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause,

which bans the government from establishing a religion. With many accusing Walters of abusing his power to impose Christian nationalist ideals and push his own religion on America's public schools. With there also some vowing to bring legal challenges against the move and some speculating this could make its way up to the Supreme Court. But a really important thing there

is that Walters isn't even pretending this is anything other than an attempt to get to the Supreme Court, with him literally telling NBC that he's confident this policy will prevail over legal challenges because of the justices appointed by Trump. And this, notably, as we've seen Christians imposing a number of different policies towing the line of separation of church and state and public schools in hopes that it'll go to the Supreme Court. I mean, just a few weeks ago, Louisiana became the first state to require the Ten Commandments to be posted in all public school classrooms.. I mean, just a few weeks ago, Louisiana became the first state to require the 10 commandments to be posted in all public school classrooms.

And I mean, this latest move from Oklahoma, it comes just days after the state Supreme Court struck down a proposal to create a publicly funded Catholic charter school. So really everything that we're seeing here, it's just the beginning of the snowball effect. There is a long play that is happening here. We're just seeing the first steps.

But then shifting gears, we gotta talk about the huge news coming out of France right now. Because after the first round of French elections, we saw the right-wing national rally getting huge wins, with them getting over 33% of the vote, which was the highest of any single party. And in fact, it looks like President Emmanuel Macron's

ensemble alliance actually came out on the bottom, with even the left-wing New Popular Front Coalition getting 8% more votes than them. Though this news, it shouldn't be completely surprising. Right, I mean, these summer elections were called specifically because Macron's party took such a beating at the recent elections for the European parliament. Though I gotta say, while it was expected

that the national rally was gonna do well, not nearly as well as they're doing so far. Right, so to paint the picture, in the current outgoing parliament, the national rally only has 88 out of the 577 seats. In this first round of voting, it only had 76 candidates get outright wins, and of those, 39 were for the national rally,

which has led to pundits in France projecting the party winning between 230 and 280 seats, which is obviously a huge, huge jump. Although with that, you had the party's figurehead, Marine Le Pen, stressing to her followers that they can't get complacent and, quote, democracy has spoken and the French people have placed the national rally and its allies in first place. It has practically erased the Macronist bloc. With her then going on to add, nothing has been won and the second round will be decisive." With the official head of the party adding that, "'The vote taking place next Sunday

is one of the most decisive in the entire history of the Fifth Republic.'" And the final results of that second round, it's gonna be a key thing. Because let's say they get between 230 to 280, like projected. That is notably still short of the 289 that they need for an absolute majority.

And notably, the leaders of the National Rally have vowed that they will not rule a minority government, meaning that they wouldn't work with other parties, which would then force Macron to find allies in the far left alongside other smaller parties to try and make a government. And there, we've already seen some indication that the centrist and socialist parties

are considering some action to block the National Rally from winning more seats. Or the left-wing NFP bloc, for example, which was a coalition that was formed earlier this month, they announced that they would withdraw any candidate who got third place in the first round of voting. With them instead just urging voters to vote for pretty much anyone but the national rally.

The leader of the largest party in the NFP saying, "'Our instruction is clear, not one more vote, "'not one more seat for the national rally.'" There's also saying the leader of the Green Party begging Macron to do the same, to withdraw candidates who got third and likely have no chance of winning next week, saying, "'We're counting on you.

"'Withdraw if you come third in a three-way race, "'and if you don't qualify for the second round, to withdraw candidates who got third and likely have no chance of winning next week, saying, we're counting on you. Withdraw if you come third in a three-way race, and if you don't qualify for the second round, call your supporters to vote for the candidate who supports Republican values. The wild thing here is that despite all of that, it is very unclear if that's actually gonna stop the national rally from winning huge.

I mean, this weekend, they outright won seats in areas that were thought impossible before. For Macron, this only really leads to four situations, none of which have his centrist party and coalition getting a majority. The National Rally gets a majority and makes a government. The left-wing parties manage to scoop wins and get a majority despite current projections.

No one gets a majority and the left-wing coalitions make a minority government. That doesn't seem possible with the National Rally because like we mentioned earlier, they don't want to make a coalition if they don't win outright. Or just no one's able to form any kind of government and just leads to more political uncertainty for France in the last three years of Macron's term,

which notably he has promised to finish. But really, no matter how this plays out, it's looking like there's going to be a fundamental shift in European politics one way or another. And it also appears at the government level, very likely that France is going to have very different postures on issues like Ukraine, the EU, and pretty much everything in the near future. But as far as how all this is going to shake out, one, we need to see what happens in the second round of elections, and two, how all the winners are able to scramble from there. But no matter what, I mean, this is huge, huge news. And then, yo, summer's here, and so are beach days,

backyard barbecues, vacations, weddings, birthdays, Friday nights, just events where some of us might like to partake in having a few drinks. And wouldn't it be nice to enjoy ourselves without feeling not great the next day? And I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that question. And thankfully, the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Z-Biotics, they've got you covered. Because Z-Biotics pre-alcohol probiotic is the world's first genetically

engineered probiotic invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut, and that byproduct is a big reason why you feel so rough the next morning. And pre-alcohol, it produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. It's designed to work like your liver, but in your gut where you need it most. So just drink this probiotic before drinking alcohol, drink responsibly and get a good night's sleep to feel your best tomorrow. I mean, that little bottle has helped me be able to, well, just be me after a night out, whether it be with our weekly trivia nights or I'm going to a game or whatever, especially as summer's just full of activities that pair nicely with a refreshing drink. So stock up on pre-alcohol now and help yourself out.

Just go to zbiotics.com slash DeFranco and use code DeFranco to get 15% off your first order. That's zbiotics.com slash DeFranco using code DeFranco at checkout for 15% off. And thanks Zbiotics for sponsoring this show. And then for this next deep dive, we have a very special guest, me from the previous office. That's right. These shows have gotten so big, I have cloned myself. We need to talk about how Europe is getting ready for war, or at least the rest of Europe. Because obviously, war already came to the continent when Russia's occupation of eastern Ukraine and Crimea turned into a full-fledged invasion. But of course, the hope has been that Putin can be defeated there without any other countries becoming directly involved. And to that end, European allies have been sending weapons and dollars to the war front,

not only to help Ukraine, but also to stop the war before it comes to them. But notably, at the same time, there are efforts underway to both build out a European-wide defense industry, as well as recruit, and if necessary, conscript more soldiers. So in case they can't help Ukraine stop Russia, the rest of Europe will be ready to defend itself. And so with that, you know, I don't want to spread some sort of World War III doom and gloom propaganda or hype up the arms industry. But the fact of the matter is, an expanded conflict with Russia on the European continent, while not inevitable, is a real possibility. Putin may say that he doesn't want war with NATO countries, but he said pretty much the same thing before he launched his 2022

invasion. You know, with that, many people believe that Putin is on a mission to rebuild the historic Russian empire, you know, which would include not only most of Ukraine, but also places like Kazakhstan, Georgia, Moldova, and the Baltic States. But in fact, Estonia's foreign intelligence service saying Russia is preparing for a military confrontation with NATO within the next decade. And that is the German defense minister warned that an attack could come within the next five to eight years, which on that note, if the war in Ukraine stopped today, it's estimated that it would only take Russia three to five years to regain the capacity to attack another country. And though defense spending in the EU, for example, has risen 20% since Russia's annexation

of Crimea in 2014, Russia has boosted its defense budget by almost 300% and China a whopping 600%. And to NATO, which includes the vast majority of EU countries as well as several European countries not in the EU, the US is still pulling most of the weight, accounting for nearly 70% of NATO's defense spending last year. And according to Anthony King, a professor of war studies at the University of Warwick, Europe has systematically demilitarized itself because it didn't need to spend the money. With that being thanks to the lack of apparent threat and U.S. military dominance around the globe. And this is the focus of most Western militaries has simply shifted from defending territory to threats like terrorism, as well as things like support for international missions

in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the result being that most European forces are now just specialized in counterinsurgency operations and asymmetric warfare, while being poorly equipped to fight a well-armed foe in a grinding land war in the style of Ukraine. What we're seeing, for example, are things like at the end of last year,

the British military, which is the leading US military ally and Europe's biggest defense vendor, having only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces. And you got France, the next big spender, having fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, which notably is equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield. In Denmark, they have no heavy artillery, submarines, or air defense systems. And the German army reportedly only has enough ammunition for two days of battle. And so now as worries about Russia grow, European leaders are also worrying

about whether the U.S. will ultimately have their back. Because although Biden has reaffirmed American support for NATO, Donald Trump, who has a 50-50 chance of being an ex-president, has repeatedly questioned the alliance's value. He's also clashed with NATO leaders over funding and the stationing of U.S. troops in Germany. And in fact, just a few months ago, he said Russia could do whatever the hell they want to any NATO country that doesn't pay enough. You know, with that, it is true that since NATO allies agreed to move forward spending 2% of economic output on defense since 2014,

only 11 have actually hit that mark. Though notably, that is only a guideline, not an obligation. And NATO is now saying two thirds of its 32 members will meet the alliance's spending targets in 2024. But in any case, the 2022 wake-up call that was the Russian invasion, coupled with concerns about U.S. reliability, have much of Europe basically saying, we got to get our shit together. Because if the U.S. stopped providing the bulk of aid to

Ukraine, Europe doesn't have the stockpiles to make up the difference. And it almost certainly can't resupply Ukraine and rebuild its own forces at the same time. Which is why we're seeing things like France pushing the hardest for the EU to invest into a stronger and more self-sufficient military. President Emmanuel Macron repeatedly calling for European sovereignty and strategic autonomy to balance the United States' domination of NATO, and along with France, you have Spain, Italy, and NATO's newest member, Sweden, being among those arguing there should be greater investment in a homegrown European defense industry. And this has now essentially become the official position of the EU itself, with the European Commission publishing its first-ever

European Defense Industrial Strategy back in March, a plan that would link hundreds of billions of euros in subsidies to requirements that European weapons makers from different countries work together. With that, the strategy also asks that countries spend half of their defense budgets on EU-based suppliers by 2030 and 60% by 2035. Because until now, 78% of the defense equipment acquired by EU members was bought from mostly outside the bloc, mostly from American arms makers. And so with all that, France and Germany have actually recently agreed to develop a new multi-billion dollar battlefield tank. Though that so-called tank of the future won't be operational until at least 2035. And so for now, all it's really done is shed light on the political and logistical challenges in the way of developing

a coordinated and efficient European military machine. According to the New York Times, it was a seven-year effort to reach this agreement, and it was characterized by political, infighting, industrial rivalry and neglect. One of the most notable disputes being about whether the tank's main gun should be the German style 130 millimeter version or the 140 millimeter version developed by the French. And you've got Max Bergman, a program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explaining to the Times, Europe has 27 military industrial complexes, not just one. Even when they buy the same German tank, they build it in different ways so a national defense company can get a piece of it. So with that, Europe actually operates more than five times as many weapon systems as the United States

does in categories like tanks, fighter jets, submarines, and munitions. So it becomes really difficult for the EU to ensure that equipment, parts, and ammunition are interchangeable across national borders. And so overall, some say this is the reason that the European industry can't compete with America's. And arguing that only a large operation can create the necessary economies of scale and produce enough arms to export to make the industry profitable. But even with this push by the EU government and the leaders of some member states, it's not totally clear that there's political will to do this. Because it would likely mean that some smaller weapons makers would have to merge or close. And with that, countries closer to Russia, they're not taking any chances. Poland, for example, has spent a greater percentage of their

GDP on defense than any other NATO country, purchasing hundreds of tanks, battleplanes, helicopters, rocket launchers, and howitzers from the United States, as well as South Korea. You also have other Central and East European countries buying American. But also, with everything we're talking about, this isn't necessarily a problem that you can just spend away either. The other big issue is the number of troops. Because while Ukraine is proof that a smaller force can challenge a power like Russia, the war has also shown that at a certain point,

size does matter. The Ukraine's battered army still grappling with a growing troop shortage. Back in April, I mean, they had to lower the conscription age to get more soldiers. And when it comes to the rest of Europe, one Washington Post columnist claimed,

brawny Cold War era militaries have been downsized to mini-me versions of their former selves. Highly professional, armed with the latest weaponry, but almost comically undermanned. At the very least, there's some truth to that. Right at the end of the Cold War, for example, Germany's army had half a million men in the West and another 300,000 in the East. But now it is 180,000 personnel overall. And it's very similar for other European nations. From 1990 to 2015, Italy's battalion numbers fell by 67 percent. France's dropped by almost just as much and British battalions were cut by around half. And now, despite efforts, it's been a struggle to get those numbers back up. Germany's military, for example, is getting older and smaller. The UK has failed to meet its recruitment

targets at all training centers for the past five years. France also missed its targets targets last year by around 2,000. Right, because it's not easy to recruit young people into a career that can sometimes be associated with a lot of constraints and not a lot of perks. And on top of that, you have experts like Vincenzo Bovet, professor of political science at Warwick University, saying that civilians may be uninterested in military service because they don't share its overarching goals and purposes. And specifically saying to Euronews that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have left long-lasting negative attitudes towards the military. Which is why, with that, many countries are seriously considering conscription.

In fact, Lithuania, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Latvia, Austria, Greece, and Estonia currently have some form of compulsory military service, along with Ukraine and Russia. And notably, with all that, Sweden only reintroduced compulsory military service in the wake of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. And in response to the 2022 invasion, Lithuania expanded its draft in 2024, with Denmark extending its conscription to women and increasing the duration of service. Norway also following suit. And so now the UK is debating a so-called citizen army, with Germany also mulling over the reintroduction of compulsory military service as well, or with their defense minister saying that ending conscription in 2011 was a mistake. And actually, Germany's main

opposition party has a gradual return to mandatory military service on its official platform. Though, of course, all of this is controversial. There are obviously ethical concerns about sending civilians into battle with little experience. And then, of course, there's the economic concerns, right, because that would mean massive numbers of people being prevented from doing something else that would potentially be more productive for the country. There are also questions about the effectiveness of conscript armies against regular forces. Though, also to that point, Sweden's unique conscription model has been getting a lot of attention. And that's because while all young men and women in Sweden have to enlist, rigorous testing there means that they only take the best and the brightest. This

year, for example, out of the 100,000 young Swedes who had to enlist, only around 6,000 made the cut for conscription. With then afterwards, former conscripts being headhunted by civil service and prized by tech companies. But then, of course, you're still left wondering if your army is big enough. You know, more broadly, with all this talk about defense spending, rearmament, and troop buildup, there are, of course, those who ask if any of it's a good idea. Are more soldiers and more weapons the best way to deter Russia and prevent conflict? Or is it actually making it all the more certain that we end up having one? Especially as there's a real cost to everything that we're talking about here. With critics saying increased

military spending in Europe is coming at the expense of action to address the climate crisis or the defense of social programs. So the counter to that is there is no tomorrow to worry about if you die today. But that is the happy little note we're going to end this story on. As we wait to see and cover the new developments that we see internationally every day, I gotta pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? But that, my beautiful, beautiful bastards, is where your Monday evening, Tuesday morning dive into the news is gonna end. But the good news is you won't have to miss me for long

because you'll see my dumb face right back here tomorrow.