The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.7 BIZARRE! The Truth About iShowSpeed's Ban, Jenna Ortega, Junk Science, Florida Ambush, & Todays News

Episode Date: August 7, 2024

Junk Science is ruining lives and the lack of action is unforgivable. PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at https://PDSDebt.com/defranco Get yourself crazy comfy https://BeautifulBastard.com Tees and Tanks for 25-35% off while you can! Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/PHIL  Daily Dip newsletter subscribers can win up to $1,000 in SeatGeek credit so make sure you’re subscribed: https://www.dailydip.co/ 89 Days Until Election Day! Make Sure You Are Registered to VOTE: https://Vote.org  – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - A Man Was Convicted Based on Junk Science — His Story Highlights a Huge Crisis 08:38 - iShowSpeed Suspended From YouTube Over Car-Jumping Stunt 10:02 - MyKayla Skinner Says She Has Gotten Death Threats  14:13 - Sponsored by PDS Debt 15:03 - Jenna Ortega Discusses Politics, Representation in Hollywood 17:26 - Florida Mom Tried to Kill Neighbors, Family Attacked Officers Instead 20:27 - Elon Musk Sues Advertisers, Claiming Boycotts Violated Antitrust Laws 24:11 - Beautiful Bastard Tanks & Tees up to 35% Off! 24:47 - Ukrainian Troops Cross Border into Russia in “Preventative” Attack 27:49 - Thai Court Dissolves Country’s Most Popular Political Party 31:07 - Sponsored by Seatgeek  31:46 - Comment Commentary ——————————   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 Junk Science: Lili Stenn ———————————— #DeFranco #iShowSpeed #JennaOrtega ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show, your daily dive into the news. There's a lot to talk about today, though I will say it is actually a little bit lighter than it has been for about two and a half weeks. But that said, you buckle up, you hit that like button, let YouTube know you like these big daily dives into the news, and let's just jump into it. So a man was sent to prison for life for the murder of his wife based on one single piece of evidence. What appeared to be a bite mark on her arm. But now it turns out all of that is based on junk science.

And even though the entire scientific process behind the only piece of evidence against this guy has been debunked, he's still in jail. Notably, this is just one piece of an ongoing crisis in the criminal justice system of people getting convicted on disproven forensics. You know, we're talking about methods that are presented as scientific fact, but they lack sufficient research or evidence to support them and they're often highly subjective. Things like bite marks, as well as blood spatter and 911 call analyses. And the debate around the constitutional rights

of people who have been convicted on now debunked methods, it's garnered a lot more attention recently after the Supreme Court denied the appeal of a high profile case, declining to weigh in on the matter. With this crisis also being highlighted even more in a historic statement written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. A statement which experts said marked the first time a high court justice has weighed in on the matter.

To answer the case in question there, Senator on an Alabama man by the name of Charles McCrory. In 1985, his wife, Julie was found murdered in her home by blows to the head and stab wounds on her chest, while their three-year-old son, Chad, was left unharmed in his crib. Notably, at the time, Charles and Julie had been separated, right?

She had found out that he'd been having an affair, and so he moved out. But, according to reports, the two were still on good terms, and they saw each other often, including at Julie's house the night before her murder. We saw very quickly in this, police making Charles their only suspect, with him getting tried and convicted not long after.

But for the nearly four decades since, Charles has insisted that he is innocent, a claim that's also been echoed by a growing number of others, including the Innocence Project and McCrory's now grown son, Chad. And that's largely because there's basically no physical evidence connecting Charles McCrory

to the murder, at least any credible evidence. For the investigators, they searched Julie's home as well as Charles's apartment and car, but they never found anything linking him to the crime. There were no bloody footprints or fingerprints or murder weapon. Hairs found on Julie's body were identified only as her own, and while Charles's fingerprints were found around the house, that wasn't incriminating at all because he was there

so often. And in addition to the lack of evidence, there were also numerous issues with how law enforcement officials conducted their probe. Like the fact that their search was hardly thorough enough and that they ignored some potentially very important evidence altogether. Like for example, the investigators didn't inspect the kitchen knives or other sharp utensils in Julie's house, even though she had been stabbed. And the fingerprint examiner, they barely dusted anything at all, even key parts of the house

that could have provided evidence, including very notably two windows in the master bedroom that were found open and could have been used by the murderer to enter the house. And perhaps most damning, they also didn't investigate another potential suspect who had worked at an excavating company next to McCrory's. A potential suspect who also committed a home invasion and rape of

another local woman just weeks after Julie's murder. So with nothing but some weak circumstantial evidence, the prosecutors latched on to one last hope to tie Charles to Julie's murder. Two small indentations found in her arm that they argued were made by his teeth marks. And to prove their claims, prosecutors brought in Richard Suvran, a forensic dentist who had recently been a star witness in the trial of Ted Bundy. And in his initial observations, Souvran wrote that McCrory had unique dentition because he had been born without an upper incisor, which left a distinct space between his upper left front tooth and upper left canine. And so as a result, the forensic dentist concluded that the marks in the arm could have been made by the teeth of Mr. Charles McCrory. But, key thing here, Souvran also explicitly said that the marks could not be definitively linked to McCrory's teeth, writing, "'It is impossible, in my opinion, "'unless very unusual circumstances exist,

"'to make a positive identification "'from two teeth of a bite mark.'" With him going on to add that the indentations only showed two upper teeth, which is odd because the upper jaw is fixed and the lower teeth are the ones that grab and hold. What's more, he also noted that the defense could argue that the marks were made by the same instrument

that was used to inflict the stab wounds on Julie's chest, with him ultimately concluding that the marks were made by the same instrument that was used to inflict the stab wounds on Julie's chest, with him ultimately concluding that the marks, quote, would be of some value only if there is a substantial amount of additional evidence, such as fingerprints, blood, hair, semen, etc. With Suvarna even going as far to state that it is not in the best interest of justice to use those injuries as the only means of identifying the murderer. But that is exactly what happened, and Suvarna played a key role. Despite clearly stating in his initial findings that he couldn't unequivocally link McCrory to the marks,

he said almost the exact opposite when he took the stand, telling jurors that the evidence was solid and that he could conclusively match the indentations to McCrory's specific dentition. And the jury, they bought it, because why wouldn't they? With them ultimately convicting McCrory almost entirely on the bite mark testimony with the marks serving as the only piece

of physical evidence. But now since then, bite mark analysis has been totally debunked as junk science that has resulted in dozens of people being wrongfully convicted. In fact, according to the Innocence Project, McCrory is actually the last remaining person known to have been convicted almost entirely on bite mark forensics, right?

I mean, over the last decade, numerous studies and four governmental scientific bodies have concluded that the practice has zero basis in science. And research has reportedly disproven the two foundational claims it's based on. Not only finding that human dentition isn't actually unique like DNA, so any number of teeth could match a mark,

but also that skin is a bad medium to accurately record injury because it's malleable and it can change over time with healing and decomposition. Also, some studies have even shown that experts can't consistently agree on whether injuries are bite marks, including one where 60% of board-certified forensic dentists misidentified an injury made by a box cutter as a bite mark.

So, you know, as a result, forensic dentists who used to believe in bite mark analysis, they've now widely disavowed the practice. And in recent years, at least 36 people have been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted based on bite mark forensics. And while the Innocence Project

has tried to do the same for McCrory, they haven't been successful. And that's despite the fact that back in 2019, Souvran recanted his testimony, effectively taking away the only link to physical evidence against McCrory, writing, I no longer believe the individualized teeth marks comparison testimony I offered in his case was reliable or proper.

I no longer believe, as I did at the time of the trial, that there is a valid scientific basis for concluding that the injury found on the skin of the victim in this case, assuming that the injury is in fact teeth marks, could be matched or otherwise connected to a specific individual such as Mr. McCrory. But even though the crux of the case had been dismantled, prosecutors fought back. And in 2021, the Covington County Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing. And there, McCrory's defense presented testimony from two of the top forensic dentists who used to believe in bite mark analysis, but have since denounced it. With them arguing

that there was no scientific basis for the claim that the two marks on Julie's arms were even made by teeth, or that McCrory's supposedly unique dentition had made them. With the defense also noting that the current DA had offered to let McCrory out of prison in exchange for a guilty plea, but he refused because he didn't want to admit

to a crime he didn't commit. But then on the other side, you had prosecutors arguing that even without Souvran's testimony, there was still enough circumstantial evidence and that the jurors themselves could have compared molds of McCrory's teeth with photos of Julie's injury to see if they match. So basically they were arguing

that the jurors should have engaged in junk science themselves, even though they're not experts. With the court then ultimately buying those arguments and siding with the prosecution, denying McCrory's request for a new trial. So his lawyer is appealed, but then the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals,

they also denied the motion, siding with the lower court. So they then brought the matter to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to decide if Americans have a constitutional right not to be convicted based on forensic evidence later shown to be fundamentally unreliable. And of course, we know that the court declined to hear that review.

Notably, in her statement, Sotomayor said the only reason she was denying the case was because the constitutional questions it raises has not yet percolated sufficiently in the lower courts to merit this court's review. And very significantly here, she noted, there do need to be more remedies for people who have been convicted based on junk science.

Because even though science itself has now debunked those forensic methods, the law hasn't caught up with her writing. Hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people may currently be incarcerated despite a modern consensus that the central piece of evidence at their trials lacked any scientific basis. There is no direct mechanism built into the law that allows courts to revisit or correct cases where most people convicted based on junk science.

And that's largely because legal statutes for that process were written before scientific achievements and didn't anticipate an entire field being debunked. As well as, you know, the fact that the American legal system favors finality, so it's hard to challenge convictions based on junk science once someone's been sent to prison. But there you have Sotomayor arguing that the debunking of junk science goes beyond normal attempts to overturn convictions.

Write it. Evidence that an entire mode of forensic analysis has no scientific basis, however, is of a different category from evidence that might call into question a witness's credibility or motive to testify. Now, of course, there establishing a constitutional right would clear all that up.

And although the justices have made clear that that question needs to stew in the lower courts longer before they can take it up. So DeMaior argued that state legislatures in Congress need not wait for this court to address a constitutional remedy. They're going on there to point out that Texas and California have enacted statutes that create avenues for defendants to appeal convictions based on junk science. And they've actually both been used successfully in at least a few cases. But ultimately, for now, we're gonna have to wait to see if, you know, the renewed attention here prompts more lawmakers to act. And then also with that, if these cases will be challenged in lower courts in the hopes of eventually taking the question back to SCOTUS. But again, all of this

playing out as McCrory and untold numbers of innocent people just wait in prison. But then, shifting gears, let's talk about some quickie news. Starting with the advice, maybe do not film yourself jumping over speeding sports cars, especially if you're gonna post it to or stream it to YouTube, otherwise you're gonna get suspended. Because that is what happened to massive streamer, iShowSpeed.

With him a few weeks ago posting this video. Right, and that stunt is so insane that a lot of people didn't think that it was real, No! Right, and that stunt is so insane that a lot of people didn't think that it was real, which then resulted in, over the weekend, him doubling down on his ability to do this and doing a live stream where he jumped over two different cars, one right after the other. With, you know, both of those videos ending with a warning,

telling people to not try this stunt at home themselves. But still, despite that warning, his editor posted that the channel received a strike over that stream, and multiple reports now say that he's been banned from YouTube, though only temporarily. With the stream jumping over the cars also being removed. And while fans of iShowSpeed are probably not thrilled here, you do have a lot of people online saying

the ban makes sense. With a bunch of people arguing that he was promoting a dangerous stunt to a young audience who might be stupid enough to copy him. Though really, I mean, this is still gonna end up being a huge win for iShowSpeed. For content creators like him, like a ban like this is really a win.

Because unless it's permanent, and that's not what I'm calling for, it really just ends up being free promotion. It's like when lewd streamers or like an e-girl has an accident on stream and they get temporarily banned. It just draws more eyes, more attention, usually the comeback streams even bigger. So yeah, it really feels like another situation where nothing's gonna change and no lessons will really be learned. But then also in other quickie news involving other people who can jump very high, you've got a lot of people noting that there's a lot of drama with the US gymnastics team right now.

Because between flipping in the air and winning medals, they found time to take shots online. And actually with that, one former gymnast claiming to be getting death threats over it. With that gymnast being Michaela Skinner, who was an alternate in the Rio Olympics and then competed in Tokyo as an individual, actually filling in for Simone Biles on the vault there.

Though she didn't compete this year and has retired from the sport, but ahead of this year's game, she took shots at USA's current slate of gymnasts. Besides Simone, I feel like the talent and the depth just isn't like what it used to be. I just noticed like, I mean, obviously a lot of girls don't work as hard.

The girls just don't have the work ethic. With her even then blaming the Safe Sport Program, which is supposed to identify abusive coaches, claiming that it prevents gymnasts from being pushed. You know, she faced a lot of backlash for those comments, people thinking that it was rude and uncalled for for her to say that these Olympians just don't work hard. It's also not the first time

that she's found herself in controversy. And with this, she did eventually apologize and say that her comments were misinterpreted and that she wasn't trying to offend the Olympic team. But the team still took it to heart. In fact, when they won the gold, Simone Biles posted the win on Instagram with the caption, lack of talent, lazy Olympic champions. Which regarding the Olympics, it cannot be overstated how successful the Olympics have been for them. On top of winning the team gold, Simone Biles became the most decorated American

gymnast of all time. And obviously you don't get to the Olympic podium by having bad work ethic. So you had a ton of people applauding Simone for calling Mikaela out. People in her comments calling the caption a mic drop and a 10.0 mother quake. With this then starting to heat up into more drama when Simone said she got blocked. But by yesterday, Mikaela addressed it again,

saying that she was wrong to make her original comments, criticizing the team, but that she doesn't deserve the hate that she's getting. Simone's latest post and others that followed it fueled another wave of hateful comments, DMs, articles, and emails. Hate that includes death threats to me, my family, and even my agent. We're also adding that her family and friends don't deserve to be caught in the crossfire and then addressing Simone directly and saying, please put a stop to this. Please ask your followers to stop. You have been an incredible champion for mental health awareness and a lot

of people need your help now. We've been hurt and attacked in ways that I am certain you never intended. With then ending by saying that the Olympics are a time where everyone should support one another and lift their countries up together. Though what we saw was that plea not really landing well online, with some saying, not Michaela Skinner turning on the white woman tears

and trying to paint Simone Biles as the bully. And Michaela Skinner needs to learn a lesson about accountability for her own actions. She caused this. It's not on Simone or anyone else to rescue her from consequences that she designed. Some also saying that it was manipulative of her to weaponize mental health against Simone and that she has no right to say we need to build each other up when she was the one tearing people down in the first place. You know, since this controversy started unfolding, some really didn't like Michaela specifically speaking against safe sport, especially considering how many gymnasts have been abused, including members of the current

Olympic team. With some previously arguing, Michaela Skinner told the world that she thinks that women's gymnastics was in a better place when all the best gymnasts in America were being abused mentally, physically, and sexually. I think Simone should be meaner, actually. Though, of course, with all this, on the other side, especially in Michaela's comment section, there are people that are sympathetic to her and the death threats that she says that she's having to deal with. And with all this, I will say I am a little bit torn on it. There's a lot of different factors at play.

I think one, in general, the online public, they're fucking bloodthirsty, picking and choosing who gets forgiveness for this thing or that thing, depending on the kind of controversy. But then also on the other side, I don't think that it's fair that the wronged parties have to pull punches.

Like I'm kind of here for Simone Biles dunking on some motherfuckers. And that's definitely not Mikaela specific. I think back to 2020 when she had to pull out. Just the sheer number of people who have never had to operate at a high level, let alone that specific high level, where if you do something wrong, you could fucking die.

Like calling her weak and every other name under the sun. Like in my eyes, she is well within her rights to be horrible to people. And if anything, what she did felt very much like she was defending her friends. I don't know, I'm conflicted on it. The whole thing's messy and you know what? I'll pass the question off to you.

What are your thoughts? And then, if you find yourself making payments on your debt, but you're feeling more like you aren't getting anywhere with it, you aren't alone. The reality is life happens, and expenses come up and it's easy to find yourself in debt and feeling the stressors that come with it. It's something that can just be so overwhelming, but there are options out there to help. In fact, if you're making payments every month and your balances aren't going down,

the sponsor of today's show, PDS Debt, they can help. Because PDS Debt strives to understand your specific scenario, and they can help provide alternative solutions to becoming debt-free. And everyone with over $10,000 or more in eligible debt qualifies, and there's no minimum credit score required. And when you go to pds debt dot-com slash defranco They'll give you a free debt analysis and it only takes 30 seconds So stop waiting and start saving and get a free debt analysis right now at pds debt dot-com slash defranco Nobody likes the stress of mounting debt and the pressure that comes with that surviving is not living Regain control of your life and live for you not your dad and. And then, Yeljena Ortega is slamming

Hollywood's political correctness, but maybe not in the way that you're thinking. She just did a massive interview with Vanity Fair, and in it, the interviewer mentioned that Jenna's co-star, Melissa Barrera, was fired from the Scream franchise over comments supporting Palestine after producers equated those remarks to hate speech.

And of this whole situation, Jenna said, "'The business that we work in is so touchy-feely. "'Everybody wants to be politically correct, "'but I feel like in doing that, we lose a lot of our humanity and integrity because it lacks honesty. I wish that we had a better sense of conversation. Imagine if everyone could say what they felt

and not be judged for it. And if anything, it sparks some sort of debate, not an argument. With notably Jenna actually leaving the franchise herself after Barrera's firing, though she said that it was over scheduling conflicts and not the situation. But also notably here, Jenna has spoken in support of Palestine herself and signed a letter

calling for a ceasefire. And this, even though that subject is maybe the most divisive political issue that Hollywood's seen in a while, which is also why Jenna kind of later joked that the concept she had just described was basically akin to world peace. But politics also wasn't the only subject that Jenna touched on when it comes to backlash in Hollywood's overall cultural climate. She talked about controversies that she's dealt with in the past herself, like when she said that she had to rewrite Elements of Wednesday because she felt that the dialogue and the script

just didn't make sense for her character to say. With her then getting slammed by writers for those remarks, especially during the strike, with people thinking that she sounded entitled and demanding. Regarding all that, Jenna said, to be fair, I probably could have used my words better in describing all of that. I felt like had I represented the situation better,

it probably would have been received better. You're never going to please everybody. And as someone who naturally was a people pleaser, that was really hard for me to understand. But they're adding there that that situation blew up so much that she actually felt like a caricature of herself, especially since at the time she was just everywhere. And saying, so, you know, people were probably

already sick of her and didn't want to hear it from her. Though there you had the interviewer counter that Hollywood, you know, they just had this massive movement about women standing up for themselves. Yet, even still, when a woman makes her voice heard, she is subject to ridicule. With Jenna then agreeing to that and adding, I feel like we definitely need to practice what we preach a little bit more. Women have to be princesses. They have to be elegant and classy and so kind. And then when they're outspoken, they can't be tamed and they're a mess. With her then touching on not just being a woman in the

industry, but a woman of color as well. Or because one, representation has been a major topic of discussion in Hollywood for a while now. And two, as it pertains to her specifically, you know, she is of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent, but then also with that, she's been accused of not being Latina enough. With her even saying she actually carried some shame and was afraid to talk about her background

because she felt like it wasn't valid. But then adding, something that I'm learning is, it's not my job to carry the weight of everybody who's ever had that experience. And then- One count murder of a law enforcement officer as a principal, seven counts of attempted murder, one count battery by strangulation,

two counts battery touch or strike, and one count battery on a law enforcement officer. So that was the first court appearance of a Florida woman by the name of Julianne Sulpizio. And all those charges against her, they go back to last Friday night. And it is a crazy, fucked up, and sad story that we got to talk about. Because according to the Lake County Sheriff's Office, it all started when they received a call that a woman, Julie, was assaulting her neighbors. Where they're also reportedly accusing them of being sinners and telling them, I know what you did.

And with that, when an officer arrived, Master Deputy Sheriff Bradley Michael Link, she accused the neighbors of being pedophiles. With the neighbors telling the officer that Julie had tried to get them to walk to her house, and later, speaking to reporters, you had one of the neighbors saying this. It won't take long to tell you Neutrals ingredients. Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added? Neutral. Refreshingly simple. 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. 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. My fiancé was right behind me, and she was trying to help me get the dogs under control with the lady out of my yard.

The lady then turned around and struck her right in the face. What was she saying? She was Helen's God's wife and that she is here to cleanse the filth with their bullets. So Link put her in handcuffs and then he was joined by another deputy to conduct a welfare check at Julie's nearby home. When they got there, they found two dead dogs in the front yard and a window screen that had been kicked

out. And then inside they saw three people running, making them think that a burglary or a home invasion was maybe in progress. And so eventually they enter the home through the laundry room think that a burglary or a home invasion was maybe in progress. And so eventually they enter the home through the laundry room and they come face to face with a man wearing body armor on a couch with a rifle. With that man believed to have been Michael Sopisio, Julie's husband, he fires several rounds.

Link was shot and trapped inside. Another deputy, Harold Howe, was hit in the wrist, but he managed to get out. Then he and other officers trying to negotiate for Link's release. And while they did, a woman in the home was racking her gun and yelling, my king will kill all of you.

Then at around 9.30 PM, a tactical unit tried again. They entered through the laundry room and they were met with a volley of gunfire. And there, another deputy, Stefano Gargano, he was shot. And then finally, just after 11 PM, officers entered again, but they weren't met with bullets. Instead, they found the bodies of the husband and Julianne's adult daughters, Savannah and Cheyenne,

who them all believed to have taken their own lives. But also, thankfully, the deputies Gargano and Howell, they survived. However, Link got airlifted to a hospital and pronounced dead. But also with all this, details have now come out about Julie and the rest of the Sulpicios, and it's raising more questions.

It is now clear that Julie was trying to lure her neighbors into the home so her husband could kill them. In fact, she actually reportedly admitted that in an interview with investigators, as well as telling them that she could visualize souls and that it was her job to bring her husband dark souls. The detective who interviewed her also telling reporters she was joyful when she learned what happened,

saying, quote, there was no remorse, none at all. And then we've also since learned that the Sulpizios intentionally estranged themselves from their families and the rest of society, by pulling their daughters from public school and homeschooling them to shield them from external influences. Also a search of the family's home

reportedly revealed more than 20 high caliber rifles, shotguns, and pistols that have been staged around the living room. And on top of that, authorities also found a stockpile of ammunition, body armor, gas masks, ready to eat meals, ghillie suits, and anti-government propaganda and media promoting conspiracy theories.

But with that, it hasn't been said whether the propaganda and conspiracy theory stuff played a role in what happened here specifically. And then, so I don't know if you've seen this, Elon Musk has come up with a fantastic strategy to get the advertisers that left X to come back. Sue them, bitches. With yesterday, X filing a lawsuit

against a group of advertisers claiming that they violated antitrust law by colluding to boycott them. Right, and this centering around the decision by numerous advertisers to significantly reduce spending on the platform or just leave entirely after Musk took over in 2022. With him also there slashing the moderation team

and promising to make the site a haven for free speech, which then prompted widespread reports of rising misinformation, as well as antisemitism, racism, and other hate speech. Though then also cracking down on accounts that tweet out things like cis. You know, with all that, we've seen reports of how, you know, this has taken a huge toll on X's revenues.

You know, cause that mostly comes from ads. But then Musk, for his part, he's responded by going full balls to the wall offensive. With him famously telling advertisers to go fuck themselves back in November. Now since then, he's been trying to woo advertisers back to the platform, largely without any success. And so now he appears to be going on the offensive again.

And specifically here, Musk's new suit names the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is a major coalition of major advertisers as well as some of its major members, including CVS, Unilever, Mars, and the Danish energy company, Orsted. The lawsuit alleging that Garm and the company has conspired to collectively withhold billions of dollars

in advertising revenue by reducing or cutting their ad spending on X after Musk took over. And adding, concerned that Twitter might deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising on social media platforms "'set through Garm, the conspirators collectively acted "'to enforce Twitter's adherence to those standards "'through the boycott.'"

But there you have X arguing that its safety standards are comparable to those of its competitors and meet or exceed the standards set by Garm. Even going on to claim that because of the reduced spending, X was forced to lower the price of its ads. But even though its ads were inexpensive compared to other social media platforms, advertisers didn't come back,

which the suit also claims is anti-competitive. And then also adding that the economic hit from the boycotts prevented X from competing with other platforms and hurt consumers. Right, and notably here, this lawsuit comes just weeks after the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee released an interim report that made similar allegations, claiming there that Garm had colluded

to undermine X's revenues after Musk's takeover through a boycott, and adding that the group's efforts are, quote, likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms. In fact, in a now viral video announcing this lawsuit, ex-CEO Linda Iaccarino pointed to that report. I was shocked by the evidence uncovered by the House Judiciary Committee that a group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott against X. It is just wrong.

That puts your global town square, the one place that you can express yourself freely and openly, at long-term risk. People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted. With that also being echoed by Elon Musk himself, who shared an open letter announcing the suit, writing, We tried peace for two years.

Now it is war. And adding in another, I strongly encourage any company who has been systematically boycotted by advertisers to file a lawsuit. There may also be criminal liability via the RICO Act. And that said, as of recording Garm and the other companies

named in this suit, they haven't responded publicly. But you also had plenty of others hitting back, like one expert who explained, "'To the extent that Elon hadn't already burned "'all bridges and ties with the entire advertising community, "'I don't see how this will get any advertisers "'to come back to X,' saying it's a last-ditch effort

"'to force brands who don't want to be in the crosshairs "'of this kind of legal action to return to the platform, "'and adding that the advertisers left "'because of a well-documented surge "'in hate speech and misinformation, "'so to them, the accusations sound so far-fetched and frankly ridiculous. You know, that's also something that we've seen a lot

of people saying online. With for example, one ex-user responding to one of Musk's posts about the suit arguing, "'For a free market capitalist, "'you sure aren't into free markets. "'Advertisers have the absolute choice and freedom "'to choose who they want to advertise with. "'If your site doesn't meet their needs via antisemitism

"'and unchecked Nazis, they don't have to use your platform. Right, so obviously we're going to have to wait to see what comes from this lawsuit. I'm very interested in the court of public opinion here. What are your thoughts? Where are you landing on this and why? But then we'll get right back to the news in a second. But first, I'm going to sponsor myself just for a few seconds to let you know, right now over at beautifulbastard.com, everything on that homepage is 25 to 35% off. So you can snag yourself the emotionally exhausted flower gear,

as well as the OG emotionally exhausted gear. Those are my go-to tank tops now. Along with Embrace Change, Unburden, Don't Be Stupid, Stupid Sports, and I mean, I don't know what else is there. And of course, all those tanks and tees are custom-made cotton spandex blends. It's honestly, it's going to be the best-fitting, best-feeling stuff you've ever purchased. One, in general, but also two, it's an upgrade for us in the past few months. Yeah, grab what you want while you can

over at beautifulbastard.com. And then, yo, we gotta talk about some big international news happening, starting with, you know, Russia. Because Vladimir Putin, not the happiest little bitch in the authoritarian fuckface factory today. But this getting the news that Ukrainian troops crossed into Russia yesterday.

And while details are still foggy, you had the Russian Ministry of Defense claiming that about 300 soldiers and 11 tanks and 300 armored fighting vehicles attacked border villages. And so far, they're at least 10 kilometers in and near a village of about 5,000. Now, we do know that there has been damage to the village amid drone and missile strikes alongside civilian deaths so far, although an exact number is unclear with the Russian Ministry of Defense claiming that 100 have died and another 215 were injured. You also have Russian officials claiming that they pushed this incursion back and killed up to 260 troops,

which you know absolutely would be a catastrophic loss ratio for Ukraine if true. But also I say take that with a grain of salt because at the same time, we're hearing reports that the fighting is ongoing. And a Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council official said that the Russian military commanders

are lying about controlling the situation there. Also, even within Russia, there are reports that contradict the government's claims, such as with the influential Two Majors Telegram channel, which to give you a little bit of context here, a lot of Russians get their news, especially about this war from Telegram channels like this one.

And in this case, Two Majors reported that Ukrainian troops actually made it about nine miles inland, which is nearly double the distance Russian officials claim. Additionally, they said about 11 settlements have been occupied. And on top of this, other channels say

that fresh troops are reinforcing the original 300. You know, if this is true, it could reconcile the we've killed 260 statement with the fact that losing about 86% of your infantry in an assault like this is nearly unheard of. But either way, right, Russian troops were scrambling to the area, which was otherwise relatively undefended.

Notably, this incursion also isn't the first time that there have been troops in Russia. Right, last year, multiple anti-Russian groups fighting for Ukraine made their way across just to send a message. But this is the first time Ukraine itself has done so, and it's raised a lot of questions. Like, they're fighting for their life

out in the eastern part of the country, with Russia slowly but surely gaining ground as it carries out a major offensive. So there's this question of, well, why carry out this raid when troops and weapons are desperately needed over there? And, well, some think this is an attempt to get Russia to divert troops to these regions, since raids like this, they make Putin look bad.

Also, another possible idea is that Ukraine just wanted some good news to report back home, like this, they make Putin look bad. Also another possible idea is that Ukraine just wanted some good news to report back home or to possibly keep itself in the headlines. But either way, you know, there is a general fear that this might actually hurt Ukraine in the long run, such as by limiting its ability to fight off Russian attacks in the east since those troops could have been used there.

Another is that this might push Russia to consider attacks from other parts of the border, which would then further stretch Ukraine's limited resources. You know, like we hear about all the fighting going on, but these two countries share a massive border and only a small part of it's actually being fought over. It also wouldn't be the first time Russia's done this either with them trying to make a push for Kharkiv earlier this year.

And this entire situation is also showing what a lack of self-awareness Putin has. He called the incursion a major provocation, you know, after he incited a whole fucking war. But also, since we're already talking about Ukraine and Russia, there's also a few other quick updates we should talk about. Russia isn't just involved in Ukraine, it's also giving missile defense systems to Iran

amid tensions with Israel. And then as for Ukraine, Mali and Niger reportedly cut diplomatic ties with them after Ukrainian intelligence allegedly fed information about Wagner mercenaries in Mali to local rebels, which then resulted in a major ambush and mass casualties. Also last week, the US announced some more aid for Ukraine. That's a big one,

because it may be one of the last packages for Ukraine, depending on how November goes. Well, there, you know, unless the current Russian defense installs in the winter, they probably have bigger things to worry about in the short term. But then also, that's not where the big international news ends.

Are we gonna talk about this wild news coming out of Thailand? Because their country's constitutional court just ordered the dissolution of the popular anti-establishment party that actually won the 2023 election. And then not only that, they banned the party's leader and 10 other senior figures from politics for 10 years.

I mean, we're talking about their country's most popular party. And so to explain, right, it's a party called the Move Forward Party. And it's now being disbanded because it's campaigned to amend a law against defamation of Thailand's royal family. Right, and these types of laws, they're commonly referred to as Les Majestés laws.

A lot of countries have them, but Thailand has some of the toughest in the world. And also unlike a lot of places that have them, Thailand actually enforces it. Criticizing the king, the queen, or heir apparent can lead to a maximum 15-year prison sentence for each offense. And notably with that, back in January,

a Thai court actually sentenced a guy to a record 50 years for insulting the monarchy. It's believed to be the toughest penalty ever imposed under the law. And while a 50-year sentence is a bit of an outlier, human rights groups have said that for years, that law has been used as a political tool to silence critics of the Thai government, which, you know, seems to be happening right now. With a seeing in a unanimous ruling, the court arguing that the party's proposal to amend the law amounted to an attempt to overthrow the nation's constitutional

monarchy. But of course, critics, and in my opinion, the correct people, they say the opposite. With people like this professor of political science at a leading Thai university saying, "'This verdict may raise the question "'whether Thailand is a constitutional monarchy "'or an absolute monarchy.'" And to that point, by dissolving the parties and banning its leaders,

the court is effectively disenfranchising 14 million people who voted for them. With it also literally being according to a press release from the US Department of State. But with that said, this is not surprising, and this is just the latest blow on what's been a years-long attack on the country's progressive pro-democracy movement.

I mean, if we go back to 2019, for example, we actually saw a similar situation where a new party came out of nowhere to perform unexpectedly well in an election. It was called the Future Forward Party, and it campaigned on issues like reforming the military and the Constitution. But in 2020, the Constitutional Court

dissolved the party and banned its leaders for 10 years after claiming it violated electoral rules by receiving an illegal loan. And while the verdict kicked off huge street protests that lasted for around six months, since then the government's used that royal defamation law to prosecute hundreds of people who led those protests. And that's including people who became MPs with Move Forward, a party that's essentially Future Forward's successor. With what happened, that's part of the reason why Move Forward actually specifically campaigned on the promise of reforming the Royal Defamation Law. And notably, they weren't even like, "'Hey, let's completely get rid of it.'"

They just wanted to reduce the sentences and limit who would be allowed to bring forward a case. With this then seeing in the 2023 election, that helping the party do even better than its predecessor, defying expectations and winning more votes than any other party. However, the military appointed Senate, they quickly blocked the party's leader from taking power

as prime minister, essentially keeping the party from forming a government. And then in January, the court ruled that move forward's promise to change the royal defamation law was unconstitutional. And with that, ordering the party to abandon the proposal. And all that effectively means that the law is now completely untouchable. But of course, because why would they? The court didn't stop there. With the decision today to dissolve move forward now completely hammering the point home. Though notably here, move forward's leaders have repeatedly said that the dissolution will not stop their movement.

And the head of the party specifically saying they will continue to fight so that Move Forward becomes the last party that joins the graveyard of political parties. Because while we've been talking about Move Forward and its predecessor, Thailand's constitutional court has actually dissolved 34 parties since 2006. And so with all that, the remaining 142 Move Forward MPs,

the ones who haven't been banned from politics, they're expected to move to another party and continue their role as the main opposition in parliament. But then finally today, let's end on a congratulations and let's talk about yesterday. Starting with a congratulations to longtime viewer Greg H. And because he is a subscriber to the Daily Dip newsletter,

he just won $1,000 in our weekly giveaway towards his choice of SeatGeek tickets. With Greg saying he's taken his daughter to see Sesame Street Live, which is fantastic. And for the rest of y'all, just remember, SeatGeek tickets. With Greg saying he's taken his daughter to see Sesame Street Live, which is fantastic. And for the rest of y'all, just remember, SeatGeek and The Daily Dip are still giving away up to $1,000 in tickets, and you should definitely enter today

if you haven't already. You just add code PDS to your SeatGeek app profile for a chance at the weekly $500 prize, no purchase necessary. And $1,000 prizes are available to Daily Dip subscribers who add code PDS, newsletter doubling entries and winning. So yeah, get in on that. It couldn't be easier. But also with that said, let's talk about yesterday.S newsletter, doubling entries and winning. So yeah, get in on that. It couldn't be easier.

But also with that said, let's talk about yesterday. You know, a little comment commentary. Starting with y'all yesterday had a lot of things to say about Logan Paul. Race Lovely saying, I really don't understand how Logan is still relevant. It feels like the definition of all press is good press because everything I see about him is awful,

but he stays famous. Which I will say, you can say whatever you want about Logan Paul and I have, and I know you will, but he really understands social media, and the attention economy, and how to maintain and grow relevance. Whether it be starting and maintaining a podcast that allows him to network, and maintain relevance in an easily controllable way, and then mish-mashing that with him going into the WWE. Which again, say what you want about Logan Paul, and there is a lot of negative that you could say. He is freakishly good at that job.

And he has garnered an audience that seemingly doesn't care about his controversies. You know, because for a certain percentage of the population, they just want to be entertained and the rest is kind of just noise. Also in the comments, we had people like Hadex Marrow saying, The crazy thing about the Coffey story is he actually undersold just how bad the lawsuit is. The suit was specifically filed in a specific state jurisdiction that has no anti-SLAPP safeguard laws, which Coffey did not cover in his video, which to me is wild. With him going on to say, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

They are a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive baseless legal proceedings. Anti-SLAPP laws means that the person being bullied by the lawsuit can have the case dismissed early and force the bully to pay for all the legal fees. So not only does Coffey have to pay for his legal fees himself, normally he could get the money back from Logan after Logan loses the case, but now he doesn't even have that protection, which is a huge thing and part of the reason why his insurance agency dropped him supposedly. And a quick note on that, just to nitpick, the lawsuit was filed in Texas where Coffey's company is incorporated. It does have an anti-SLAPP statute. However, as Merrill pointed out, Logan did some maneuvering to avoid the SLAPP law. In this case, he filed in Texas

federal court, which he can do since he's not from Texas. And the fifth circuit had already blocked the state's anti-slap law from applying to federal suits filed there. It's the end result of coffee not being protected. It is still the same, but how he got there is a little bit different. Also, as far as some of the other news, there were a lot of people that were excited about Walls.

So there, Rivers said, you know, I woke up this morning, found out Walls was the VP pick and was feeling pretty good. Then in typical Phil fashion, you brought me down with the impending threat of nuclear Armageddon. Thanks, Phil. Keep bringing that sadness. Y'all, it's my job. I'm not happy about it. I mean, this year, it's merch, but it's got me emotionally exhausted. Like, there are so many people in this space that get excited when bad news is happening because they're like,

Aw, the views. But me, man, just give me a world where that gives me less anxiety. When shit's going off the rails, I wake up in the middle of the night in a sweat. Less of that, please. But actually, on that note, I've already taken up too much of your time and your brain space today.

You are released to do whatever you want. I'm gonna get the fuck off of the internet, possibly lay in bed and eat an Uncrustable. But then, of course, I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Love your faces. See you then.