- 'Sup, you beautiful bastards?
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show.
It is the final show of the week,
so hey, buckle up, hit that like button,
otherwise I will punch you in the throat,
and let's just jump into it.
And y'all, the first thing that we're going to talk
about today is sports, but it's not really a sports story.
Yes, it involves the NFL, but it's bigger than that.
It's really more about society and accountability
and maybe even hypocrisy.
If you don't know anything about sports, don't worry.
I'm going to make it consumable.
So Jon Gruden, two things you need to know about him.
One, he is the now-former head coach
of the Las Vegas Raiders.
And two, Jon's having a no good, very bad week.
And that is because, unlike Hillary Clinton,
they found his emails.
And they found them in a seemingly unrelated investigation
into the Washington Football Team, right?
Another club.
And among the things they found in these emails
that dated years back,
while talking about a union leader who is Black,
he criticized his intelligence and used racist tropes
to describe his face.
In other emails he used gay slurs, misogynistic language.
Also reportedly exchanging emails with other men
that included photos of topless women,
including one photo of two Washington Team cheerleaders.
Notably, those photos are from an official squad trip
to Costa Rica, where some cheerleaders said
that they were required to be topless
as part of a calendar shoot,
with them also saying that they were promised
that the photos themselves wouldn't show nudity.
Even more creepily,
a group of all-male sponsors and FedEx suite holders
were reportedly granted up-close access to the photo shoots.
And that is connected to another NFL story
where 40 women have accused former-Washington Football Team
employees of sexual harassment and verbal abuse.
And while this story has sparked up a debate
we've seen a number of times in different instances,
some people saying, "Oh my God,
there's no place for this in the league.
I don't care how old these emails are."
Others saying, "Oh my God, this is cancel-culture run amok.
This is years ago. We should allow people to change."
And you can feel free to jump into that debate.
But where I want to take this story today is another focus.
And that's that it appears
that we don't always use the same energy for all people.
Right, like with Jon Gruden,
pretty much everyone out there is throwing bleach
on any connection they have.
Some just throwing the whole body in the tub,
pouring acid on it.
This dude lost a Skechers' deal
and I'm also kind of thinking like,
how did Jon Gruden get a fucking Skechers' deal?
But one of the things that really stood out is
that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers,
which was a team that he coached for a while,
issued a statement saying,
"While we acknowledge Jon Gruden's contributions
on the field,
his actions go against our core values as an organization.
Therefore, he will no longer continue to be a member
of the Buccaneers Ring of Honor."
And almost immediately, it had people questioning
"What core value?"
Some looking to things more recently,
like the signing of Richard Sherman,
a man who was arrested over the summer,
hit with five charges,
two of which have a domestic violence designation.
Seemingly when they saw this video, they were like,
"I like that aggression. We need that on defense."
But also,
especially because of the Ring of Honor connection,
you have many people pointing to Warren Sapp.
Now, I lived in Florida for a time as I was growing up.
Warren Sapp was essentially a god there.
You have people wondering,
how is he still in the Ring of Honor?
Because hey, after he was in the NFL,
some of his last big claims to fame
is he was arrested in Arizona
for not only soliciting a prostitute,
but also then assaulting her.
In Nevada, he was arrested on a domestic battery charge.
With Sapp actually pleading guilty to the Arizona charges,
but they were later dropped after completion
of a court-ordered counseling.
As far as Nevada, he pleaded no contest,
did probation, community service, fines, and counseling.
You know, things you do when you're innocent.
And while some will say that's whataboutism,
which, yes, is annoying,
I think this is more connected.
This is a comparing and contrasting.
Like for the Buccaneers, where exactly is the line?
Would Sapp be removed if, after assaulting a sex worker,
he then used a racial slur?
Is that the line?
Or is there really no line,
and it's all about public relations
and trying to limit backlash?
Once again, this is not a defense of Jon Gruden,
but a question of where's that same energy
for the countless other people that are in
or have been in the league?
Then in ultra-spicy news, we had Joe Rogan in the news
because he had CNN's medical expert Sanjay Gupta
on his podcast.
And here's what I'll say.
I've been very critical of Joe Rogan
when he spreads vaccine misinformation
or he gets things wrong and thus promotes vaccine hesitancy.
But also I've been very critical of
and I think it's fucked up and stupid
the way that CNN handled it when he actually got COVID,
saying that Rogan was taking a livestock drug,
a horse dewormer.
Doing something that, for the sake of lawyers,
we'll say was them assuming or just outright lying.
When in fact, yes, there is a horse dewormer version
of ivermectin that a number of people were taking.
But also, there is the human version,
which a lot of experts have said does not help
when it comes to COVID.
All they had to say was that Joe Rogan took a drug
that the FDA has issued warnings about,
saying that it is not approved
to prevent or treat the virus.
But they went the route that they did
and that brings us to today,
because the clip that's getting the most traction,
the most attention right now, is Joe Rogan calling out CNN
and asking for Sanjay Gupta to respond.
- They lied and said I was taking horse dewormer.
First of all, it was prescribed to me by a doctor.
- [Sanjay Gupta] Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They shouldn't have said it- - Along with a bunch
of other medications.
- If you got a human pill, because there were people
that were taking the veterinary medication.
You're not, obviously. You got it from a doctor.
It shouldn't be called that.
Ivermectin can be a very effective medication
for parasitic disease.
Can I just come back to the one,
I want to talk about
two things on that. - No, no, no, no.
Before we get to that.
Does it bother you that the news network you work for
out and out lied?
Just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?
- They shouldn't have said that.
- [Joe Rogan] Why did they do that?
- I don't know.
- So, unfortunately for Sanjay,
he seems in no way prepared to answer that question,
which is kind of surprising
because you have to know that it's coming.
Rogan not letting him run away from it,
metaphorically letting those hands fly.
What I would also say,
and I don't know how many people are actually going to do it
because everyone kind of just consumes everything in clips,
I'd actually recommend listening to this full podcast.
If you listen to the whole thing,
it's actually a pretty great conversation.
Even though I know everyone, at this point,
kind of hears what they want to hear.
Everyone's got their lines drawn in the sand.
But I thought it was great.
Where you're having a conversation
where Rogan's bringing up things
like an extremely rare heart condition
that can happen as an adverse vaccine reaction in kids.
With Gupta pointing out in the conversation
that kids who get COVID are far more likely to have
that happen to them.
So, if you get vaxxed, it actually reduces the risk.
- But then you've also got to look at what is,
as you point out, the risk of getting myocarditis
with the disease COVID as opposed to the vaccine.
And it was higher.
It was higher. - [Joe Rogan] With children?
- With children. - [Joe Rogan] Really?
- These studies were in children.
And it was about 16 times higher.
Now, keep in mind, 16 times higher sounds like a lot,
but we're still talking about five out of a million versus
now maybe just under a hundred out of a million.
So, it's still really rare.
Now, the one thing I will say about the vaccinated patients
who got myocarditis is that they were all treated.
- You also have him and Rogan talking about what it is
to have COVID and then like "be fine,"
noting that it's not just about if you're going
to the hospital or not.
- You get teenagers who will have these long COVID naps.
- [Joe Rogan] What does that mean?
- They're tired all the time.
They get these sort of long-hauler-type symptoms, you know.
Less so in kids.
But you know, when you talk
about 33% of people having persistent symptoms
that last months, I just feel like we defined...
Like, I think we're allowed
to have a nuanced conversation about this.
- With him adding that this disease
and its impact should be measured in more
than just life and death, right?
Will it kill you? Will you live?
As well as talking about people recommending
or not recommending certain people get vaccinated, right?
Natural immunity versus vaccination.
- So, for you, Joe Rogan, - [Joe Rogan] Yes.
- I would say you've had it. - [Joe Rogan] Yes.
- So now get one shot of the vaccine.
- No. - [Sanjay Gupta] Why not?
- Because I have better immunity
than I would if I was vaccinated.
- Though, we've seen health officials refute Rogan's claims,
saying the vaccine is the better and more effective option.
But ultimately, where I'll end this is
I am genuinely surprised that Sanjay Gupta went
on the podcast.
I'm not saying it's a good idea or a bad idea.
Sanjay is saying that he went on,
despite his friends saying don't do it.
Even Sanjay, in a piece that he wrote after the podcast,
he seems somewhat conflicted,
writing, "I guess a small part of me thought
I might change Joe Rogan's mind about vaccines.
After this last exchange, I realized it was probably futile.
His mind was made up and there would always be plenty
of misinformation out there, neatly packaged
to support his convictions.
Truth is though, I am still glad I did it.
My three-hour-long conversation wasn't just with Rogan.
If just a few of his listeners were convinced,
it will have been well worth it."
But I don't know how true that is.
I don't know how many people can appreciate nuance
or that both parties in something can be wrong
about different things,
and just saying that doesn't mean
that they're equally wrong.
They could be wrong in different ways,
more meaningfully or not.
It also doesn't mean we stop trying to have conversations,
because then it's just game over.
But maybe it is game over.
But with all of that said,
and understanding that this is from a three-hour podcast,
where we're not covering everything,
what are your thoughts with this story?
There's a number of aspects to sink your teeth into.
I'd really love to know.
Also, in news regarding the vaccine,
especially for those of you that are like,
"I got my vaccination, what's all this about boosters?
Do I need one? Is it just for the ultra-vulnerable?
Do I need to get the same exact one? Or can I switch over?"
Wondering, "If I got the J&J shot, can I do the hokey-pokey
with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine?"
And now, thanks to some preliminary data
from the National Institutes of Health,
we kind of have an answer,
which is always a great thing to say.
"Kind of."
Keep in mind,
none of this has actually been peer-reviewed yet,
so things could change.
But for now, the evidence and data here seems to suggest
that people who received the J&J shot
will experience stronger antibody levels
after getting boosters of either Pfizer or Moderna.
With the data also reportedly suggesting
that the people who originally got Pfizer or Moderna
will see a similarly strong response
after getting a boost from either.
And overall, seeming to showcase
that the mixing of these vaccines is also safe.
Like I said, we're not quite there yet.
Up to this point, only the Pfizer vaccine has been approved
by the FDA as an actual booster.
And even then, only among certain populations.
Which actually, on that note,
the FDA spent today reviewing
and ultimately approving Moderna's booster.
Again, though, only for certain populations.
And tomorrow, they'll look into the same question for J&J,
with them also reportedly considering the idea
of mixing vaccines,
though here they're not actually scheduled
to make any official recommendation just yet.
So it's going to be very interesting to watch.
And at least in the United States, this is kind of,
I feel like, a turning of a chapter.
A lot of the focus is now going to be on booster shots,
as well as shots for kids.
Which, actually, regarding the former,
the number of people getting boosters here
in the United States has now officially surpassed the number
of people getting their first doses.
But from that, I want to take a second
to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Vessi.
You know, honestly, it is very hard
to find lightweight shoes
that actually keep your feet warm and dry
through rain, snow, mud,
and Vessi did it again with their brand-new sneaker,
the Everyday Move, and I love them.
If you didn't already know,
Vessi makes 100% waterproof and snowproof sneakers
that are incredibly comfortable, breathable,
and actually pretty stylish.
Which is also why they're perfect
whether you're running errands, hitting the gym,
going to the park with the kids, or even on muddy hikes.
The new Everyday Move sneakers still has
their Dyma-tex material.
Why mess with perfection?
A dual-climate knit that keeps you cool in the summer,
warm in the winter.
It's for the explorer looking to take their activities
up a notch, or just for that sportier look,
with a silhouette inspired by the natural movement
of water, designed to get you moving.
So, if you want to feel like you're walking on clouds,
just go to Vessi.com/DeFranco right now,
and be sure to use code "DEFRANCO" at checkout
to get $25 off.
And be sure and grab some now
while they still have your size,
and you'll definitely be thanking me later.
And then, we should definitely talk
about this news and controversy around Katie Couric
and her interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in 2016.
And that is because in an excerpt from her upcoming book,
because of course that's why we're hearing about it, now,
she said that she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts
on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling
for the national anthem.
And in the final story published for Yahoo! News,
Couric wrote that Ginsburg said,
"I think it's really dumb of them.
Would I arrest them for doing it? No.
I think it's dumb and disrespectful.
I would have the same answer
if you asked me about flag burning.
I think it's a terrible thing to do,
but I wouldn't lock a person up for doing it.
I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me
to do such an act."
But also, there was apparently a lot more to the quote,
with Couric reportedly writing that Ginsburg also said
that this form of protest showed a
"contempt for a government that has made it possible
for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life...
which they probably could not have lived
in the places they came from...
as they became older,
they realized that this was youthful folly.
That's why education is important."
With Couric now saying that she struggled on her decision
to cut that part out.
The Post saying that Couric wrote that she felt a need
to protect Ginsburg, who she said was elderly
and probably didn't understand the question.
The Supreme Court's head of public affairs also apparently
emailed Couric to cut her comments about kneeling,
saying she had misspoken.
With Couric writing that she was a big RBG fan.
She was losing lots of sleep over this. She felt conflicted.
And while I think this is a very interesting thing to learn,
it's also gotten Couric a lot of backlash
from pretty much both sides.
Some saying this is Couric deciding to monetize
tarnishing RBG's legacy.
And then on the other side, you have people saying
that Couric was unethical,
she lacked journalistic integrity,
and writing things like
"Completely indefensible for Katie Couric to withhold this
from the public to protect a sitting Supreme Court Justice."
With people saying that trying to justify this
because Ginsburg was old doesn't make sense, right?
If she wasn't able to handle the question,
she shouldn't be sitting on the highest court in the land.
Let me know your thoughts on this. Where you land, why.
Let me know in those comments.
And then we should definitely talk about this big news
involving the January 6th insurrection
and the human version of a wet fart during a hot day,
Steve Bannon.
And that's because the House committee
that's investigating the insurrection announced today
that they're seeking to hold Steve Bannon
in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena,
which marks a significant escalation of the panel's efforts
to force Trump administration officials to comply
with it's probe amid the former president's growing efforts
to obstruct the probe.
If you don't know, in recent weeks,
Trump has launched a number of attempts to block the panel
from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence
requested by the committee
that he claims are protected by executive privilege.
Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down.
Like just last week, President Biden rejected Trump's effort
to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.
But, you also have the former president directing
former officials in his administration not to comply
with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee,
with that demand coming after the panel issued subpoenas
ordering depositions from Bannon,
as well as three former officials,
Chief of Staff Mark Meadow,
his Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino,
Pentagon Chief of Staff, Kash Patel.
So, after Trump issued the demand, Bannon's lawyer announced
that he wouldn't obey the subpoena,
citing Trump's executive privilege claims.
This despite the fact that Bannon left the White House
in 2017 and many legal experts have questioned
whether he can actually claim executive privilege
for something that happened when he wasn't working
for the Executive.
So, we're in this situation where today's decision
from the committee is massive.
It will likely set up a legal battle
and test how much authority the committee can
and will exercise here.
It also sets a key precedent because,
while Bannon is the first former official
to openly defy the committee,
there've been reports that others plan to do the same.
The committee had previously said
Patel and Meadows were engaging with investigators
ahead of their respective depositions today and Friday.
But today, well, we ended up seeing several reports
that both former officials are now expected
to be given an extension or a continuance.
With sources also saying that's Scavino,
who was asked to testify tomorrow,
has had his deposition postponed.
Now, with all of that said,
as far as what happens to Bannon next,
according to reports, the committee will vote
to adopt the criminal contempt report next week.
Once that's done, it'll go to the House for a full vote.
Then, assuming the Democratic-held House approves it,
it gets referred
to the U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia
to bring the matter before a grand jury.
But, for now, we'll have to wait
and see how things actually go down.
Also, speaking of criminal charges and the insurrection,
we should definitely talk about the interesting news
regarding the charges for the rioters.
We've got over 650 people who have been charged
in connection to the mob.
Now, we're seeing in recent weeks,
a number of judges taking it upon themselves
to impose more extreme sentences
than what prosecutors are asking for.
News, like just yesterday, a judge sentenced two cousins
who stormed the capital and took selfies to 45 days in jail,
which was more than two weeks longer
than what prosecutors were asking for.
And the day before that, the same judge ordered
a two-week jail sentence and 60 hours of community service
for another defendant
whom prosecutors only recommended probation.
And in fact,
we're even seeing this from some Trump-appointed judges.
For example, Tuesday, a US District Judge, Trevor McFadden,
who was appointed by Trump,
levying a stronger punishment against a man
who turned himself into the FBI.
Now, others are implying that they may take similar action,
like Beryl Howell,
Chief Judge of the Federal Court in Washington,
who openly suggested the prosecutors were just being
far too lax by allowing defendants to plead guilty
to just misdemeanor offenses.
With her arguing that those who face low-level offenses
still played a role in terrorizing members of Congress.
But ultimately, that is where this story
and today's show ends.
And as always,
I'd love to know your thoughts on today's story,
whether it be the last one, the first one,
anything in between.
Also, thank you for liking, sharing, all the good stuff.
But, as almost always, my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love yo' faces and I'll see you next time.