- 'Sup, you beautiful bastards!
Welcome back to the "Philip DeFranco Show".
And hey, hit that like button to help spread and promote
some common sense news coverage here on the YouTube.
And let's just jump into it.
Y'all, first up today is not actually news.
It's a little bit of a tease.
Not that kind of tease, you pervert.
But rather, me letting you know it's been a minute,
but Monday, October 4th,
the brand new Beautiful Bastard drop is coming.
It's 24 items.
Boom! It's right here.
Now it's gone.
Never see those items again.
Except right here.
It's tiny and now it's big and now it's tiny again.
24 awesome items.
If you want to guarantee that you get a shot at stuff,
I would highly recommend you text me
at my text line, 813-213-4423.
You'll be the first to know and get access on Monday.
So yeah, look forward to that
or the last two drops of the year.
And then we should definitely talk about
this major Britney Spears, Free Britney Movement news.
Rather than just telling you what happened,
I'll show you (chuckles)
how I imagine a lot of people
that have been a part of the Free Britney Movement
responded when they saw the news.
- Jamie's gone? - Caleb.
- They pulled out how? - From the conservatorship?
Whoo! Oh, this is a good day!
- Yeah, it is Caleb, and also Caleb is right.
Yesterday, Judge Brenda Penny
suspended Britney Spears's father, Jamie,
from his role as her financial conservator.
With Penny saying, "I believe that the suspension
is in the best interest of the conservatee.
The current situation is untenable."
So finally after Britney Spears
has been in this conservatorship for 13 years,
has made it very clear that she finds it oppressive,
and believes that her father is abusing his power,
this looks like a massive win for her.
And for some background on this,
Jamie actually previously filed
to completely end the conservatorship.
With Britney's lawyer, Matthew Rosengart,
saying that Britney was on board
to remove the whole thing entirely,
but they wanted Jamie ousted first.
And to explain why they wanted to add that extra step,
there are actually a couple of reasons.
First, Rosengart said that by avoiding his suspension
and going straight for terminating the conservatorship,
Jamie was trying to dodge handing over records
from the conservatorship,
this including 13 years of finances,
which Britney's team obviously wants
to get their hands on it.
And now that Jamie is suspended,
they'll get their chance because it forces them
to fork it over.
And then also you have Britney's recent engagement,
which comes with a need to negotiate a prenup,
and Rosengart argued that they needed to make sure
that Jamie had no involvement in that process.
And as far as what comes next, you have an accountant
being named Britney's temporary conservator.
With the outlet saying,
that the hearing to possibly discuss the termination
of the conservatorship set for November 12th.
You also then have Rosengart set
on investigating Jamie for potential misconduct
with him telling reporters yesterday,
"I said at the outset that my firm and I
were going to take a top-to-bottom look
at what Jamie Spears and his representatives have done here.
That's already in process."
And that investigation will likely touch
on a large number of things.
Things like the claims that Britney made
in her June testimony,
where she said that the conservatorship was abusive,
saying that her father loved the power to control her.
It will also to take a look at Rosengart's allegations
that Jamie has extorted Britney
and he will likely focus on new allegations
from a documentary that Jamie bugged Britney's room
and phone without her knowledge.
Or some situation in no way over,
but very likely the next chapter
for Britney Spears's life, it's here.
And then in one of the most requested stories this week,
and I'm gonna try
and talk about kind of the grander aspect of this
rather than just the individual thing,
and that grander aspect is canceling celebs in general.
Right, I've talked about this before.
I think short of actually committing a crime,
I think a celeb cannot effectively be canceled.
Or whether you think it is rightly or wrongly,
I don't see really many examples of that.
Like everyday people can get canceled,
they get fired from their job.
They don't have like a platform of their own.
I mean, just look at the last year. You had what?
James Charles, David Dobrik,
Nikita Dragun, I feel like gets canceled every week,
Jeffree Star, Shane Dawson.
Actually, those last two are the specific thing
we're talking about today
because people are starting to get worked up
because Jeffrey Star said that he and Shane Dawson
will be making their first video together
since they were canceled back in the summer of 2020.
With Shane and Jeffree dealing with various allegations
and criticisms about old racist content,
as Shane made weird jokes about kids,
both of their involvements in Dramageddon 2.0,
all resulting in them losing subscribers and deals.
Morphe specifically cutting commercial ties with Jeffree.
And while Jeffree, for his part,
already previously returned to posting,
Shane essentially took a break from YouTube.
The more recently popping up on his fiancee's channel,
but also it appears now
that Shane is coming back with Jeffree.
Jeffree posting, "Brand new video will be up this Friday.
Shane Dawson and I react
to finding our makeup collab in Nordstrom rack."
As something that Jeffree might see as a downgrade,
as he's previously made fun of brands
that sell their products at discount stores.
As you might expect, the reaction has been mixed.
Many of their fans happy to see them coming together.
Others not as thrilled
wondering how can they come back like nothing happened.
With some writing things like,
"Now how the fuck is Shane Dawson coming back
after what he did?
Sad how no one has really canceled.
They can just take a year off and it'll be okay."
Right, with these numerous situations we've seen
and comments like that,
I think it's caused a lot of people
to kind of look back to the past year or two
or how many influencers or celebrities got canceled
and then like actually never came back.
I'm like, I think literally the only one
is the one that most people actually want
to return to the internet or that being Jenna Marbles.
It felt very much like the near universal reaction
to her canceling,
like she was being the person most angry at herself,
most critical of herself.
I mean, you look through social media,
you look through the comments on the videos and stuff,
it look like no one wanted her to leave.
Or like, I think any day.
Let's try it right now.
I feel like you can hop on social media,
type in Jenna Marbles,
and it's probably gonna be people saying,
"I wish she was back."
"YouTube hasn't been the same since Jenna Marbles left."
"I miss Jenna Marbles so much. Her videos were so great."
"Update, I still miss Jenna Marbles."
"Society if Jenna Marbles returned."
But also I feel like we're getting a little sidetrack here.
What I'll say, one, if you have any specific thoughts
about Shane Dawson coming back, right,
positive, negative, maybe you're torn, let me know.
And two, regarding the question of can celebrities
actually get canceled if there wasn't a crime committed,
I actually asked you guys this this morning on the poll,
and, oh my God, for the first time in like two weeks
y'all were split on something.
58% saying that celebs cannot be canceled.
42% saying yes, they can.
With some of the top comments diving into specific arguments
like, "You can't be canceled if you don't care.
Only way to be fully canceled is if your deplatformed."
Some also noting that "It's sometimes difficult
for celebrities who do commit crimes to be canceled."
With some providing examples like Chris Brown.
Some saying, "Canceling doesn't actually exist
outside Twitter."
All right, obviously, it's a broad question.
It's a broad situation.
Like in some situations,
someone said something disgusting or horrible
like 12 years ago.
Sometimes someone just like did something now.
And so yeah, if you didn't take part in that poll,
right now I'd love to know your thoughts
in those comments down below.
And remember, try and separate this
from do you think people should be canceled or not
and rather it's more of like is it actually a thing
that is happening to these people.
Then in easily my favorite story of the day
and just bear with me because the next line
is gonna make me seem like a monster
because the story is about this 50-year-old man.
He went missing in the woods on Tuesday.
Reportedly had been drinking with friends.
He just wandered in.
And after hours of trying to reach him,
his wife, his friends, they contact the police.
They send out a search party.
All right, so this reportedly going on for several hours,
and then at one point,
one of the rescue workers is like,
"Okay, I'm gonna yell this guy's name."
He yells it and then someone within their own group
goes, "Oh, hi."
And so what turns out happened
is that at some point that the missing man,
he stumbled across a search party,
he decided to join.
Right, he was helping out,
didn't realize that he was searching for himself.
Yay! He was taken home.
It's unclear if he's gonna face any sort of penalty,
but I just love that for so many reasons.
But from that, I want to take a quick second
to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Vessi.
You know it's honestly hard to find lightweight shoes
and 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.
All right, so if you didn't already know,
Vessi makes 100% waterproof and snow proof sneakers
that are incredibly comfortable, breathable,
and actually pretty stylish,
which is why they're good for running errands,
hitting the gym, going to the park with the kids,
or even going on muddy hikes.
And this new Everyday Moves sneakers
still has their Dyma-tex material,
a dual climate knit that keeps you cool in the summer
and warm in the winter.
It's for the explorer looking to take activities up a notch
or just going for that sportier look.
And the Everyday Move even has this silhouette
inspired by the natural movement of water
designed to get you moving.
So if you want to get that feeling
like you're walking on clouds legally
and not getting in trouble with the law,
just go to Vessi.com/DeFranco right now
and be sure to use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get $25 off.
Grab them now while they still have your size
and you'll definitely be thanking me later.
Then we should definitely talk about the massive news
of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma
reached a $75 million opioid settlement
with three of the largest drug distributors in the country.
And this is absolutely huge,
because not only is this deal the first of its kind
with the tribal government but also Cherokee officials say
that it is the largest settlement
in the history of the tribe,
which has more than 390,000 citizens.
And this agreement stems from a 2017 lawsuit
the Cherokee Nation brought against the distributors,
AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson.
And as far as some of the specifics,
you had the tribe accusing the groups
of flooding its territory with millions of opioid pills
causing dramatic rates of abuse and overdose deaths
that disproportionately affected their community.
In fact, according to an analysis
by "The Washington Post" from 2006 to 2014,
Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely to die
from an opioid overdose than non-Native Americans.
Now the sentence I hate saying about these stories,
but it's pretty much every time.
The three companies who profited off this devastation
that they caused did not have to admit
that they did anything wrong.
With them still strongly denying any wrongdoing
in a joint statement
where they also patted themselves on the back
for taking what they called an important step
toward reaching a broader settlement
with all federally recognized Native American tribes.
But the situation isn't fully done,
but I mean, for at least two reasons.
First, while yes, $75 million split three ways
is basically pocket change for these distributors.
It also comes as those three same companies
along with Johnson & Johnson are in the final stages
of solidifying a $26 billion settlement
to resolve similar claims by states and local government.
And two, regarding the Native American tribes,
they also named three pharmacies in that 2017 lawsuit
that were not part of this deal.
Saying the Cherokee Nation promising
to vigorously pursue claims
against Walmart, Walgreens and CVS at a pending trial.
Then, we should definitely talk about
all this vaccine mandate firing news.
Where we'll start is with one North Carolina based hospital
system reportedly now firing
roughly 175 unvaccinated employees
in a single go for failing to adhere
to the company's mandatory COVID vaccination policy.
However, it ends up kind of being a theme
across multiple companies.
The initial number of people
that could potentially be fired was much higher.
With that company, Novant Health,
saying that it suspended 375 unvaccinated workers last week,
giving them five days to comply, right, get that first dose.
And that actually led to some 200 workers
receiving their first doses by Friday.
At the same time, we've seen the vaccination rate
for healthcare workers in New York state skyrocketing.
With that likely connected to the fact that as of Monday,
hospitals in the state are now allowed
to fire any unvaxxed employees.
There was a big bump.
Last week, the vax rate was around 80%.
Now it's jumped to 92%.
With the New York actually having
one of the highest rates of vaccination
among healthcare workers nationally.
However, obviously not universal,
some workers have still refuse to take the vaccine
leading to them now being fired or suspended
that in turn has caused some hospitals
to have to postpone elective surgeries
and cut back on services.
It's also why the governor of New York
signed an emergency order that will allow the national guard
to fill staffing shortages.
Well, it's definitely a focal point.
It's not just the healthcare industry.
Reportedly, United Airlines is now preparing to fire
nearly 600 unvaxxed employees,
which sounds like a lot of people
until you compare it to the number of people
still dying every single day in the United States from COVID
or United's workforce in general.
With it saying that these people make up less than 1%.
Well, of course, they and other places are still saying,
"Hey, you can still get vax."
There are inevitably gonna be a number of people
that are like, "No, I'm still not gonna do it."
And according to new data,
while there are a lot of people are still looking to hire,
all right, there's a job crunch,
they might stumble across other issues
because I mean, we have reports coming out
saying that in places like Indeed
the number of job postings that require vaccinations
spiked 242% in the last month.
And understand, while it's still technically a small number
compared to the total number of job postings,
those numbers are very likely going to keep going up.
And I say that because according to a new Gartner survey
of legal and human resources officers
at companies across the country,
46% of firms planning to issue vaccine mandates,
36% saying they're unsure, 17% saying they will not.
But ultimately, you know, that's where we are
with this story and situation right now,
and so I want to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts regarding these firings?
Do you support them? Are you against them?
Are you kind of torn on the issue
you don't know where you land, thoughts, anything?
I'd love to hear from you.
And then we should definitely talk about the major update
to the Sarah Everard case.
If you're unfamiliar, she was a 33-year-old woman
who went missing in the UK on March 3rd
while walking home from a friend's house,
and her body ended up being found a week later
more than 50 miles away from where she was last seen.
And this story generated nationwide attention.
Also generating a lot of frustration
when local police urge women to not go out alone.
That blew up then right that approach
criticizing or fueling the culture of victim blaming,
also prompting women on social media to speak out
about their own experiences of abuse and harassment
to shine a light on the epidemic of violence against women
and girls in the UK.
But with all of that,
we eventually saw authorities arrest and then later fire
a London Metropolitan police officer
by the name of Wayne Couzens
for Everard's abduction, rape, and murder.
And after pleading guilty,
the big update today is that he was finally sentenced
to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
And as far as some of the specifics,
according to prosecutors,
he used his police identification and handcuffs
to trick Everard into getting into his car
after telling her that she had violated COVID-19 rules.
Witnesses who saw the kidnapping
saying that they saw him handcuffed her,
also believing that he was an undercover officer
making an arrest.
With Couzens then raping and strangling her to death
with his police belt that same evening
before later burning and disposing of her body.
And possibly like many others,
when you hear the details of that
you're like, "Well, I get life in prison,
but I really wished that he was maybe buried
underneath the prison."
That maybe seems more just for a monster like this,
but it is important to know this sentence
is still a very big deal.
Life sentences are actually very rare in the UK,
and while murder in Britain
does carry a mandatory life sentence,
it's highly unusual for someone
to be sentenced to life behind bars
without the chance of parole.
Where you had Couzens's lawyer
arguing for a 30-year sentence as a starting point,
arguing that there are currently 73 prisoners in England
and Wales with no chance of parole,
but all of them had committed more than one murder.
But ultimately for a number of reasons,
the judge was like, "Ah, no."
Also, this is likely not the end of the story
because a police watchdog is still investigating
whether police responded appropriately
to a report that Couzens indecently exposed himself
at a fast food restaurant
three days before he inducted abducted Everard.
With that group also investigating alleged failures
by Kent police who investigated
another indecent exposure incident
linked to Couzens from 2015.
So it's very likely that the next chapter of this story
is gonna be very focused on whether the police
are actually policing themselves.
And then finally today,
let's talk about this Robinhood news.
And just at the top I wanna say,
I am conflicted because I saw this situation trending.
People have asked me to talk about it,
but I am also an investor in a competitor of theirs,
so there is the possibility of bias
and so what I'll try and do is just kind of cover the story,
the accusations being made,
and I'm just gonna keep my opinions out of it.
So here we go.
All right, so Robinhood is back in the news
because we're seeing some new major allegations
coming out against them over the past week.
Just as a refresher, Robinhood is an app
that allows you to buy and sell shares of stocks.
Facing that major controversy earlier this year,
during the GameStop-AMC meme stock frenzy,
people throw in crazy amounts of money into stocks,
seemingly trying to fuck with hedge funds
like shares of stuff going up hundreds of percents.
And then of course in that notable day on January 28th,
Robinhood restricted its users from buying new shares
of GameStop and AMC, as well as Nokia and Blackberry,
instead only allowing the users
to sell off existing shares of those stocks.
Something that many said was a blatant attempt
by Robinhood to call share values
to crash back down to premium stock levels.
And for a time, seemingly connected directly to this.
We saw share prices plunge.
However, since then Robinhood has consistently denied
that it was trying to manipulate the market,
instead claiming of the decision was made
because the buying surge resulted in a $3 billion bill
from clearing houses which managed stock transactions.
With Robinhood saying that they only had $2 billion
in capital at that time
so it wasn't able to pay off its growing bill.
Robinhood is essentially saying, "We had no other choice."
Meanwhile, you have others, including Congress,
investigating whether or not hedge funds played a role
in Robinhood's decisions
since the frenzy was causing these hedge funds
to lose billions of dollars.
And so that is actually where
the first of these new major accusations comes in.
In the last week,
lawyers for several Robinhood customers suing the platform,
alleged Citadel Securities pressured Robinhood
to restrict small investor trading,
and that's notable because not only is Citadel Securities
owned by a hedge fund
but it also executes many of the orders submitted
by Robinhood customers.
So with that, you have these lawyers
providing internal communications
that seem to show tensed talks between the two companies.
In fact, one message from Jim Swartwout,
who is the president
and COO of Robinhood Securities reading,
"You wouldn't believe the convo we had with Citadel.
Total mess."
While it's unclear what exactly was being discussed there,
the lawyers argued that this
and several other cryptic messages
were evidence of Citadel pressuring Robinhood,
which really mean this has been a theory
that's persisted online for months now.
With many online snatching these messages saying,
"Hey, this is proof that Citadel pressured Robinhood."
Many accusing Citadel LLC CEO, Ken Griffin,
of lying to Congress
when he said that there was no collusion
between the two companies.
But still there you have Citadel holding firm
tweeting that it did not ask Robinhood or any firm
to restrict or limit its trading activity on January 27th.
Announcing the accusation is being fueled
by internet conspiracies and Twitter mobs.
Robinhood spokesperson, also later echoing that account,
saying, "These complaints attempt to create
a false narrative of collusion.
In times of market stress it's normal
and advisable for us to communicate even more
with our market centers."
All right, so essentially saying
that communication does not equal collusion,
which is not a new statement.
That is something that both Robinhood and Citadel stated
during their Congressional hearings earlier this year.
I bet all of that brings us then
to the second new major allegation that we're seeing.
The second accusation directly involved Swartwout.
The basis of this allegation
being that he sold his shares of AMC
during the height of trading
just two days before Robinhood restricted trading.
According to the lawsuit on January 26,
Swartwout outright said in an internal chat,
"I sold my AMC today,"
adding, "FYI, tomorrow morning,
we are moving GameStop to 100%, so you are aware."
While people have interpreted in different ways
what moving GameStop to 100% actually means,
many are in agreement that it shows
that he was trading stock on non-public information.
With others also alleging that it appears
that his tipping off others to this non-public info.
Well, yes, that is illegal.
Like the last allegation,
this is now in the hands of the court.
And so now we have to wait and see.
Do they see it one way? Do they see it the other?
Do they kind of see it one way
but it's not inclusive enough?
There's more evidence end up coming out
that supports or rejects these accusations.
But ultimately, that's the story
and time will tell how everything lands.
But what I will say separate to that,
like I said, I am invested in one of their competitors.
I did so at my own monetary risk,
but also because I truly believe in this company.
If you're someone that's been thinking about investing,
but you're not in a new place,
I highly recommend you go to Public.
You can use PublicDeFranco.com.
Obviously, that benefits me.
But Public is a great service in its own right.
And two, if you're someone that uses Robinhood,
you're not happy with them,
you don't support the things that they did back then,
you have trust issues, whatever reason,
Public actually makes it exceptionally easy
to move over your portfolio,
which one, I mean, that could be for your own peace of mind,
your own security,
but also the only way we have any control in this world,
and it's so fucking dumb, is with our wallets.
And hey, if you sign up with public.com/DeFranco
or maybe even just if you sign up in general, I'm not sure,
but I definitely know with our link,
just for signing up you'll get some free stock.
And ultimately, that is where this story
and today's show ends.
And of course, one, whether it be with this story
or any story that stood out to you today,
I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below.
And two, my name is Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love yo faces and I'll see you next time.