- So, if you ever want to just feel like
this country is headed off a cliff, we may implode,
are we going to survive the next two, four, 10 years?
I highly recommend watching any clips from Jordan Klepper or
Channel 5.
I woke up this morning to find a video of Klepper
interviewing Iowans who went to Trump's first rally
since January 6th and just, wow.
Just the absolutely deranged things confidently
coming out of people's mouth, the, uh, Q overlap
on display and none of the arguments even make sense.
- [Klepper] Is that a Q?
- [Man] Yeah.
- [Klepper] Are you a Q supporter?
- [Man] Certainly.
- [Klepper] Wasn't Q's whole thing that Trump would be
reinstated as president?
- [Man] He's never left. There's no doubt in my mind,
150000%.
- [Klepper] That he's still present of the United States,
really?
Does he still hold the powers of the presidency?
- [Man] Well, He's been flying around the world
on Air Force One. That says something.
- [Klepper] I thought Joe Biden's technically on
Air Force One. No.
(Phil laughs)
- [Klepper] So they're faking it.
- [Man] Yeah, it's not even a presidency.
- [Klepper] Who is running the government right now?
- [Man] President Trump.
- [Klepper] He's running the government?
- [Man] And the military
- [Klepper] And he's running the military.
So we should blame him for what happened in Afghanistan?
- [Man] No
- [Klepper] But it's still his fault?
- [Man] It's way beyond my -
- [Klepper] Understanding.
(sound effect)
(Phil sighs)
- [Man] I don't, I don't, I don't --
- [Klepper] Thank you for talking to me, George.
Enjoy seeing president -- current president Trump.
- [George] Thank you.
- [Phil] It was also really wild to see January 6th
denial on display. And like, it starts out where
you're like, okay, I understand that conspiracy theory.
And then it goes into, like, even more bizarre land.
- [Man] I don't believe that it was people like me
and people like you see over there in that crowd
that did it.
- [Klepper] Who-- who was behind--
- [Man] the FBI, CIA, Antifa were used, other--
- [Phil] Yeah
- [Man] other groups like that.
- [Klepper] It seemed like a lot of them were going into
the Capital to attack Nancy Pelosi and perhaps hang--
- [Man] Who?
- [Klepper] What's that?
- [Man] Who? Which one, the one with the bull horns?
He's not a Trump supporter. I don't care what his
resume says
(Phil laughs)
- [Man] He is not a Trump supporter. In fact, do you
remember the picture of the plane in Afghanistan?
With all the people running next to it?
That was a balloon plane.
If you look at the pictures of the real plane, there's
pieces that are missing from the real plane to that plane.
- [Klepper] So you're saying there's a conspiracy
around the Afghanistan withdrawal.
- [Man] No, I'm saying that there was one guy there,
who ran - it's the only guy who turned to the camera
and waved his hands. Do y'all remember that?
If I remember that, he's the guy with the horns on his hat.
- [Klepper] He was in Afghanistan.
- [Man] Yes! Go look at the pictures.
- [Klepper] I think he's in jail right now.
- [Man] No, that's what they tell--
(Phil laughs)
- Y'all. And w-- what's scary is that's not even
the craziest thing I've seen all morning. Like I mentioned,
Channel 5. Andrew Callaghan, formerly known for the channel
All Gas No Brakes, he went to an anti-vax rally in Hollywood
and the stuff they were saying about the vaccine is wild.
- [Man] It's crazy. And it's proven that it has
creepy crawlers in it, it has pieces of metal
- [Callaghan] What are creepy crawlers?
- [Man] It's things with tentacles. And they, like, try
to move together. It's like, they're a family of, uh,
of, uh, s-s-satanic little particles.
- [Callaghan] What do you think the-- is on the
creepy crawler agenda?
(Phil laughs)
- [Man] Uh, I think it's to depopulate
- [Phil] No!!
- [Man] things that are bad for people. Kids growing tails,
kids growing up with animal hair.
- [Woman] It's for the New World Order I think they want
to get us all on the world, um, you know, and th-- um,
uh m-money system. So I know it's about the New World Order.
- [Phil] Yeah, tho-- those videos threw me off so much
this morning. I forgot to do my intro.
Welcome back to the Phillip DeFranco Show.
Hit that like button if your brain hurts from the first
few minutes of this video already. Yeah, moving on
to other news, we should definitely talk about left-wing
political commentator and Twitch streamer Hassan Piker
in the news. I'm actually really interested to know
your thoughts on this one. So on Thursday, Piker tweeted out
a video of one of his fans getting a lap dance at a
strip club while wearing his merch, captioning it "real
sigma behavior," saying that the video was
sent to him by a friend, who he later said works
at the club and gave him permission to share it.
According to Vice, that friend was a dancer by the name of
Shay, who we also saw sharing photos from that night
under Pikers post writing "Hassan stans tip good."
While that original video ended up generating some backlash
from those who argue that Piker was supporting exploitation,
it also eventually led to people sharing this clip of Piker
from one of his old streams.
- [Piker] You ever had an escort? No shame, obviously
sex work is real work. I-I've had sex with not even escorts,
but also like straight -- I-I've gone to a brothel, Artimus,
in Berlin and had sex with, uh, the workers there, yes.
I don't hide it. I don't give a s***. Why would I?
- [Phil] With Vice reporting or those comments were made
months ago about Piker's visit back in 2010.
But in the here and now it set off more intense debates,
about whether all sex work, stripping and brothels
are inherently exploitive. And there are arguments that
it is many pointed out that Berlin authorities raided
Artemis back in 2016 as part of a human trafficking
investigation. But, you have the Vice piece claiming
that doesn't necessarily mean that there was any actual
human trafficking happening, even if there were other wrong
things taking place. Noting in this particular sting,
"the six people detained were accused of tax fraud and
withholding social security contributions" because of how
they were classifying their workers. With the Vice piece
then going on to suggest that by treating all sex work as
exploitative, we actually make conditions even less safe
for marginalized workers, which then pressures platforms,
payment processors, and lawmakers to push sex workers
further into the margins, further into the unsafe dark.
Regarding this, we even saw Shay, that dancer we mentioned
earlier telling Vice "I don't think sex work
slash stripping is inherently exploitive"
and going on to add, "I go to work, get paid to entertain
people, talk with them, and have drinks with them, and
I go home. People just have this preconceived notion of what
a strip club is like and what strippers are like and it
seems we're either victims or dirty whores undeserving of
love. I wish people on both sides would see we're just
normal people going to work like everybody else."
You know, kind of on that same note we saw Piker say,
"all work under capitalism is done under coercive and
exploitative conditions." And adding, "I believe in
improving material conditions, helping workers gain autonomy
and take more of their surplus labor value back. Consensual
sex work in a safe environment can and has achieved that for
many sex workers I am friends with. However anti sex work
takes, especially those that conflate all sex work with sex
trafficking, create an unsafe space for those who would like
to do sex work." And so with all of that said,
I now want to pass the question off to you. Where do you
stand on this? Whether it be about the whole rainbow of
sex work, right, is every bit of sex work exploitative?
And or, secondarily, do you think brothels, prostitution,
that should be legalized regardless of if you would actually
use it or not? What are your thoughts here? What are your
arguments here? I would love to know your thinking.
From that I want to take a second to thank the sponsor of
today's show, Roman. Roman is a digital health platform
for men that makes high quality care accessible and
convenient by connecting you with a U.S. licensed physician,
delivering treatments from their pharmacies, all from the
comfort of your home. If you're dealing with sensitive
topics, like ED, you're going to want to get treatment ASAP.
And with Roman, you can get a free online evaluation and
ongoing care for ED, all from the comfort and privacy of
your home, no need for the awkward doctor's office visit or
a trip to the pharmacy. U.S. licensed healthcare
professional will work with you to find the best treatment,
and, if medication is appropriate, Roman will ship it to you
for free with two-day shipping. The whole process is
straightforward and discreet. Getting started is as easy as
going to getroman.com/Phil. And if you're prescribed,
you get $15 off your first ED treatment plus free two-day
shipping. So make sure you click that link in the
description to get $15 off your first ED treatment.
And then we should definitely talk about this massive
kidnapping problem, right? Most recently, you had a group of
17 American and Canadian missionaries abducted in Haiti
while on their way to visit an orphanage in the suburb of
the capital Port-au-Prince. The group reportedly is a part
of Christian Aid Ministries, an Amish and Mennonite charity
based out of Ohio with a long history of working in Haiti.
And on their way to the orphanage, their bus was stopped
at gunpoint by the 400 Mawozo gang. The gang, reportedly one
of the larger ones in the area having around 150 members.
Multiple outlets saying that during their confrontation with
the missionary, some victims managed to get messages out to
associates, letting them know what was going on, one even
managing to drop a pin for their location.
With the kidnappers then, ultimately, issuing ransom
demands, demanding $17 million, which is a noticeable jump
from the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars the gang
normally asks for. While, yes, the Haitian authorities are
involved in the investigation to free the missionaries,
they actually have very little power in the area.
The town that this took place and is pretty much out of
their control and under the control of the 400 Mawozo,
which actually isn't uncommon in Haiti. For example,
recently, you had Prime Minister Ariel Henry turning back
from a wreath laying ceremony at the grave of a
revolutionary war hero due to it being in gang territory.
So recovering these missionaries, it seems very complex,
but luckily Haitian authorities are not alone, the FBI
saying they're helping the authorities there. Issuing this
statement, "the FBI is part of a coordinated U.S. government
effort to get the Americans involved to safety."
Now as far as how the hostages are doing reports indicate
that they're being held in some sort of safe house
currently, no one is hurt. The 400 Mawozo have also been
warned against hurting hostages, although the group doesn't
seem too worried about those threats. Because I mean,
the situation is bad there for multiple reasons,
but also specifically with kidnapping. Right, in 2020,
there were 234 kidnappings, but just in the first eight
months of this year, there have been at least 328. With the
Center for Analysis and Research for Human Rights saying
that number is actually over 600. With them adding that
much of the increase is actually specifically from the 400
Mawozo because they figured out that kidnapping busloads
of people is far more profitable than just taking
individuals. In fact, this issue is so prolific right now
that just before the kidnapping on Saturday,
a Haitian transportation union
called for an indefinite strike, starting Monday with its
president further justifying the movement in a statement a
day later saying "we call on the government to put an end to
the kidnappings and provide us safety or for them to resign
immediately. We are the most victims. The transportation
sector is an easy target for kidnappers all over the
country. We lost many members to the insecurity and dozens
of members have been kidnapped. The latest tragedy of
kidnapping of the American missionaries shows no one is safe
in this country." And since then many parts of the country
have come to a standstill, which puts increased pressure on
a government with few resources to actually handle the
issue. And then we should definitely talked about the
Supreme court in the news because they just ruled in favor
of police in two separate cases involving qualified
immunity. Right, the controversial legal doctrine that
shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights
from lawsuits. There's been a lot of debate about it. The
topic that became a major flashpoint in debates over police
reform and curbing police violence since the protests last
summer. On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim
that it's necessary to ensure police can actually do their
jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.
But opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the
doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal
immunity for misconduct and excessive force.
And that is because under a previous Supreme court ruling,
in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to
show that they violated rights that are clearly established
by a previous ruling. In other words, officers can't be held
liable unless there is another case that involves almost
identical circumstances. So as a result, many argue,
this creates a sort of catch-22; officers are shielded from
liability because there's not a past precedent,
but the reason there may not be a past precedent is because
officers are shielded from liability in the first place.
Right? So for example, the two cases of the Supreme court
saw yesterday, both involved accusations that the police
used excessive force. One case officers use non-lethal
beanbag rounds against a suspect at close range because he
had a knife in his back pocket. The man complying with her
demands to get down after that. But one officer's still
allegedly knelt on his back to subdue him. There, the ninth
circuit court of appeals found that the officer was not
entitled to qualified immunity, citing a similar ruling.
Then in the other case, officers shot and killed a suspect
after he threatened them with a hammer, with the 10th
circuit letting the case proceed, ruling that a jury could
find the officer's cornering of the suspect recklessly
created the situation that led to the fatal shooting,
which would make them liable and ineligible for qualified
immunity under the 10th circuit precedent. Two notably
different situations, but also incidents that sound
somewhat familiar to things we hear about frequently.
Officers using non-lethal projections, very familiar,
kneeling on a suspect, very familiar. But, in their
decisions yesterday, which were unsigned with no dissents,
the Supreme court justices overturned lower court rulings
without ordering full briefing and arguments, signaling
they didn't even see these cases as close calls. And notably
it also signals that the current Supreme court isn't open to
change in qualified immunity, and the most likely path for
opponents of the doctrine is legislation. But, given the
current makeup of Congress, that is easier said than done.
And this isn't just like a congressional or federal issue.
If you get more local, we've seen dozens of bills at the
state level being killed after heavy lobbying from police
unions. Right now it's unclear what the path forward for
advocates looks like, especially because this is a pretty
big wall to hit. Arguably the biggest wall.
And then finally, today it kind of puts a bow on today's
show, we've come full circle. Let's talk about Trump in the
news. Because while yes, a lot of the coverage today is
about Trump essentially on Colin Powell's grave. I would
argue more notably. we should talk about Donald Trump filing
a lawsuit yesterday to block the House Committee
investigating the insurrection from receiving records that
it requested regarding the Capital attack and the former
president's attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In
this lawsuit, which was filed against the Committee and the
National Archives, Trump and his attorneys argued that the
records requested were too broad and include some documents
that are protected under executive privilege. Which his
lawyers argued, still applies to Trump despite the fact that
he is no longer president and that Biden has refused to
exercise executive privilege over the records. With Trump
and the suit also claiming that the records requested to
have no reasonable connection to the events of that day or
any conceivable legislative purpose. And finally condemning
Biden for not asserting executive privilege to block the
release of the document saying this move was a political
ploy intended to hurt Trump. And so, as a result of all that
you have Trump's lawyers asking the federal judge to
invalidate the Committee's entire request, block the
archives from giving any of the requested records to
Congress, and let Trump's team fully review the documents
before sharing them with Congress. And that last part is
especially significant here because that process alone could
take years, which is why we saw the bipartisan members of
the Committee condemning the lawsuit as just another
transparent attempt by Trump to delay and obstruct the
probe. But, regardless, experts say that this move sets off
a legal battle between Trump and the Committee that will
have far reaching implications for not only the scope of
this probe, but very notably the possible precedents
regarding executive privilege and the separation of powers.
And ultimately that is where today's show ends.
Thank you for watching and I'll see you tomorrow.
- [Man] It has creepy crawlers in it, it has pieces
of metal.