- 'Sup you Beautiful Bastards?
Hope you're having a fantastic Friday.
Welcome back to The Philip DeFranco Show
and if you're new here, on Fridays
we do things here a little bit different.
I cover more viewer requested stories from the week,
I include stories that I wanted to talk about this week but for
time reasons we didn't film or we had to cut it.
And so with that said, let's just jump into it.
And the first thing we're gonna talk about today,
one of the most requested stories in the past day and that
is the craziness around President Trump and
Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
A report came out from the New York Times yesterday that
President Trump ordered the firing of Robert Mueller.
But then reportedly, reversing the decision,
backing down after White House counsel
Don McGahn threatened to resign.
This information reportedly coming from four people.
If this is true, it's massive news.
And just so we kind of understand the timeline,
Donald Trump fires Comey May 9th.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appoints Mueller as
Special Counsel on May 17th and then in June reportedly Trump
orders the firing of Mueller.
Now I'm not saying it's definitively the reason but just
for the sake of understanding the timeline,
on June 14th the Washington Post was reporting that Mueller was
investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice.
According to this report, White House counsel Don McGahn told
senior officials that firing Mueller would be catastrophic
for Trump's presidency and raise questions
about obstruction of justice.
And reportedly, another option that Mr. Trump considered in
discussions with his advisers was dismissing the
Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein
and elevating the department's number three
official Rachel Brand to oversee Mr. Mueller.
Now the question for many coming out of this article was,
okay, is it true or is this fake news?
Well according to Fox News host Sean Hannity,
this was just the New York Times trying to distract you.
Clearly dismissing the failing New York Times.
- At this hour The New York Times is trying to distract you.
They have a story that Trump wanted Mueller fired sometime
last June and our sources and I've checked in with many of
them, they're not confirming that tonight and the President's
attorney dismissed the story and says,
"No, no comment. We're not going there."
- It's a good thing you're watching Fox News which is about
real news and not about bias, at all.
Except about 40 minutes later Hannity had to change his tune.
- Alright, so we have sources tonight just confirming to
Ed Henry that yeah, maybe Donald Trump wanted to
fire the Special Counsel for conflict.
Does he not have the right to raise those questions?
You know, we'll deal with this tomorrow night.
- Okay, so it's not fake news.
It appears The New York Times did not get it wrong.
So essentially, he changed his argument from "Fake news," to
"Okay, that news is real but it's not that big of a deal."
He just wanted to fire the guy that was looking into the
allegations of the Russians, obstruction of justice regarding
the Trump administration,
Donald Trump himself potentially.
What's the big deal?
Now based off of this I know some people expecting me to just
bash Hannity but in Hannity's defense The New York Times has
been wrong as have all outlets including Fox News and he's
going out there every night and he somehow getting the job done
even though Donald Trump's dick is so far down his throat.
How does he even pronunciate? It's a skill.
And I'm talking about this aspect of it because
I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative.
If you watched this show for a long time,
you know that is the case.
I've gone after Democrats, I've gone after Republicans,
everyone in-between.
I don't care if you want to defend or go after
the President, just do it with facts.
What we need to see from newspeople and hosts and we're
not going to most likely see that because it's not
necessarily profitable is for these people to
stop leaning into their bias.
There is no such thing as an unbiased person but at least
separate and I say that not saying I'm perfect
as far as that's concerned.
I try my damnedest but how you accomplish this or how you
accomplish is more often than not
is it has been an active effort.
And I say this not because I think that Fox News,
CNN, whoever is going to change but I think that there are a lot
of like-minded people.
Now here's the thing, despite even Fox News' sources
Sean Hannity's sources saying, yeah.
This morning when Donald Trump was
asked about this, this is what he said.
- [Reporter] Mr. President, did you seek to fire Robert Mueller?
- Fake news, folks. Fake news.
Typical New York Times fake stories.
- And that's where we are as of right now.
We have left and right media saying that yes,
their sources said that this did happen.
Donald Trump saying, no, fake news and we'll have to wait to
see if more information comes out.
But all that said, I do want to pass the question of to you;
What is your opinion on this story?
Also, what's your opinion on if Donald Trump did fire Mueller?
I'd love to know what you think, why and also if you're willing
to share, kind of where
you land as far as left, right, whatever.
We've got Beautiful Bastards from all over the place
so I just love getting insight when I can.
And then let's talk about fake news and specifically the place,
the reason that we even say fake news so much today,
Facebook. A lot of people forget that.
Facebook didn't invent fake news but the reason people talked
about fake news so much was because of all the bullshit
articles being shared on Facebook.
The President started saying it about mainstream media outlets
and then everyone just said it.
It just stuck and everyone shouts it everything
they don't agree with.
But in the past week Facebook has made an announcement that
they are going to be fighting fake news more than ever.
Last year they said they focus on getting the clickbait and
this year they have announced that they have
a focus on trustworthy sources.
The CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg,
saying in a statement, "There's too much sensationalism,
"misinformation and polarization in the world today.
"Social media enables people to spread information faster than
"ever before and if we don't specifically tackle these
"problems, then we end up amplifying that.
"That's why it's important that News Feed promotes high quality
"news that helps build a sense of common ground.
"The hard question we've struggled with is how to decide
"what news sources are broadly trusted in a world
"with so much division.
"We try to make that decision ourselves
"but that's not something we're comfortable with.
"We considered asking outside experts,
"which would take the decision out of our hands but would
"likely not solve the objectivity problem.
"Or we could ask you, the community,
"and have your feedback determine the ranking.
"We decided that having the community determine which
"sources are broadly trusted would be most objective."
And I will say hearing that I am very skeptical because
really what the cynical part of my brain just heard was,
"We have a problem with people just posting stuff they think is
"true but is not true.
"So we're going to ask everyone including them who they trust."
But that said, later in the week after this announcement we
learned how Facebook was going to get all of this information:
a two question survey.
Asking simply, do you recognize the following websites?
Yes or no?
How much do you trust each of these domains?
Entirely, a lot, somewhat, barely, not at all.
And the response from many was,
"That's it? That's what's gonna solve our problem?"
And in response to those reactions Adam Mosseri,
Facebook's News Chief tweeted out in defense,
"I understand that some people may balk at
"how simple a survey is,
"but complicated surveys can be confusing and bias signal and
"meaningful patterns can emerge from broad surveys."
Adding, "Trust is one among many signals,
"but only applies for publishers for which we have enough data,
"so it doesn't yet affect most publishers.
"The other important thing to understand
"is this isn't a simple vote.
"We are not just valuing more publishers that a lot of people
"trust but rather valuing more publishers that a lot of
"different types of people based on reading habits trust."
And for me it's that last note that really stands out.
Because all surveys, voting online,
it's very easy to vote bomb.
So if Facebook does actually implement this the way they're
saying that it depends on a variety of people based off of
what they normally consume, the thing that would end up
rising to the top would be news sources that let's would say
people that watch CNN or people that watch Fox News what chunks
of those audiences both trust.
If that actually ends up being the case,
and it's able to fight off any sort of bot manipulation,
this could be really effective.
Theoretically what then ends up getting promoted the most would
be things that are very central.
Things that appear very unbiased and that also means that the
CNNs and the Fox Newses of the world would be hurt by this.
Because I don't know if you know this,
some people say those places lean to
one side rather than the other.
It's just a rumor though, nothing confirmed.
But that said, I want pass the question off to you,
what're your thoughts around this?
Are they doing too much or no,
they're finally doing what they have to do?
Is it Facebook's job or should people teach themselves
and be news literate.
I love know you thinkin' and why.
Then what year is it?
Let's talk about the XFL.
The former failed football league is being given new life.
The XFL, if you don't remember, was just this over-the-top
alternative football league.
If you ever have 90 minutes free,
I highly recommend ESPN's 30 on 30 around the XFL.
Long story short, after all this time,
there've been rumors the past few weeks that
it was going to happen,
Vince McMahon announced that the XFL is coming back.
And yesterday he did it in a live stream that opened up with
a song that explained what they're trying to do.
Saying that it's safer and that being a part of it is
what it's all about.
Gaming, fantasy, padded roulette,
make a bet, more actions, less stall,
fewer penalties and that was followed by Vince McMahon
explaining the skeleton of the league.
- We intend to start conservatively with eight teams,
40-man rosters, a 10 game regular season and
postseason featuring two semifinals and, of course,
a championship game.
- He also then makes this interesting note
in regards to the players.
- As you know, there is a wealth of talented players that we
could draw from but in the XFL the quality of the human being
is going to be as important as the quality of the player.
- Now of that matters because Johnny Football,
Johnny Manziel, he, of course,
for a little bit was the Browns quarterback.
Long story short, he's not in the NFL anymore.
He tweeted, "#XFL2020 @VinceMcMahon".
Johnny was ready and then Vince McMahon took
this question and well, yeah.
- [Man] Will any invites be extended to players like
Johnny Manziel, Tim Tebow, Colin Kaepernick?
- Well, I think this, that one of the things when I said the
quality of the human being is very important and just as
important as the quality player, what I mean by that is you want
someone who does not have any criminality whatsoever associate
with 'em and in the XFL even if you have a DUI
you will not play in the XFL.
That would probably eliminate some of 'em,
not all of them.
If Tim Tebow wants to play, he could very well play.
- So no Johnny, if Tebow wants it,
Tebow could probably have it.
Also one of the points that Vince McMahon hit on was that if
it's in the rulebook to stand during the national anthem,
which it sounds very much like
it's going to be in their rulebook,
if you're going to play in that league you can't kneel.
And I will say when I first heard this news,
I initially thought well this is going to be a failure again.
But if there was ever a time and opportunity to be able to chip
away at a decent chunk of the NFL's audience or just become a
competitor in their off-season, and that seems to be a large
part of their strategy, there's no better time than now.
You have differing groups angry at the NFL because there are too
many penalties, the game is slow.
The NFL potentially has less and less future talent as more and
more parents are not letting their kids get into the sport
because it seems too dangerous.
CTE, of course, a big concern on everyone's
mind regarding the NFL.
Also, based on the press conference it doesn't appear
that Vince McMahon is treating this like this crazy sideshow
where you're gonna have WWE talent crossing over
like in the past.
Vince and the WWE have also shown that they understand the
many windows models.
Just getting their content out to the people that want consume
it on any screen possible.
So there is a chance here but it really all comes down to how
they change the game.
But that said to be 20% of you that actually care about
anything sports, what are your thoughts here?
You think it's gonna work? You think it has as chance?
Do you think it's dead on arrival?
I'd love know your thoughts on this.
Then, let's just knock out this story that was requested
yesterday but is also a story that's been requested for weeks.
Will Oprah and should Oprah run for president in 2020?
A lot of people asked me why didn't talk about this after she
gave that speech at the Golden Globes. Phil, why?
And my answer to that is because I found it incredibly stupid.
For the most part, a lot of people I saw excited about the
prospect of an Oprah presidency were the same people going like,
"Ugh, Donald Trump is a reality star President.
"Why do we have a celebrity President?"
But then when Oprah or Meryl Streep gives a big speech
they're like "For president!"
And you know who actually agrees with me that
Opera shouldn't run for president? Oprah.
In an interview she just did with InStyle Magazine she said,
"I've always felt very secure in confident with myself in knowing
"what I could do and what I could not.
"And so it's not something that interests me.
"I don't have the DNA for it."
Adding, "I met with someone the other day who said they would
"help me with a campaign. That's not for me."
Just kinda think of how bat shit crazy the whole thing is.
Every four years, we have this popularity contest with fewer
participants, fewer entrants, fewer potential winners than a
singing competition on television and if that person
wins, they get the ability to shoot a nuke at someone.
They can kill legislation,
make far-reaching executive orders,
and the things that not only affect the what 323 million or
however many Americans but make decisions that affect
the 7.6 billion people, and growing, on this planet.
Winner of a popularity contest can send troops into battle
for 60 days without the involvement of Congress.
I mean just think about how crazy that is.
I don't think there's anyone that's
qualified to be President.
It just makes me think it's amazing that any of us
are still alive right now.
And then let's talk about this huge story around Afghanistan,
the US military and pedophiles.
This week report came out detailing the US ignoring
widespread child abuse and prostitution in Afghanistan.
And if some of this sounding familiar,
that might be because this new article comes after the
2015 article from The New York Times
where they wrote this massive piece.
It sparked tons of outrage in the United States and
it detailed the practice of bacha bazi.
Now the question that some of you probably have right now is
what is bacha bazi?
Well, bacha bazi is this practice that has been around
for hundreds of hundreds of years
in Central Asian countries.
It's really only practiced now in Afghanistan and
tribal regions of Pakistan.
The practice is considered an open secret
within Afghan society.
It is widespread, it is well known.
Men aren't even afraid to admit they've partaken.
Bacha means boy, bazi means play or game and so bachata bazi are
these boys that are used as prostitutes and dancers for
Afghan men instead of women.
Starting at around 12 or 13, these poor boys,
the bacha bazi, are picked up by playboys AKA pimps.
They prey on their need for money,
security, they promise to pay for their clothes,
their food, their housing.
They say that when you're no longer able to be a bacha bazi,
we'll pay for your wedding. And that's a huge deal.
These weddings can cost thousands of dollars in a poor
country like Afghanistan.
And these boys do this until the ages of 18 to 25,
pretty much when they're undesirable.
And as far as being a bacha bazi,
we see instances of boys willfully taking these jobs.
Others being forced into it, although I will say "willfully".
We talk about 12 and 13-year-olds being used for sex,
there's no consent there.
These boys are trained to dance at parties.
They're used to sexual partners by many Afghan men.
It's also believed that this become such a normal part of
society due to extremely strict laws.
I mean for many centuries you have men and women
separated in Afghan society.
To this day, men and women are still
largely segregated at all times.
So much so that women are considered invisible
in Afghan society.
Now that said, the practice did end up getting banned under the
penalty of death but it was
because the Taliban had control at that time.
It was less about protecting children and more
"We'll kill you if you're gay."
The law was strongly enforced
and the practice needed to hide for decades.
But then came US forces and
the practice came back into the light.
It was still illegal but the law was hardly ever enforced.
And often if it was a powerful commander that was committing
the crime, it was just 100% ignored.
But where does the US military really get into the story?
Well for years, US soldiers in Afghanistan have been reporting
on widespread child exploitation in the country.
Many reports of American troops
having problems with Afghan allies,
commanders over bacha bazi.
After the invasion by the US, the toppling of the Taliban,
the practice started up again.
US soldiers began getting into altercations with the Afghanis
that they were working with over these boys.
One example you might remember happened in 2012.
An Afghan commander and ally to the United States had a
bacha bazi chained to his bed as a sex slave.
And in response to this Captain Dan Quinn,
a man I would like to buy a beer,
beat the shit out of that commander and
was reprimanded over it.
Quinn claiming that the military told them to ignore the practice
even if it occurred on US bases.
"The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible
"things the Taliban were doing to people,
"how they were taking away human rights.
"But we were putting people into power who would do things that
"were worse than the Taliban did,
"that was something village elders voiced to me."
The Army even tried to force out
Sergeant First Class Charles Martland.
Martland brought the story to
the American public back in 2015.
His actions led to a lawsuit that also saved his career.
Thanks to him, we saw the establishment
of the Martland Act.
An act that requires all service members to report child sexual
abuse occurring on US bases.
After this story broke in 2015, Congress then reacted by having
the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction make a report.
A report dedicated to documenting how the US handled
cases of child sexual assault in Afghanistan.
A report which was supposed to be sealed until the 2040s but a
redacted version was unsealed this year.
And that report is why we're talking about it this week
because it is disgusting and sad.
The report shows that just in the Department of Defense from
2010 to 2016 there were 5,753 accusations of
gross human rights abuses by the Afghan military.
And the vast majority of which was child sexual abuse.
Now, the Martland law wasn't around for most of these cases
but others did the Leahy Laws.
It details if the US knows of any human rights violations
occurring by groups the US works with,
then the US needs to cut off the funding to them.
Something the United States government failed to do despite
knowing about thousands of child abuse and rape
reports by Afghan allies.
Possibly even worse the DOD and the State Department only begin
addressing the issue after the Times article back in 2015.
Inspector General John F. Sapko stating,
"The DOD and State only began efforts to
"address this issue after was raised by The New York Times,
"and even after that story, the sufficiency of policies they put
"in place and the resources
"they've committed seem questionable."
"When Congress passed the Leahy Laws they prioritized the
"issue of gross human rights violations.
"As our report clearly shows,
"both agencies failed to live up to that task."
And as of August 12th, 2016 the Department of Defense was only
actively investigating 75 cases
of gross human rights violations.
And so what we see is that the Department of Defense knew about
Afghans who were abusing boys, often on US bases,
and completely ignored it.
Just 75 of at least 5,753
while also still giving them money.
And also how the US managed to circumvent the Leahy Laws which
would make it so they couldn't give them money.
For that, they get to thank a non-withstanding clause.
It's this very odd piece of legislation that's part of the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.
It states, "For the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund,
"that such funds shall be available to the Secretary of
"Defense notwithstanding any other provision of law."
AKA no matter what other laws we have,
including those to protect human rights violations,
the US military can still send funds.
And so ultimately that's where we are and it is very likely
that this still is going on today.
And I just feel disgust, not towards our troops.
I don't see them as complicit just based off the story we
talked about before.
The system went after our own guys,
went after our own guys who made the choice to fight for this
country not to support some fuckin' child molester.
Only backing off after the media used its megaphone to get the
word out and the only outcome we saw is the government saying,
"We'll do better. Look we're gonna do better."
But only a little bit better.
Meanwhile our tax dollars put some of
those horrible monsters in those position.
Our money sporting many Afghan people doing horrible things.
Things the government, for the greater good,
they'd like to just sweep under the rug.
Since 2002, the United States has spent
over $70 billion financing Afghan security forces.
I guess the main point that I'm trying to get to is that
I really wish that we had more Quinns and Martlands
out in the world and in our government.
Rather than the enablers of child rape who would rather just
sweep our allies' crimes under the rug.
And that's where I'm going to end today's show.
And remember if you liked this video,
liked what I'm trying to do on this channel,
hit that like button.
If you're new here, hit that subscribe button.
Make sure you don't miss these daily weekday videos which
actually if you did miss the last show,
you want to catch up, click or tap right there to watch that.
Or if you want to watch today's brand new behind the scenes vlog
we post on Monday, Wednesday, Friday,
click or tap right there to watch that.
But that said, of course as always,
my name is Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in.
I love yo faces and I'll see you Monday.