- 'Sup you Beautiful Bastards?
Hope you havin' a fantastic Wednesday.
Welcome back to The Philip DeFranco Show
and let's just jump into.
And the first thing I want to talk about today is huge news
around that monster Larry Nassar.
Nassar, of course, the ex-USA gymnastics doctor that sexually
abused countless young girls.
This past week over 100 young women,
his victims, spoke out against him in court.
A thing he tried to prevent by providing a letter to the judge
saying hearing that testimony
wasn't good for his mental health.
A request so ridiculous, this is how the judge responded.
- What I have to say, this isn't worth the paper it's written on.
- And after all these women spoke out against this monster,
their abuser, the news today is that Larry Nassar has been
sentenced to up to 175 years.
- [Judge] It is my privilege to sentence you to 40 years.
And when I look at my cheat sheet,
40 years just so you know you can count it off your calendar
is 480 months.
The tail end, 'cause I need to send a message to the parole
board in the event somehow God is gracious,
and I know He is, and you survive the 60 years in
Federal court first and then you start on my 40 years,
you've gone off the page here as to what I'm doing.
My page only goes to 100 years.
Sir, I'm giving you 175 years which is 2100 months.
I just signed your death warrant.
- I will say I didn't know you could openly be
that savage as a judge.
But that said, with this situation coming to an end,
what I do hope is that there is some closure for his victims.
As of right now, it appears that he has
abused at least 168 young girls.
I wish we had the technology to make it so that Nassar had to
serve every single day of that 175 years but knowing that he
will never take a free breath again,
knowing that all of the people that he hurt,
that wanted to, were able to speak to him.
These young women who were shamed and silenced by him being
able to speak to this now no longer predator but a caged,
disgusting, powerless monster.
Then, I just wanted to briefly mention
the Logan Paul situation.
A lot of people been tweeting me saying,
"Phil, you called it." Yesterday I said,
most likely we're gonna see one of two things happening.
Maybe a hybrid.
One, Logan Paul coming back saying he learned his lesson and
then throwing himself into maybe a charity or donation or
doing something with a cute kid.
This meant to show that he is trying to learn
and be a better person.
Bonus points if in that video when he's being "real with you"
if there's sad or sympathetic music.
Double bonus points if it's just piano.
And today Logan Paul came out with a video called
"Suicide: Be Here Tomorrow".
In it he talked to several people including Kevin Hines,
who, of course, famously jumped off
the Golden Gate Bridge and survived.
Also speaking with the Director of
the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
Both sharing words I think are very important to hear.
And yes, as I called yesterday,
he said that he is trying to learn, he's donating.
He's pledging $1 million and piano music did play under it.
(light piano music)
- From this point on, I want to make an effort to contribute and
immerse myself in the conversation
so I'm pledging to donate $1 million to
various suicide prevention organizations.
It's time to start a new chapter in my life as I continue to
educate both myself and others on suicide.
- But all of that said, that prediction yesterday
was based off of two minds.
One, as someone who has covered stories like this for
over a decade, I know exactly what you are supposed to do.
And secondly because it was a thing that he needed to do.
Especially if, and I've said this from the beginning,
as disgusting and ignorant as what he did was
I always hope there can be a learning moment.
Because really the only person that knows what's in
Logan Paul's heart is Logan Paul.
And obviously while this video is incredibly important and
essential to his recovery, I also think it's incredibly
important and it does good by him putting this out there.
But really all that matters is
how he handles himself moving forward.
It is very easy to say something.
It is very easy to apologize but who you are as a person that is
defined by your actions in life.
And very soon we will see if it's just words
or it's something more.
That said, I'd love to know your opinion.
I know that a lot of people think that I've been light on
Logan and so of course whether you agree or disagree,
I'd love to know your thoughts.
And then let's talk about this controversy
coming out of Rotterdam.
It's a large city in the Netherlands and police there are
expanding their confiscation policy in a way that makes it
seem like they're going to be targeting those who look poor.
Essentially if you're wearing expensive clothing,
shoes, jewelry and you look like you cannot afford it according
to the police, they will confiscate it if you can't
provide proof that you lawfully obtained it.
I guess the police are expecting you to walk around
with receipts in your pocket or maybe show them
your bank account on your phone.
It all just seems very strange to me.
Now the policy they had in place before this
I think makes more sense.
They had an official policy of confiscating cars if you looked
like you were able to afford it, you couldn't prove you owned it.
I mean that policy does have the opening for discrimination where
you're pulling over one group more than another but most
people have their documentation on them with their vehicle.
But this clothing move brings it to a whole different level.
The police claim that it's meant to deter criminality by showing
that any ill-gotten gains will be kept.
Police Chief Frank Paauw saying,
"We're going to undress them on the street.
"We regularly take a Rolex from a suspect, clothes rarely.
"Some young people now walk with jackets of €1800.
"They do not have any income
"so the question is how they get there."
Adding, "These young people have no income,
"sometimes even debts from a previous conviction,
"but also wear an outfit that exceeds €1500.
"That is undermining the rule of law."
And I hear that and I see the police saying were targeting
gangs, people with past activity but there isn't anything to stop
them from doing this to anyone they want.
We already know from the old policy that this is incredibly
profitable for the police department.
In 2016, Rotterdam police confiscated
€11.5 million in money and goods.
And once again, the issue is who actually has documentation that
they own the things that they are wearing.
If you got something as a gift, how are you going to prove that?
And let's say you jump through the hoops to prove it.
It's still most likely is going to involve the police just
taking your stuff based off of a feeling.
Then you got to contact the person that got you the gift
and you're like, "Hey, can I get a receipt?"
And it even appears that members of the government realized
you're gonna see ethnic profiling here.
One member stating, "We realize that they do not want to create
"the appearance that there is ethnic profiling,
"but the chances of this happening are very large."
Adding, "It is not forbidden to walk around in the street.
"In addition, it is often unclear how such a piece of
"clothing is paid for and how old it is."
And as far as public opinion on this,
surveys show it's split, 50-50. And I mention this story because
I want to pass that question off to you.
What are your thoughts here?
Do you agree with this move? You disagree with the move?
Do you think that it will be abused?
I think I've made clear here, I'm against civil forfeiture.
I find it to be this very weird thing where your stuff can just
get taken because someone in law enforcement presumes guilt,
doesn't prove it.
There's no charges, no conviction and I think if we
look to United States there are a lot of abuses there.
It just goes against the whole general mindset of you are
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proven in the court of law, you get your due process but that's
my opinion and I'd love to know yours.
And then let's talk about founder and creator of
The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, coming under fire.
And there are two stories around that.
The first being that Andrew Jones,
a black journalist who worked for The Young Turks from
May 2017 to October 2017 has filed a complaint with the
New York State Division of Human Rights
against his former employer.
The complaint starts by alleging that Jones was not selected for
a job as a field reporter even though the candidate that was
chosen, who is white, was far less qualified in comparison.
The complaint goes on to state that eventually Jones was
offered a job after the managing editor, Jonathan Larsen, said
The Young Turks "had additional money for a second reporter."
But at a later time an employee of The Young Turks allegedly
overheard Larsen saying that The Young Turks
hired Jones because he was black.
The complaint alleges that from the start Jones failed to
receive any guidelines or structure to give him any basic
understanding of his responsibilities.
And despite that Jones said he put out articles that he feels
were well-written but still his boss, Jonathan Larsen, was
allegedly much more critical of his work than other reporters.
By June, Jones said he realized he would not be provided with
opportunities to travel and do investigative work
as he originally been told.
The complaint noting that other white employees
with the same "field reporter" title were
given those travel opportunities.
On August 5th, Jones says he talks to Cenk about his
frustrations with Larsen, the travel budget,
deadline issue shifting, standard slow response times,
hostile behavior.
And according to the complaint, Jones specifically identified
that there appeared to be a racial dimension.
But according to Jones, Cenk ignored the complaints and
instead told Jones that complaining about racial
discrimination by a supervisor was a fireable offense and said
he should shut the fuck up and deal with it.
Jones then said he just continued to work
under Larsen's supervision.
The complaint describing instances from there where he
wasn't given clear guidelines or deadlines and then was
reprimanded for being unable to complete an assignment on time.
And Jones believed that Larsen's actions here were intended to
create a pretext for later termination.
Eventually Jones says Larsen's behavior had
reached a whole new level.
Jones contacts the head of Human Resources to explain that one,
Larsen was dishonest and arbitrary in his reprimand and
two, explaining why he believed there was clear evidence of
racial bias on Larsen's part.
Given that the two reporters in his team were not being treated
as arbitrarily or as harshly.
In response, he says David Koller,
head of HR and a Young Turks founder,
called Jones and said that there is going to be an investigation.
However, Jones said that he never heard from him directly
again and the issue was never really dealt with.
There's then an allegation that another exec called Jones
shortly after he spoke to HR, giving him a veiled threat.
He then describes experience getting worse.
He says he reaches out to Cenk again on September 18th.
Doesn't hear back.
Saying two days later he was placed
on a probationary two week evaluation.
When asked, he was told he was an ineffective journalist as he
had failed create any original or exclusive content.
Jones then argued that this didn't make any sense.
His published work was successful.
He was even praised by Cenk.
He claims that he requested a transfer because he thought
Larsen was the issue. The request was denied.
On October 5th, The Young Turks decided that Jones had failed to
meet Larsen's professional standards and the company
allegedly pushed him to sign a severance package that would've
required him to, "waive his civil rights claims,
"receive approximately one month salary and resign."
Jones said he refused to sign
and October 9th, he was terminated.
Now to this massive claim,
Cenk has responded in a statement to Buzzfeed News.
Saying, "The quotes attributed to me
"in the workplace are completely false.
"I thought Andrew was a good guy when he worked here,
"I'll leave comments about his work to the legal proceedings.
"It's really unfortunate that he has decided to work with a
"lawyer who is now brought two different
"unrelated actions against us.
"Of course we care a great deal about diversity in the
"workplace, that part and parcel of what we do and who we are.
"We will defend our record and not give into baseless demands."
So as of right now, we'll have to wait and see what happens.
We haven't seen emails that back up these claims.
It's very much a he said-she said.
This is also not great timing for The Young Turks and Cenk
because they're just coming off a whole other scandal.
This over posts from Cenk's past
that people say are racist and sexist.
Which isn't the best thing when you are the creator of and one
of the main hosts of a progressive outlet.
In December, The Wrap uncovered what people have been calling
insensitive blog posts from the early 2000s that Cenk wrote.
"This including things like rules of dating.
"Rule 1: There must be some serious making out
"by the third date.
"If I haven't felt your tits by then,
"things are not about to last much longer.
"In fact, if you don't get back
"on track by the fourth date, you're done.
"Rule 2: There must be orgasm by the fifth date."
Then on a post called "Semi-Pros in Miami" he writes,
"But it seems like there is a sea of tits here,
"and I'm drinking in tiny droplets.
"I want to dive into the whole god damn ocean.
"Obviously, the genes of women are flawed.
"They are poorly designed creatures who do not want to
"have sex nearly as often as needed for the human race
"to get along peaceably and fruitfully."
Another post writing, "Every American is John Wayne
"to a Japanese girl who needs a new purse,
"a grammar lesson in English
"and a decent size penis for a change."
Also a blog post from David Koller,
who we mentioned before, was uncovered.
This post describing a moment where
he and Cenk came across three young girls.
Saying, "Turns out they were three teenage girls,
"whores in training, literally looking for boys to pick them."
Also later in the post when describing Memphis writing,
"I mean these negroes were the real deal.
"I mean these po' black people just hanging out in the heat."
Now in response to this according to The Wrap,
Koller declined to comment.
Saying, "I don't want to talk about any of that stuff.
"Thank you for calling."
While Cenk responded by saying, "If you read that today,
"what I wrote 18 years ago, and you're offended by it,
"you're 100 percent right.
"And anyone who is subjected to that material,
"I apologize to.
"And I deeply regret having written that stuff
"when I was a different guy."
Adding, "I had not yet matured and I was still a conservative
"who thought that stuff was politically incorrect and edgy."
Now after this, we saw Justice Democrats,
a progressive PAC, step away, cut ties with Cenk.
Saying, "We are deeply disturbed
"by recent news regarding Cenk and David Koller.
"Their language and conduct is horrifying and does not reflect
"our values at Justice Democrats.
"We would be hypocrites to not act immediately
"and ask for the resignation. Here is our official statement."
And here's the thing, I know that this was a requested story
because people wanted me to go in and
tear apart Cenk and The Young Turks.
A lot of people think I have a hatred for them.
I have a difference of opinion.
Both with their views and I feel like they're trying to
accomplish something that is more activism rather than
journalism but I also have that with a lot of outlets.
Also, I'm the last person that's going to try and crucify someone
for something they said 18 years ago.
I also have a past where I've said racially insensitive stuff,
sexist stuff because I thought I was so edgy.
And that wasn't 18 years ago.
Now, I do have an issue with him trying to connect that to him
being conservative at the time.
It feels like an incredibly out of place jab at people
that he doesn't agree with at that point.
And as far as the story and the claim of racial discrimination,
we have to have more information come out.
And that's something that I hope
whether you hate The Young Turks,
you love The Young Turks, you hate me, you love me
that we we always look
for more information and we don't go,
"Yeah, that sounds true because I want to believe that."
Or, "Yeah, that sounds true because it hurts
"people I disagree with." Facts need to still matter but
I will pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts around this story?
And then let's talk about this renewed controversy around the
NFL and the American flag.
Yes, that is bleeding in to 2018.
This because reports came out claiming that the NFL rejected a
one page advertisement for the Super Bowl program.
You know, that little pamphlet thing they
give out during the day. And that ad was made by
the American Veterans Organization, AMVETS.
It's one of the oldest and largest veteran charities
in the United States.
And the ad for this charity simply had the US flag and the
text #PleaseStand along with text on how to donate.
And they claim the NFL denied the ad and flat out rejected.
In a letter they sent to Roger Goodell they wrote,
"Dear Mr. Goodell,
"American Veterans appreciated the opportunity to place an ad
"in the Super Bowl LII program at the invitation of
"the National Football League.
"But that appreciation quickly gave way to deep disappointment
"when we learned your staff hade refused to publish our
"ad because of its simple two-word message, #PleaseStand."
And in this letter they write they are aware of the
controversy surrounding the kneeling during the anthem.
They're not passing judgment.
Just saying it's a polite request and closed it by saying,
"Freedom of speech works both ways.
"We respect the rights of those who choose to protest as these
"rights are precisely what our members have fought,
"and in many cases died, for.
"But imposing corporate censorship to deny that same
"right to those veterans who have secured it all for us is
"reprehensible and totally beyond the pale."
Now there are a few things that we need to hit from here.
The first being the program's ads are sold by a third party
although the NFL has final say
in what ads are considered acceptable.
Also according to the NFL, this is actually not
the first ad submitted by American Veterans.
Reportedly, they originally had an ad that was accepted but then
later decided to change it.
The first ad reading, "We stand for veterans" and it included
text describing what benefits the organization offers to vets.
Then, according to a spokesperson,
they asked to change it last Wednesday with the new line
"#PleaseStand".
And according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy,
"The Super Bowl game program is designed for fans to commemorate
"and celebrate the game, players,
"teams and the Super Bowl.
"It's never been a place for advertising that could be
"considered by some as a political statement.
"The NFL has long supported the military and veterans and will
"again salute our service members in the Super Bowl with
"memorable on-field moments that
"will be televised as part of the game.
"We look to work with the organization and asked it to
"consider other options such as 'Please Honor our Veterans'.
"They chose not to, and we asked it to consider,
"'Please Stand for Our Veterans'.
"Production was delayed as we awaited an answer.
"As the Program was going to production,
"the organization asked about including a hashtag,
"and was informed that approval would not be provided in time
"and was asked to approve the ad without the hashtag.
"The organization did not respond and the program
"ultimately went into production to meet deadlines."
So essentially their argument is we approved your ad,
then you asked for a last second change.
We couldn't come to an agreement.
You then didn't respond.
We couldn't hold off production any longer so
that's why you didn't get your ad.
But then, American Veterans went
on Fox News and disputed the claim.
- First, that statement outlines a series of events
that we did not experience.
We were highly engaged with the advertising agency.
The statement also does talk about the fact that there was a
agency between us and the NFL.
They're the ones who we communicated with.
They're the ones that came and pitched us for this ad.
We met all the deadlines
and we did respond to them at the end
when we told them, no, we would not change our message.
That our message is our values and we can't change our values.
- Now where we end up with all of this
is a very awkward situation.
You have a lot of people arguing and debating that
American Veterans is lying, the NFL is lying.
Maybe there was just miscommunication.
People saying the NFL's is lying here,
they just wanted to shut down this ad.
They're over this controversy
but they accidentally sparked a new controversy.
Others saying American Veterans is lying.
That they created a situation where there would be
controversy, where there would be news coverage so they could
get out actually more people.
The ad in the program would only go to Super Bowl attendees.
With this controversy has made now international news.
We've that model used by other organizations in the past like
PETA who always goes over the top sexy and then they're like,
"Oh, it's banned.
"The Super Bowl wouldn't let us do it."
Free press coverage.
But I will say that is a big claim against a large charitable
organization that benefits veterans.
So, while of course, I will ask you for your opinion on this,
where I do want to end this story,
I know there's a lot of noise, anger and debate around the
story of kneeling during the national anthem,
this ad here, and I want to go out on a positive.
I personally believe that whether
people are standing for the national anthem,
they are kneeling for the national anthem,
I believe that most everyone has respect and cares
about our Armed Forces and our veterans.
Not all, but I do truly believe that.
And no matter your opinion on the
American Veterans Organization here, what I would ask is
let's make this into a positive.
Let's turn this into a moment
where we donate to a veteran charity.
There are many, Fisher House is a fantastic organization.
DAV is great, The Disabled American Veterans
charitable service trust.
The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation.
I'll include links down below.
And that's where I'm going to end today's show.
And remember, if you liked this video,
you like what I try and 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 videos which actually if
you did miss yesterday's show, you want to catch up,
click or tap right there to watch that.
Or if you want something nicer, lighter
watch the new behind the scenes vlog from today.
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 tomorrow.