The Dave Chappelle Free Speech Situation is Pathetic & Trump’s Portland & Chicago Invasions Escalate
PDS Published 10/06/2025
-
It seems like all hell is breaking loose in Portland and Chicago – and that may be exactly what Trump wants.
Right, because even as both cities fight his efforts to send in the military, federal agents already in them have been accused of escalating – seemingly trying to make them resemble the crime-ridden, war-ravaged wastelands he’s made them out to be.
In Portland, for example, what we’ve seen has been a few months of pretty small protests based around a building used by ICE in the southwest part of the city.
But you’ve had Trump claiming that what’s been taking place is the destruction of the city.
With him vowing to deploy troops to protect “War ravaged Portland” as well as ICE Facilities under attack by “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
And all this attention has reportedly spurred people from outside the city to come there – including right-wing counter-demonstrators.
And this weekend, in fact, you reportedly had right-wing activists and influencers waving banners and cheering when federal agents shot tear gas, flash-bangs and pepper balls toward a crowd of more than 100 protesters gathered outside the ICE building (BROLL: 0:28-0:45, 1:19-1:26). []
With outlets reporting that this represented a significant escalation in ICE’s tactics against the demonstrators – without any obvious provocation.
Also noting that agents had previously kept their crowd dispersal efforts to the driveway and street immediately outside the building but this time extended their efforts by several blocks. []
But all that said, as this was happening – again in one small corner of the city – you also had the legal battle playing out (BROLL: 0:11-0:14)
And also on Saturday, a Trump-appointed judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from sending in Oregon’s National Guard.
With her pointing to “substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days — or even weeks — leading up to the President’s directive.” []
Also saying that she expected a trial court to agree with the state that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority.
And so of course the administration quickly appealed – but you also had Trump trying to just get around her order by trying to send in 200 members of the California National Guard who had already been sent to Los Angeles.
And notably, with that, a different federal judge already ruled last month that the troops sent to the LA area had been used illegally as a “national police force.”
And in response to Trump’s effort to turn them on another state, you actually had California saying it’d be joining Oregon to sue Trump.
But you also had the judge in the Portland case quickly calling an emergency hearing and revising her restraining order to cover “the relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon.”
With her also telling Justice Department lawyers that the president was “in direct contravention” of her order. []
But despite all that, you ALSO had Trump on Saturday ordering the activation of 300 National Guard troops to Chicago against the wishes of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.
And last night, you further had Pritzker claiming that the Guard in his state had been informed that Trump had ordered 400 members of the Texas National Guard to be in his state as well as others, including Oregon, although that was before the judge’s revised order.
But in any case, with that, the state of Illinois and Chicago are now suing the Trump administration as well.
And while we wait to see if they also get the National Guard deployment blocked, we’ve similarly seen outlets reporting that federal agents in Chicago have become increasingly aggressive.
Right, videos of agents deploying tear gas, pepper balls and roughly throwing protesters to the ground have gone viral (BROLL: 0:33-0:41; 1:56-2:05).
On Friday, for example, federal agents reportedly threw a tear gas canister at people on a busy street and then leaving the scene – with this also happening right in front of an elementary school.
And on Saturday, you had an agent shooting and injuring a driver who Trump officials claimed rammed her car into a federal law enforcement vehicle.
And then DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin describing the shooting incident as a response to an “ambush” carried out by “domestic terrorists” who also threw gas, rocks and bottles at law enforcement
Law enforcement also alleged that the driver had been armed with a semiautomatic weapon but charging documents didn’t mention a weapon.
And so you’ve had Pritzker saying he wanted more information and didn’t really trust the official account:
“It’s really hard to know exactly what the facts are, and they won’t let us access the facts.”
“They are just putting out their propaganda. And then we’ve got to later determine what actually happened.” (BYTE: 5:05-5:17)
And with that, you’ve also had Pritzker saying he had directed state agencies to investigate a recent raid at an apartment building on Chicago’s South Side
With him referring to reports that children had been zip-tied and held and that elderly people had been thrown into a U-Haul for three hours – with him also saying he believed some of the people detained were U.S. citizens. []
And with all that, you have him making the argument that this chaos is what Trump wants:
“They are the ones that are making it a war zone…They want mayhem on the ground. They want to create the war zone, so that they can send in even more troops.” (BYTE: 2:05-2:08, 3:33 - 3:38)
So with that, I’ll pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on all this? And where do you think we go from here?
-
The Riyadh (Ree-odd) Comedy Festival just turned into a full-blown PR nightmare — with comics now either doubling down their choice to perform… or donating their entire paychecks.
With JessicaKirson (Ker-sin, like person) telling the Hollywood Reporter that she is donating her paycheck from the event to a human rights group.
“My mission has always been to help people feel less alone. As an openly gay person, when I was asked to perform in Re-odd, I was surprised. I requested a guarantee that I could be openly out as a lesbian on stage and perform gay material. I hoped that this could help LGBTQ+ people in Saudi Arabia feel seen and valued. I am grateful that I was able to do precisely that… At the same time, I deeply regret participating under the auspices of the Saudi government.”
With her noting that the government “continues to violate fundamental human rights,” so she decided to donate her money to “an organization that can help combat these severe issues,” though she did not say which one.[]
With her then addressing her fans and saying:
“I will take full responsibility for my actions and dedicate myself to making amends, so that my words and choices reflect the respect and care you deserve.”
And so you have some comics who were critical of the festival now applauding her for donating the money she earned. []
Because, if you need a quick TLDR on this situation, tonsofcomediansare facing backlash for participating in this comedy festival in Saudi Arabia, with nonprofits pointing to the human rights abuses in the country, arguing the event whitewashes these issues.
Other comedians even slamming the event and their fellow-stand ups who participated, some saying they turned the festival down because they did not want to accept money from the Saudi government to be part of this.
Though, many of the stars involved are standing by their choice to perform, with Louis CK being the latest.
He recently told Bill Maher that he was surprised by the backlash, adding:
“When this came up, they said there’s only two restrictions: their religion and their government. I don’t have jokes about those two things. It used to be when I got offers from places like that, there would be a long list, and I’d just say, ‘No, I don’t need that.’ But when I heard it’s opening, I thought, that’s awfully interesting. That just feels like a good opportunity. And I just feel like comedy is a great way to get in and start talking.”
With him even pointing to Jessica Kirson when trying to demonstrate the positive things that could come from the festival, saying:
“There’s a woman who’s a lesbian and Jewish, who did a show there, and she got a standing ovation. So, there’s stuff going on that’s unexpected in this thing.”
And his remarks are pretty similar to ones BillBurr made last week last week on his podcast, too.
“It was a mind-blowing experience. Definitely top three experiences I’ve ever had.” (32:18-32:23)
“I honestly from the bottom of my heart could not have had a better time doing shows for you guys and it was great to experience that part of the world and to be a part of the first comedy festival over there in Saudi Arabia. I think it’s going to lead to a lot of positive things.” (33:11-22:25)
Meanwhile, you had DaveChappelle using his set to not necessarily defend himself, but to take shots at free speech in America compared to speech in Saudi Arabia.
Because according to the New York Times, he said:
“Right now in America, they say that if you talk about Charlie Kirk, that you’ll get canceled. I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m gonna find out.”
“It’s easier to talk here than it is in America.”
Though, he unsurprisingly landed some backlash for saying that, because repression of free speech is one of the most-heavily talked about human rights abuses there, right, the country has been accused of arresting and executing journalists.
But that was not even the only thing Chappelle said about this.
According to the Times, he also spoke about his critical stance on Israel and then said he is afraid of coming back to the U.S. because:[]
“They’re going to do something to me so that I can’t say what I want to say.”
But I would love to know your thoughts on any of this, on these different reactions from people who participated, the sort of major ends of the spectrum here of either apologizing and donating the money, all the way to suggesting that Saudi Arabia has more freedom of speech than the U.S.
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
The Supreme Court just dealt Ghislaine Maxwell a MASSIVE blow.
Right, the high court officially returned to the bench today to kick off what will be yet another incredibly consequential term.
And one of the first things they did was reject Maxwell’s attempt to appeal her criminal conviction for sex-trafficking girls for Jeffrey Epstein.
Right, back in April, Maxwell filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.
With her arguing that she should have never been prosecuted because of the infamous plea deal Epstein had reached with Florida prosecutors in 2008 to resolve allegations he molested dozens of girls.
And specifically, under that deal, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to state criminal charges of soliciting prostitution, and in exchange, prosecutors agreed not to bring more criminal charges against him related to the sex-trafficking investigation.
But, very notably here, the prosecutors also agreed not to charge any of Epstein’s co-conspirators.
So after Maxwell was convicted for her crimes in New York, she attempted to appeal that decision, arguing that Epstein’s plea deal protected her from prosecution.
But an appeals court rejected that claim, ruling that authorities in New York weren’t bound to an agreement made by prosecutors in Florida.
And so by declining to hear her case, the Supreme Court basically put the final nail in the coffin.
Though you did have her lawyer issuing a statement saying that “this fight isn’t over,” and adding:
“Serious legal and factual issues remain, and we will continue to pursue every avenue available to ensure that justice is done.”
But, that said, it’s unclear what else they can really do.
Right, experts say that with this Supreme Court decision, it seems likely that Maxwell’s only hope for an early release from prison would be if Trump granted her clemency.
Now Trump, for his part, said back in July that he hadn’t considered pardoning Maxwell — but he also added, “I'm allowed to do it.”
So, I mean, who the fuck knows what he’ll end up doing.
But, for whatever it’s worth, his administration did urge the Supreme Court not to take up Maxwell’s appeal.
But that brings us to another piece of Epstein-related news.
Which is that Democrats are accusing House Speaker Mike Johnson of refusing to swear in a new representative and denying hundreds of thousands of people a voice in Congress — all so he can continue to block the Epstein files from being released.
Right, as we talked about many times before, Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna proposed a bill to release the Epstein files, but Johnson has refused to even bring it to the floor for a vote.
So, instead, Massie and Khanna have been circulating what’s known as a discharge petition, which would allow them to bypass leadership and force a floor vote as they can collect signatures from a majority of House members.
And for a while now, they have been just one vote away — with several prominent Republicans even joining their charge.
But it seemed like they finally found their final vote after a Democrat named Adelita Grijalva (Add-uh-lee-tuh Gree-hall-vuh) won a special election in Arizona.
With Gree-hall-vuh vowing to sign the discharge petition once she was sworn in.
But, apparently, that’s easier said than done, because even though she was elected two weeks ago, Speaker Johnson has repeatedly refused to swear her in.
Right, the House was out of session all last week in an effort to pressure the Senate to pass the GOP’s stopgap spending bill to keep the government open — an attempt that obviously failed.
But before the government shut down, Johnson held what’s called a pro-forma session, which is basically a brief meeting for members of the House to discuss procedural matters without conducting legislative business.
So Gree-hall-vuh went to Washington early last week in hopes of being sworn in during that session.
And, you know, it wasn’t unreasonable of her to expect this at all because, earlier this year, Johnson swore in two Republican representatives during ANOTHER pro-forma session just one day after they won special elections.
But apparently, Johnson is only willing to do that for members of his own party, because he refused to do the same for Gree-hall-vuh.
With him arguing that, for some reason, he doesn’t want her to take office until the House resumes its normal legislative business, telling CBS on Thursday:
“The House is not on the floor doing business this week, but we will do it immediately early next week as soon as everyone returns to town. We have to have everybody here and we’ll swear her in.”
But the next day, you had Johnson going back on THAT promise as well.
Announcing that he will NOT actually be holding a session this week, instead designating a district work period — which allows Congress members to return to their home states — from October 7th to October 13th.
But then the day after THAT, Johnson signalled that he would be delaying Gree-hall-vuh’s swearing in even MORE, telling reporters that the House will not come back into session until the shutdown ends and the government reopens.
And, of course, we have no idea when that will happen.
So, as a result, you have many Democrats condemning Johnson, arguing that he could call a pro-forma session whenever he wants to make her election official.
And noting that a shutdown doesn’t prevent members from being sworn in — in fact, the ENTIRE house was sworn in when a new Congress started during the month-long shutdown that bled into January 2019.
So, with this, we’ve seen tons of Democrats accusing Johnson of intentionally refusing to swear in Gree-hall-vuh so he can continue blocking the House from even voting on releasing the Epstein files.[][]
And even Gree-hall-vuh herself says she believes this is the only explanation:
But, while it’s important for me to show you the insane lengths Johnson is going to, the fact of the matter is, he can’t put this off forever.
Whether it's days or weeks from now, Gree-hall-vuh will eventually get sworn in, and when she does, that discharge petition will have enough signatures, and the House will be voting on releasing the Epstein files — it’s just a matter of time.
-
The beachfront house of a South Carolina judge who recently ruled against President Trump just went up in flames yesterday, leading to multiple injuries and accusations.
Authorities are still investigating the situation, so information is tight, but here’s what we can say for certain.
At about 11:30 am on Saturday morning, Judge Diane Goodstein was out walking her dogs when her home went up in flames.
Reports indicate that her 81-year-old husband, former state Senator Arnold Goodstein, and another person had to escape via an upper-floor window.
He was reportedly air-lifted to a hospital for injuries, and in total, three people were taken in.
The actual cause of the fire is unknown, but whatever it was, it quickly burned the house down, with aerial footage from the scene showing almost nothing left.
While officially we don’t know the cause, online, people were quick to speculate and many concluded that this was a politically-motivated attack.
That’s because recently, Judge Goodstein had ruled against the Trump administration in an immigration case.
The DoJ wanted South Carolina to hand over the personal data of about 3.3 million voters.
That data would reveal the names, addresses, birthdates, driver’s licenses, and the last four of their Social Security numbers to the Trump administration.
It would then use that info to cross-reference another database to try and see if any undocumented people were unlawfully allowed to cast votes in state elections.
Following her ruling to block that move early last month, her family reportedly received multiple death threats.
But as you can imagine, with how high political tensions are right now and the string of attacks and assassinations we’ve seen on political figures -- to some, her house burning down seemed too much like a coincidence.
So we saw a lot of speculation about the motivations behind the alleged arson.
Right, NY Congressman Daniel Goldman wrote on X yesterday:
“Trump, [Stephen Miller], and MAGA-world have been doxxing and threatening judges who rule against Trump, including Judge Goodstein.
Today, someone committed arson on the Judge’s home, severely injuring her husband and son. Will Trump speak out against the extreme right that did this??” []
However, at the time he wrote that there wasn’t a confirmed suspect or motive -- just heavily assumed given the circumstances.
Which gave Stephen Miller room to write:
“You are vile. Deeply warped and vile. While the Trump Administration has launched the first-ever government-wide effort to combat and prosecute illegal doxing, sinister threats and political violence you continue to push despicable lies, demented smears, malicious defamation and foment unrest. Despicable.” []
He then went on to flip it around and give a whataboutism, saying:
“Meanwhile, the Democrat AG nominee in Virginia is fantasizing about murdering his opponents and a Biden federal judge is showing radical leniency to a monster who tried to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice.
While you post your libelous madness, we will keep focused on delivering public safety and fighting domestic terror.” []
Goldman rebuked this by saying that Miller didn’t actually answer his question and once again asked:
“Do you condemn all political violence or only that against your supporters?” []
But once again, while it’s probably a safe assumption that this was politically motivated, there was no public confirmation at the time.
One reason Miller might be so defensive about the accusation is that just a day before the fire, he wrote:
“The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.” []
Many felt that posts like this motivated people to act on behalf of the Trump administration -- even if Miller was careful to say that “legitimate state power” was to be used to attack those on the left.
Backing up a bit, there’s still a lot we don’t know.
And the mystery of who did it and why are still up in the air.
It’s entirely possible that this WAS politically motivated, and when we find out more we’ll be sure to update you guys.
-
The US has killed at least four more people off the coast of Venezuela it claimed without evidence were drug traffickers – and according to Trump – strikes on Venezuelan territory may come next.
And all of this? It’s coming as he's also attempting to justify these and future attacks by arguing the US is literally at war with drug cartels his team has designated terrorist organizations.
Right, and with that, while we may not have known exactly how it would all play out, we’ve been building toward this point for nearly the entirety of Trump’s second term.
It was back in February that Trump designated eight Latin American criminal groups as "foreign terrorist organizations” – six from Mexico, one from El Salvador, and one from Venezuela.
With the Venezuela-based group being Tren de Aragua – which Trump has claimed is directed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
And that’s even though 1) U.S. intelligence assessment has said that was not true.
And 2) experts have also noted that the group is not deeply involved in narcotics trafficking.
But in any case, we then saw Trump invoking wartime powers to deport migrants the admin accused of being members of TdA without due process –
With him arguing that the group was engaged in “irregular warfare” against the US at the direction of Maduro.
Fast forward to July and Trump signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against the recently designated Latin American foreign terrorist organizations.
In August, we started seeing a buildup of American firepower in the southern Caribbean Sea.
And in September, the US launched at least three strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the region – killing at least 17 people according to the administration.
It’s been reported that at least one of those boats the US took out may have actually turned around before being hit.
But you’ve still had the administration also describing these strikes as acts of “self-defense.”
With the argument basically being it had the legal authority to kill these people without any due process because they were smuggling drugs into the US for terrorist organizations – not that it provided any evidence.
But despite that, last week, you had Trump doubling down on the argument and even taking it a step further – with him sending a formal notice to Congress framing these strikes as part of an ongoing conflict rather than isolated acts of “self-defense.”
With the notice claiming the drugs smuggled by these cartels kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and constitute an "armed attack" against U.S. citizens. []
And adding that Trump thereby “determined” that members of drug cartels are “unlawful combatants” with whom the US is engaged in “non-international armed conflict.”
And very notably, in an armed conflict, as defined by international law at least, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts. []
Also, worth pointing out, that phrase "unlawful combatants"? It’s the same term the George W. Bush administration used to describe Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks – and that’s a comparison we’ve repeatedly seen made.
With Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth actually doing so over the weekend when asked about the legality of the strikes by Fox News over the weekend:
“Oh, we have every authorization needed. These are designated as foreign terrorist organizations… They’re effectively designated just like al‑Qaeda. If I saw al‑Qaeda conducting something that was going to threaten to kill Americans, I had the right to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you’re north of Venezuela and you want to traffic drugs to the United States, you are a legitimate target of the United States military. And these strikes — we know where they’re coming from, who they work for, where they’re going, what they’re carrying, we know how many people are on that boat, and why these are legitimate, clean kills in pursuit of defending the homeland.” (BYTE: 5:51-5:56. 6:06-6:33)
Except….this isn’t the same.
Right, after 9/11 Congress explicitly authorized the use of military force against terrorist organizations specifically responsible for that attack.
It hasn’t authorized the use of military force to target drug cartels. []
With one retired military lawyer who’s also the current director of the national security law program at Georgetown University law school explaining:
“Declaring an organization as an [foreign terrorist organization] does not bring with it any additional authority to use force against those organizations.” []
And so with all that, you’ve also had the likes of John B. Bellinger III, a lawyer who served in the Bush administration, explaining:
“Claiming that the U.S. is engaged in a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with Venezuelan drug traffickers, based on the facts provided so far, is an inapt legal analogy that makes a mockery of accepted international law terms, and perhaps that’s what the Trump Administration intends.” []
And you’ve also had Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, slamming the administration for offering “no credible legal justification, evidence or intelligence” for the strikes – adding:
“Every American should be alarmed that the President believes he can wage secret wars against anyone he chooses.”
"Congress alone has the constitutional power to decide when America goes to war. The President cannot launch military campaigns and invent legal cover after the fact." []
But of course, in the meantime, no one’s stopping him.
Right, on Friday, after Reed made that statement, you had Hegseth announcing that the military had targeted another vessel off the coast of Venezuela – saying four “male narco-terrorists” had been killed– bringing the total to at least twenty-one.
With Hegeseth also claiming without providing evidence the vessel was transporting “substantial amounts of narcotics – headed to America to poison our people” – and adding:
“Our intelligence, without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics, the people onboard were narco-terrorists, and they were operating on a known narco-trafficking transit route. These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!
You also had Trump posting the clip that day and adding:
“A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.”
And that’s actually a claim he repeated on Sunday while delivering a speech for the Navy’s 250th anniversary – with him also saying another strike had been carried out the previous night – although it’s not clear yet if he was actually thinking about the one from Friday:
"In recent weeks, the Navy has supported our mission to blow the cartel terrorists the hell out of the water. You see that? And you know, there are no boats in the water anymore — we can't find any; we're having a hard time finding them.”
“ Every one of those boats is responsible for the death of 25,000 American people and the destruction of families. When you think of it that way, what we're doing is actually an act of kindness. We did another one last night. Now we just can't find any. It's the old story — we're so good at it that there are no boats. In fact, even fishing boats — nobody wants to go into the water anymore. Sorry to tell you that. But we're stopping drugs coming into America.” (BYTE: 33:56-34:14, 34:21-34:54)
But with that, it’s not at all clear how he figured one of those boats would be responsible for those deaths.
Although, notably, you’ve also had him repeating the claim he’s made before that more than 300,000 U.S. citizens die of drug overdoses annually.
But the CDC reported only 87,000 overdose deaths for the year ending in September 2024 – which is still a shit ton of course – but it’s a lot less than 300,000, and it’s a nearly 27 percent decline from the previous year. []
Not to mention the surge in overdose deaths in recent years has been driven by fentanyl, which drug trafficking experts say comes from Mexico.
And even cocaine? That mostly comes from Colombia – and to a lesser extent Peru and Bolivia.
And while some cocaine leaves South America through Venezuela, the country is not a primary source of drugs coming to the US – at least according to a 2020 report from the DEA.
Right, so ultimately, besides the legal rationale for all this being widely criticized, the basic facts he’s trying to back it up with just aren’t there.
But you still had Trump suggesting this might just be the beginning:
“Well, they're not coming in by sea anymore, so now we'll have to start looking about the land because they'll be forced to go by land. And let me tell you right now, that's not going to work out well for them either." (BYTE: 35:16-35:25)
And with that, it was actually first reported a couple of weeks ago that U.S. military officials are drawing up options to target drug traffickers inside Venezuela – with sources telling NBC News that strikes could potentially begin in a matter of weeks.
And since there’s a lot to suggest this isn’t really all about drugs, that leaves the question of what it really is about.
And there, you’ve had the Venezuelan President repeatedly alleging that this is all really aimed at driving him out of power.
And in fact, several top officials in the Trump administration have reportedly been pushing for regime change – including Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio as well as CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
So we’ll have to keep an eye on all this and see where it goes from here, but it could definitely get worse from here..
