What JiDion's Arrest & Meltdown Really Exposed
PDS Published 07/07/2026
-
This situation has got people on the internet freaking out, sounding off, and also saying that it actually exposes a much bigger problem.
If you're not familiar with Jidion, he's what we'll call a reformed YouTube prankster turned predator catcher, and he's been at the center of this very humiliating controversy that he put himself into.
And it has him now saying:
"I'm never going to stream again. You know, genuinely, you know, I love streaming, but it's just too much. Too much bad comes with it."
To fully understand and appreciate the situation we're in now, and what this means for even more people moving forward, it's important to know that he has kind of had a dramatic arc over the past several years.
Starting as a prankster in 2019, or as other people would call it, a public nuisance streamer who kind of harassed people for content. Over the next few years, he'd go viral for things like pretending to kidnap a kid, encouraging people to say racial slurs, disrupting college classrooms—that kind of thing—until you had him getting kicked out of large events. He got permanently banned from Twitch a few years ago, and he's apologized more than once for his behavior.
Then you have all of this reaching a new level last month in the small town of Woodhaven because fellow YouTuber Skeeter Jean claimed that his Uncle Joe had been financially exploiting and abusing his grandmother—or Joe's mother—for a decade by squatting at her house despite warnings from the family to leave.
So, in a plan to force Joe out, he had Jidion move into the house. And it actually seemed to work, with Joe seemingly fleeing to a local McDonald's.
But Jidion, Skeeter Jean, their crew, and a handful of fans followed him.
So Joe calls the cops, and an officer then tells them:
"Hey, y'all have to leave or you're going to be arrested for trespassing, since the McDonald's doesn't want you here."
But they then appear to kind of just stand on the sidewalk, continuing to yell and talk to drivers entering the lot.
Then a couple of other crew members try to go inside the restaurant, which is when the cops move in.
"So what are you doing?"
"For each piece, we'll be stopping trespassing."
"Oh, this is the saddest scene in my life. This is a violation of rights."
"This is violence."
"You cannot arrest somebody that never went inside and was never trespassed."
"Ma'am, they are arresting children that never went inside of a McDonald's."
"Call the DA and see how fast that gets dropped."
And he's yelling:
"You're under arrest for being free. Freedom. Freedom of speech. You can go on the sidewalk."
"You want to waste your time? I am a multi-millionaire. I promise you, I can take this as far as you go."
"I don't understand all this. Like, over nothing but something so stupid."
"Some YouTube views."
And so he's been charged with breach of peace and stalking, with a pretrial hearing set for next week.
He says that he spent six figures on legal fees while he's actually facing jail time, though I don't think he's actually going to get jail.
The bigger risk for him, potentially, is his reputation, which is now in tatters.
See, a couple of years ago, he apparently decided, "Hey, I'm going to turn my act around."
He supposedly had this come-to-Jesus moment.
"I was with my girl. We were in an Uber back from her college. Then right when we got back to the crib, the Uber driver looked back at us and asked us a question."
"She said, 'If you guys were to die right now, would you go to heaven or would you go to hell?'"
"I had to be honest with myself. I had to look into myself, and I was like, the way I'm living right now, if God was to take my breath away right now, I'm going to hell."
So he deletes most of his old prank videos.
He starts doing this "Catch a Predator"-style content where he confronts men who supposedly messaged underage girls.
"You say you want to kiss your lips while sliding my tongue deep inside as I slowly lick and suck on your..."
"I don't remember it, but if it's there, it's there."
So essentially, Jidion kind of rebranded himself as a public servant rather than a public nuisance, and it seemed to really work.
He's been extremely successful with it.
But now, with this whole situation with Skeeter Jean, you've got a lot of his fans saying, "Oh, it's actually the old Jidion."
What people really seem to be latching onto is the "I'm a millionaire" comment, which came off as incredibly arrogant, especially given the way that he talked back when he said he turned his life to God.
"This fortune that I have on Earth is nothing compared to the fortune I can have in the Kingdom of Heaven."
And so now, after the genuinely huge blow-up from his arrest and the raw footage getting posted online by the Code Blue Bodycam channel, you have people wondering if he's having a second born-again moment.
"Genuinely, during the last few weeks, I've done a lot of self-reflection."
"I've been talking to my fiancée a lot, and I just kind of came to realize, you know, what I was doing wrong."
"I was genuinely, genuinely, genuinely losing the plot."
"And while I still don't think I committed a crime, I've come to realize that, you know, genuinely, streaming makes me the worst version of myself."
"You see somebody in the chat say, 'boring' or 'L stream' or something like that, and then it flips a switch in you."
"You want to be more entertaining. You want to pump up the levels. You just want to entertain."
He had him saying that almost every scandal or controversy he's gotten himself into has been caused by something he did while he was streaming.
Pointing, for example, to his feud with Pokimane, where she got flooded with negative comments from people who appeared to be Jidion's fans, with her at the time tweeting:
"The hate women in gaming receive has become so normalized."
Jidion responded:
"My dislike for her has nothing to do with her gender, but her as a person."
While he did eventually apologize, it wasn't before Twitch banned him.
As another example, he pointed to his drama with the Paul brothers when he quit the Prime Squad after being with Jake and supporting Logan's opponent in a UFC event.
Anyway, Jidion says that the desire for affirmation makes streaming so addictive, and that's what keeps pushing him over the edge.
"I have a fragile, fragile ego where comments and things people say affect me."
"I realized the last couple of days I felt like the reason why I got to this point is because I haven't been reading comments."
"I haven't been looking at videos about me talking about the situation, and it's letting me come to a much clearer view."
Though he also later seemed to contradict himself there, admitting that he has been reading the comments since his arrest.
"I've seen some of you guys in the comment section calling it out, like, 'You're going back to your old self.'"
"Like, dibbling and dabbling in pranks and stuff."
"I'm getting spammed with 'I'm a multi-millionaire.'"
You also had him going back and forth on whether this was even an apology video.
At first:
"I'm not on here apologizing or anything because I don't owe you guys an apology."
"You know what I mean? I didn't affect any of y'all."
But then later:
"I do want to apologize for one thing."
"I apologize for the distractions."
"I apologize for the slop content."
"And I apologize for pretty much forgetting about the mission."
"I need to grow up."
"I need to take accountability."
"I need to mature."
But regardless, he says the conclusion is that the shenanigans are stopping.
"The shenanigans are over."
"I don't know how to control myself."
"And so the best way to control myself is to distance myself."
"I quit streaming."
"I quit nuisance stuff."
"I quit all that."
"I genuinely just want to do good for society."
That said, it doesn't seem like he's done making videos.
He's just done streaming.
In fact, it doesn't even seem like he's done with the Michigan town where all these Skeeter Jean antics took place.
"Weirdly enough, bro, I want to go back to Woodhaven, and I want to catch a predator there."
But at least judging from the reactions online, it appears like a lot of people—including a number of his fans—are not buying it.
On Reddit, you've got person after person saying this seems like a desperate effort to avoid jail, while others believe he's genuine but doubt that he's actually going to keep his word.
Then on YouTube, at least all the top comments are just dunking on him for the "I'm a multi-millionaire" comment and for using the word "genuinely" so many times during his video, writing things like:
"Multi-genuine."
"Genuinely maxing."
"As a multi-millionaire."
"20% apology, 80% 'genuinely.'"
Then there are also people saying, "Hey, put Jidion aside."
The message about streaming making you want to make things go crazier and crazier—that is the real core problem that we're seeing.
Streaming is kind of the perfect vessel for that because a lot of what we saw with pranksters and nuisance content has really just evolved into streamer culture.
People just doing the craziest stuff ever in hopes of getting live viewers, as well as people clipping the hell out of them because there's a monetary incentive.
It also boosts your reach.
And so, with that, you've got a number of people looking at whatever happens next with Jidion as maybe being a bit of a forecast for what this means for other creators moving forward.
We're going to have to wait to see how all this plays out.
In the meantime, I do have to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts about this whole situation?
And then there's more we got to dive into in just a minute.
-
But first, let me thank today's sponsor and say, you know, here's a fun fact: cooking is not the part I hate. It's really figuring out what to cook. That's exhausting.
Which is why today's sponsor, HelloFresh, makes so much sense to me.
I genuinely think that it gets me cooking things I'd probably never make on my own. I don't have to scroll through recipes for half an hour, buy six ingredients I'll use one time, and then realize halfway through dinner I forgot something at the store.
Everything shows up pre-portioned and ready to cook.
And so I get the fun part of making dinner without all the planning that usually takes me out of it.
And the meals don't get repetitive.
HelloFresh has more than 80 recipes every month, with flavors inspired by places like Vietnam, Morocco, and the Caribbean, using ingredients like lemongrass, gochujang, curry paste—things that I probably would have walked right past in the grocery store.
It's made cooking less like another thing I have to do and more like something I get to do with my family.
Hey, go to HelloFresh right now to get 10 free meals and free breakfast for one box with an active subscription.
Free meals are applied as a discount on your first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan.
That's HelloFresh to get 10 free meals plus free breakfast for one box.
Because honestly, nothing hits like home cooking.
HELLO FRESH
Go to https://HelloFresh.com/defranco10fm now to get 10 free meals + a Free breakfast for Life! One per box with active subscription.
-
But then, diving right back into the news, Graham Plattner's Senate campaign might just be done.
"Did Graham Plattner rape you?"
"By definition? Yes, absolutely."
Those words came from Jenny Raczka, and the man she is now accusing of rape is Maine Senate candidate Graham Plattner.
He's been a focal point—a lightning rod—this campaign season. He was introduced to the political world as a Marine veteran and an oyster farmer, and until now, he'd been seen as one of the Democratic Party's best hopes for flipping a Republican Senate seat in November.
He's been pushing this progressive, populist platform that we've been seeing have success here and there.
At least until now, he's seemingly shed controversy after controversy.
That includes things like having a tattoo that looked like a Nazi symbol, offensive online posts that he made over a period of several years, and allegations about his past treatment of women.
You've largely seen supporters arguing, "Hey, all of that is just a distraction. It's an effort to undermine his campaign."
Also, it didn't seem like there was a never-ending firehose of allegations.
Last August, for example, there was that whole scandal where Plattner's wife told a senior campaign aide that he had been exchanging sexual messages with other women.
There, you had a lot of people saying, "Hey, it's a marriage. Their relationship. It's none of our business. Keep it separate from politics."
Then last month, you had The New York Times sharing stories from three women who had dated Plattner over the years and said that he could be demeaning toward women and, in at least one case, physically threatening.
Actually, Jenny Raczka was one of those women.
She described an incident that took place in 2021 in which Plattner arrived at her house drunk after she had asked him not to come over.
Reportedly—and this is a big thing—she chose not to describe that encounter in any more detail, only saying that she found his behavior to be reckless and unsettling.
But then you had Plattner winning his primary despite all that.
Now, roughly a month later, she's come forward with what she says is the full truth of what happened that night.
Telling Politico and then CNN that Plattner forced her to have sex with him despite her repeated objections.
Politico also spoke to the man she dated after Plattner, whom she had confided in about the alleged assault.
Their reporting says that his account of what Raczka told him matched what she told the outlet.
They also spoke to a friend that Raczka had told about the alleged assault last summer, shortly after Plattner launched his campaign.
The friend also recalled Raczka telling her about the incident, including her saying that Plattner had been very drunk and wouldn't take no for an answer.
In addition to all of that, you had Raczka sharing private, years-old Facebook messages in which she told an acquaintance that she had ended up in a, quote, "bad situation" with Plattner, describing him as essentially careless and saying:
"He doesn't listen to you when drunk."
She also explained that she ended up feeling compelled to come forward after seeing the reaction to the Times story, which was dominated by controversy surrounding another woman by the name of Lindsey Fifield.
Her allegations against Plattner didn't include sexual assault, but they were dismissed by a number of people because she's conservative and had worked for Republican campaigns.
As far as Raczka, she noted that she actually agrees with Plattner politically, which is also part of why she said she was hesitant to go public in the first place.
"It was actually one of the reasons that I didn't come out."
"Because you agree with his politics?"
"I do. I really agree with his politics."
"I think we need somebody with those political stances and who's willing to do the work."
"I'm just here to tell my story, to give a clearer picture of who he is and the type of past that he has."
"I just think it's fair to the democratic process to let people know who they're voting for."
With that, you still quickly had the Plattner campaign coming out with a statement, seeming to argue that Raczka's story was politically motivated, saying:
"These allegations are very serious, and Graham vigorously denies them."
They also claimed:
"They are also coached and coordinated by out-of-state establishment operatives."
Adding:
"It is not a coincidence that this story comes a week before the ballot deadline, just as the previous false allegations came a week before the primary."
"No amount of desperate smears will stop this movement from seeing that vision through."
You then had Plattner posting a video on social media himself, claiming:
"Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false."
But he also seemed to suggest that he's at least considering dropping out.
"Regardless of the inaccuracies of the reporting, but mindful of the political reality it will inflict..."
"We are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins."
With all that, you then pretty much had the entire Democratic Party pushing Plattner to remove himself from the race.
That includes establishment Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer, who was never a big fan of Plattner, as well as progressive supporters like Congressman Ro Khanna and Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Warren said in a statement:
"There can be no tolerance for sexual assault."
Adding:
"With so much at stake, the best path forward is for Graham Plattner to step aside as the Democratic nominee and address these serious allegations outside the Senate race."
In addition to politicians, you also had groups like Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the country's largest abortion rights organization—which had recently endorsed Plattner—taking back its endorsement, along with several other organizations doing the same.
Also, with this, you had Lindsey Fifield—one of the women who accused Plattner of toxic and physically threatening behavior—slamming Democrats for not speaking out against him until now, writing:
"I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our story seriously when The New York Times reported them in June, but are taking them seriously now."
With that, she also slammed The New York Times, accusing the paper of failing to properly follow up on all the leads that she gave them to verify her story.
Another reaction that's been getting a lot of attention came from former Republican Congressman and former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who told Fox:
"The one thing I know about Republicans: when we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn't vote for that person."
"We walked away from it, for better or for worse."
"When Matt Gaetz came forward, we got rid of him."
Though, of course, what he seems to be forgetting is that Donald Trump—the Republican elected president—besides having faced many accusations of sexual misconduct, has also been found civilly liable for sexual abuse.
Just so we're on the same page, the judge later clarified that what the jury found Trump did was, in fact, rape as commonly understood.
With all of this, as far as what happens next, Plattner has only until July 13 to withdraw from the race.
If he does, the Maine Democratic Party has only until July 27 to replace him.
While there's no official process for selecting a new nominee, party officials have already begun discussing possible options, including a pop-up convention on the weekend of July 25 to choose a nominee or holding a statewide caucus to essentially redo the party's primary.
Also with this, you've had someone described as close to the campaign telling The New York Times that if Plattner were to step down, it would only be with a guarantee of being replaced by a candidate whom he believes is true to the values, vision, and policy agenda that Maine voters supported.
So then we've seen a few names being floated around as possible replacements for Plattner.
But we're going to have to wait and see what happens because the road forward is incredibly messy, and that's putting it lightly.
Democratic leadership can't just put Janet Mills back in because the state has effectively already voted against her and her platform.
So then you're thinking: who's the candidate that's closest to carrying forward the progressive, populist agenda that Plattner was running on, all within an incredibly tight timeline?
At the same time, even if Plattner didn't say anything when he dropped out, it would kind of become the unspoken reality that someone accused of being essentially a rapist had endorsed the replacement candidate.
Ultimately, we're going to have to see how all of this plays out.
But as we wait to see how that unfolds, we should also talk about the outrage we're seeing around a new platform called Wildfire.
-
Because it is a prediction market specifically focused on wildfires in California.
Its slogan is:
"You can't predict fire, but you can trade on it."
It's positioning itself as a new way to monitor and track fire behavior, with its site explaining:
"Prediction markets harness the wisdom of crowds to surface what models and satellites might miss."
"Wildfire turns collective intelligence into better wildfire forecasting, one trade at a time."
The platform features a map of hot spots and ongoing fires and allows you to wager on whether or not more acres will burn within a certain period of time.
While, in its fine print, it does note that right now these wagers aren't for real money—it's simulated trading.
Multiple reports say that the ability to bet with real money is, in fact, coming, and that's prompted a ton of concern.
Because even though betting on storms and weather isn't new, fire isn't like rain or snow.
Someone can start a fire.
In fact, if you look into it, the vast majority of wildfires are caused by humans, at least in some way.
And so you had a spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service saying:
"Systems that tie financial gain to wildfire outcomes risk encouraging misuse, including arson, and are not compatible with our mission."
They also dismissed it as a forecasting tool, saying:
"The Forest Service does not use information from prediction markets for wildfire forecasting."
"We do not rely on any system that treats wildfire as an event for speculation."
Which I will say, I feel insane even having to repeat because, yeah, it feels like an idea so ridiculous and so stupid that it's actually social commentary about what prediction markets have become.
Though I also do want to note that while this platform claims to be the first service specifically for trading on California wildfires, this is not the first time people have wagered on fires.
You might remember the controversy last year when the fires in Los Angeles burned down thousands of homes and killed dozens of people.
People were able to bet on how far those fires would spread, what neighborhoods they would reach, and when they would be contained.
With that, you had op-eds popping up accusing the site of gamifying the pain and suffering of living, breathing human beings.
Actually, at the time, Polymarket took a similar angle to what Wildfire is doing now, insisting that prediction markets can be useful.
Explaining:
"These markets address the same questions being discussed across cable news."
"We've proven that prediction markets can be an invaluable alternative information source for those seeking real-time quantitative forecasts."
But then you had people pushing back.
Instead of just saying what I would say—"Stop lying, you fucking liars."—you had the Los Angeles Times talking to the director of USC's Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making, who said:
"I have a hard time imagining that people are logging on to Polymarket to decide whether or not to evacuate."
He also said that it opens the door to tons of other problems.
Because, of course, there's the incentive to start fires.
And then on top of that, it could lead to a callous attitude toward other people's suffering.
"If we gamify life-and-death issues, it could really negatively influence culture and society in ways we don't want."
The timing here is also wild because it is currently wildfire season, and it could actually be a pretty bad one.
Experts warn that the record-breaking snow drought in some areas of the state could lead to a worse fire season because there's going to be less snowmelt and moisture to protect vegetation.
Then on top of that, there was record-breaking heat in March, meaning vegetation started growing early and then dried out weeks ahead of schedule.
And so, what do you know?
The season arrived ahead of schedule, with fires already burning thousands of acres across Southern California.
Also, because we have an El Niño event heading California's way this year, the rest of the fire season is kind of up in the air.
Honestly, this is my take.
I think the only prediction market regarding fires like this that I would support would be betting the over on how many of the people who work for and support Wildfire die in a wildfire.
That could maybe be some market manipulation I could get behind.
No, I'm just joking.
Legally speaking.
And then we've got even more that we've got to dive into in just a minute.
-
But first, let me thank today's sponsor and say, you know, here's a reminder that scammers have absolutely zero shame.
Like the new scam where you get a message saying a loved one's been in an accident. You panic, you click the photo, and instead you install malware that quietly steals your banking information.
That's the kind of stuff that makes today's sponsor, NordVPN, feel less optional.
NordVPN has become more than just a VPN.
It is an all-in-one digital security app with a next-generation antivirus that helps stop online threats before they become your problem.
One feature I really like is Threat Protection.
It helps block malicious links, dangerous downloads, and scam sites even when I'm not connected to the VPN.
It's one bad click—that's all it takes.
I'd rather have another layer of protection than hope that I never make a mistake.
Whenever I'm traveling or using hotel or airport Wi-Fi, NordVPN is already on. It's just part of my routine.
One subscription protects up to 10 devices, so my laptop, phone, tablet, and more are all covered.
Especially as scammers get better at exploiting fear and urgency, which is exactly why these scams work.
Hey, upgrade your online security by scanning that QR code or going to NordVPN to get an exclusive discount on a two-year plan, plus four extra months free when you use my link.
That's NordVPN, and it's completely risk-free with NordVPN's 30-day money-back guarantee.
NORD VPN
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at https://nordvpn.com/phil Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!
-
And then let's dive back into the news.
Our final block today: more news you need to know, starting with Walmart.
They say they're cutting prices to, quote, "make the most of the summer."
You've got Trump taking credit for all of it.
Ground beef is dropping by 12%. The price of cherries is getting cut in half. Coke, household products, toys, clothes—rollbacks all over the store.
With this, you had Trump saying on Truth Social that they're doing all this at his administration's request to celebrate our great country's 250th birthday.
But as far as Walmart, they haven't responded to his post yet.
In their announcement, they didn't mention anything about a conversation with the White House.
You're just seeing things like their Executive Vice President saying:
"Customers count on Walmart to deliver the value they need every day."
So that's why they're making even more investments in price, helping everyone save money.
This is also weird timing on Trump's part because Walmart was one of the many companies that spoke out against his tariffs last year.
Their CEO at the time said:
"The merchandise that we import comes from all over the world."
"All of the tariffs create cost pressure for us."
So he said higher tariffs were going to result in higher prices.
And that is exactly what happened.
There was Trump at the time saying Walmart should stop trying to blame tariffs for raising prices.
"They should eat the tariffs and not charge valued customers anything."
Then, on top of what many saw as just having a pretty unrealistic take, he also generally brushed off affordability issues as fake.
"The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats."
So while Trump is trying to frame all this as a win for his team, you've got a lot of people calling BS.
What it actually seems like happened is that Walmart took the refund money it received after the Supreme Court struck down Trump's tariffs and used it to lower prices for customers.
Because with that money, you had Walmart's Chief Financial Officer saying:
"We think the single best return that we can have on a dollar of capital right now is to invest in the customer and invest in price."
So that's why you might have seen people pushing back on Trump's post, saying the price cuts are being offset by the tariff refunds the company is getting back from the Trump administration.
They're saying Trump is trying to take credit for a solution to a problem that he created.
-
Also in the news, we should talk about how a college football coach was just hit with multiple charges after a freshman collapsed and died during his first day of practice.
Mark Colbert was a strength and conditioning coach for Bucknell University football.
On the first day of practice, he forced Calvin Dickey Jr. and the rest of the players to do 100 up-downs along with full-body planks.
That's after officials said other coaches had told Colbert those exercises weren't safe, adding that they went against the training he had received from the university.
Dickey had sickle cell trait.
He was visibly struggling with the drills.
Reportedly, Colbert didn't step in to help until Dickey had already passed out, according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday.
Dickey was eventually taken to the hospital, but he died two days later.
The autopsy showed that he died from complications related to his sickle cell trait in combination with the training exercises, his weight, and other contributing factors.
With that, Sunday said that Colbert had put Dickey through an intentional, deliberate hazing event.
"This law exists because it recognizes what hazing is: criminal conduct that, in the best possible scenario, humiliates and dehumanizes an individual, and at its worst, takes lives and leaves families and friends forever changed."
Along with that charge, Colbert is also facing misdemeanor counts of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
Though his attorney said:
"The strength and conditioning program was appropriate and in accordance with the training that Mr. Colbert received."
Adding:
"There are facts and other circumstances surrounding this matter that, once presented at the appropriate time, will demonstrate that Mr. Colbert did not commit the crimes charged."
For now, his bail has been set at $10,000.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 31.
Then the last bit of news today is that there's another lawsuit against DHS. Right.
-
And this time we've got a guy by the name of David Schriever, who claims that DHS violated his First Amendment rights by tracking him down over an email that he sent to former ICE Director Todd Lyons.
The email was in response to remarks Lyons had made.
Schriever called him a monstrous human being, comparing him to a Nazi who oversaw the secret police, writing:
"You will seek to lose yourself to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth."
And that was back in January.
So when DHS agents came looking for him a few weeks ago—about five months later—he said:
"Writing an email to the head of ICE seemed like the least I could do to express my sense of outrage."
"I never dreamed it would lead to a knock on my door by federal officers, or them descending on my hotel in the dark of night."
He was actually on a trip to Finland with his daughter when agents first showed up at his house.
They left his wife with a written warning for him saying that the email he sent was considered a threat and that he may have violated federal law.
While his wife told the agents when he would be back, that apparently just wasn't soon enough.
Agents then tried to confront him at a New York City hotel before he could even make it home.
But there, hotel staff reportedly turned them away.
So that same night, agents reportedly called him repeatedly, leaving voicemail after voicemail trying to get in touch.
He even had to tell his seven-year-old daughter that he might get confronted on the way home, which he said brought her to tears because she was afraid they were going to kill him.
Now you've got his legal team firing back, saying:
"If someone is really threatening a government official, you don't wait five months to act on it."
The fact that authorities didn't respond immediately, they argue, shows that Schriever presented no real threat.
While DHS says it investigates all threats made toward employees and officers like Lyons, the agency hasn't actually specified why Schriever's email was considered a credible threat in the first place.
With that, his legal team also said:
"Americans have a clear right to criticize government officials."
"When federal agents come to your door and ask you to stop engaging in political speech, it's an act of intimidation that the Constitution doesn't tolerate."
That is when you had Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who is also named in the lawsuit, claiming:
"Any allegation that DHS and its components are attempting to squash free speech is categorically false."
We're going to have to see what happens with the courts.
As far as Schriever's take on all this, he says:
"I cherish our right to speak openly about issues of public concern."
"I hope others will not be discouraged from peacefully expressing their views, even when those views are critical of the government."
And then, my friend, you beautiful bastard, I think this is a fantastic place to end today's show.
You might be tired of the bullshit. You might be emotionally exhausted.
But never let them make you shut up.
You still have the choice and the ability to use your voice.
With that said, thank you for watching this Tuesday Philip DeFranco Show.
I love your faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
