Transcript:Prominent conservative, William Kristol — who was one of the most vocal, influential proponents advocating for the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the 2003 Iraq War to remove him — says advocates for President Donal Trump’s war in Iran are already on shaky ground.“Why did we go to war four days ago? And why are we going to continue this war, apparently for weeks or longer? The Trump administration can’t answer either question,” said Kristol. Kristol points out that on Monday CNN reporter Kasie Hunt “posed a sensible question” to Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and who has been acting as an administration surrogate over the last few days: “Did the president not run on not starting a war with Iran?”But Kristol said Sen. Mullin deflected: “This isn’t a war.”“You know the administration’s defenders are in trouble when they resort to this kind of denial of reality,” said Kristol — and this is the conservative who bought former U. S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claim that Iraq was on the cusp of loading up with enough fissile material for nuclear bomb development. Now perhaps a more discerning observer, Kristol points out that “Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had undermined this talking point a few hours earlier, acknowledging that we are in fact at war.”“We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it,” Hegseth said.“So yes, we are at war,” said Kristol. “To deny this is disrespectful both to the American public, who have eyes to see what is happening, and to our servicemen and servicewomen, whom the administration has ordered into harm’s way. Will Sen. Mullin explain to the families of the service members who have died that their loved ones were not fighting in a war?”This does not mean President Donald Trump has anything close to a reason behind his war, however.“The administration hasn’t offered a coherent explanation. Over the weekend, President Trump suggested several purposes and backed away from some, leaving confusion in his wake,” said Kristol. “His aides tried to clean things up yesterday, having Trump read military ‘objectives’ from a teleprompter at the White House. But none of the objectives — destroying Iran’s missile capabilities and its navy, ensuring Iran can’t obtain a nuclear weapon or support terrorism — explain why we had to go to war now. Nor do they explain why we are engaged in such an open-ended and massive military campaign.”Kristol points out that Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio, “tried to help out his boss” on Monday by arguing that the Iranian threat to the U. S. really was imminent, and that it required a preemptive attack. However, last June, Israel was at all-out war with Iran for almost two weeks before the Trump fire upon Iran himself. And during that span Iran launched major attacks against Israel, but hardly any attacks on U. S. assets in the region.“Instead the administration chose a pre-emptive and unauthorized war for which it has offered no coherent rationale. And it now has no sound argument for why this war must be extended,” said Kristol, adding that six U. S. service people have already lost their lives in Trump’s personal war. “The answer is simple: Congress should not give this administration a blank and open-ended check to continue to wage a massive, risky, and unconstitutional war.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was confronted by three U. S. citizens during her hearing before the Senate on Tuesday, as one official demanded answers about why Americans were being snatched by Homeland Security agents, brutalized and arrested under trumped-up charges. The consistent answer from Noem was that she didn't know. She repeatedly stated that she was unaware of the specific cases. "I don't know that situation," Noem said about an agent who fired five times into Marimar Martinez in Chicago. Rep. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) read the statements by the agent who shot Martinez that were turned over in court. The agent bragged that he shot five rounds, but she had seven holes. He also took a trophy photo of her as she lay bleeding, nearly to death. While the DOJ attempted to go after Martinez for impeding them, the judge threw the case out. Noem said that she didn't know the particulars of that case either. It has been a month since Martinez's attorney spoke out on television about her story publicly and just shy of a month since Martinez appeared before a committee on brutality at the hands of federal agents under DHS. "When people look back at this time in history, there's at least some record of the actual truth of what happened here," lawyer Christopher Parente told CNN at the time."Have you met with these citizens?" Blumenthal asked. Noem had not, though she didn't turn around to look at them. Leonardo Garcia Venegas was detained for hours by DHS officials when they came onto his construction site and nabbed him. Over and over he shouted, "I'm from here!" DHS still has a press statement on its website alleging that the claims about what happened were somehow false and that ICE doesn't arrest or deport non-citizens. The "facts" outlined in the statement have been proven time and again in court. In the Venegas case, Noem said she didn't know the particulars but would look into it. Martinez's situation in particular is among those, as she was arrested for somehow impeding federal officers as she was driving past them, and they fired into her car, CNN reported."I don't know the details, but I will look into it," Noem promised. "I don't know why you can't join me in saying it was wrong to shoot her, almost cause her death and then brag about it. Wouldn't you agree it was wrong?" Blumenthal asked. "The way you portrayed it, it appears to be, but let me look into the case," Noem answered. Blumenthal later asked if the agent who shot her and bragged about it was still on duty and still had a gun. "I don't know the details. I will find out and get that info to you," Noem claimed. Blumenthal asked if Noem would agree that he shouldn't be on the job. She would only commit to looking into the case. Javier Ramírez testified before Congress in January that his home was stormed by federal agents with high-powered rifles. He heard one of the agents yelled, "Get him! He's Mexican!" and he was thrown to the ground. "Wouldn't you agree that targeting someone because he is or looks like he is Mexican when he is a U. S. citizen is wrong?" Blumenthal asked. Noem maintained that they don't target people based on their appearance or ethnicity. She also swore that medical attention is given when someone needs it, but conceded it's within 12 hours.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Mark Twain supposedly once said, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story,” but there is a difference between a good story told in fun and a story (supposedly backed by independent scientific research) that people are led to believe because, well, science is supposed to be true. And so we come to the story of Roundup, the herbicide developed by Monsanto that swept the world because it worked and was the “safe” alternative to widely used weedkillers like Dicamba and 2,4-D,—it was said to be safer than table salt! Roundup was developed in the 1970s as a non-selective herbicide, meaning it would kill almost any growing plant it touched. It was an effective burn-down herbicide farmers could apply prior to planting, and it assured an almost weed-free field at the beginning of the growing season. Roundup could be used in non-agricultural situations as well, to kill weeds and grass growing in sidewalk and patio cracks, around buildings, etc, but care was needed because, as noted, it was non-target and could kill whatever plant it touched. For farmers, it worked well, except while it did kill growing weeds, buried weed seeds were not harmed, so a weed-free field at planting time did not ensure a weed-free field throughout the growing season. Weeds would continue to sprout, and more herbicide applications would be needed during the growing season. Then Monsanto developed their big fix released in 1996, genetically engineered (GE) soybeans resistant to Roundup, followed by GE versions of other commodity crops: corn, cotton, sugar beet, and canola. Over-the-top spraying of these GE crops would kill everything but the crop, and Roundup became one of the most widely used herbicides in the world and GE crops came to dominate world commodity crop production. Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so. While Monsanto sold Roundup with the slogan, “One spray is all you’ll ever need,” in time, it became clear that some weeds were developing resistance to Roundup and farmers were right back where they started, looking for herbicides that worked consistently. More genetic modifications were made to commodity crops making them resistant to other herbicides, like Dicamba and 2,4-D, the herbicides Roundup was supposed to have replaced. These multiple GE or “stacked” crops could be sprayed with a cocktail of herbicides, hopefully ensuring weed-free fields for the entire growing season. Farmers are using more herbicide, even on the GE crops, and costs for GE seed have risen much faster than non-GE seed. Of course, the motive was never to reduce the farmer’s production costs or agricultural herbicide use but to increase it—that’s where the profit is. For farmers who didn’t jump on the GE bandwagon, finding non-GE seed is often difficult. Even more onerous, some farmers have found it necessary to plant GE seed as a preventative measure because non-GE crops can be damaged by chemical drift from neighboring GE fields. So much for effectiveness, what about the safety of Roundup? In 2000 a study was published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that deemed the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) was safe and not a human health risk. Since then, that study has been cited consistently as proof of Roundup’s safety. Numerous other studies have shown that glyphosate could cause cancer and that the inert ingredients that are part of the patented Roundup formulation increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Further, the practice of using Roundup as a desiccant on small grain crops (oats, wheat, and barley) prior to harvest puts Roundup directly on grain that enters the human food chain. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has paid out about $11 billion to settle almost 100,000 cancer-related lawsuits with approximately 61,000 still pending. In December of 2025 another blow to the claimed safety of Roundup came when the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal withdrew the 2000 article that had touted Roundup’s safety. While the study claimed to be independent and peer reviewed, it has come to light that Monsanto’s scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the article. Oops. For decades Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe for humans and the environment, and without which “consequences would be dire.” Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so. They claim to produce safe products that help farmers thrive—real independent research refutes that. Bayer and the agribusiness industry may be thriving, but farmers are not and in these times, too few people seem to care that lies are accepted as truth.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump got more bad news on Tuesday, with a new YouGov poll that shows catastrophic numbers for public approval of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In fact, even one in four Republican voters now support abolishing the agency, according to the new data — and a "record high" among Americans in general, noted Zeteo News' Prem Thakker on X."Support for abolishing ICE has hit a new high in this week's Economist / YouGov poll. Half (50%) of Americans now somewhat or strongly support abolishing ICE. Only 39% oppose abolishing the agency," said the report. "This marks the first time support has reached 50% in YouGov polling. Support for abolishing ICE has been steadily growing since January. At the same time, opposition to abolishing ICE has fallen since the start of the year, and now sits at an all-time low."Democrats overwhelmingly support abolishing the agency, with 77 percent. Among independents, abolishing ICE is supported by a 52-35 margin, and even among Republicans, the figure is now at 23 percent, meaning one in four of them want the agency dismantled. Support has also surged for policies to reform ICE, in the event the agency continues to operate in its current form."If ICE is not abolished, majorities of Americans would like to limit ICE officers' ability to act with anonymity," said the report. "Three-quarters (75%) of Americans say that ICE officers should be required to wear uniforms that identify them as part of ICE. Only 14% say they should not. Majorities of Democrats (92%), Independents (77%), and Republicans (57%) support uniform requirements for ICE. A majority (59%) of Americans also say ICE agents should not be allowed to wear masks that hide their faces."This comes after months of turmoil as Trump and his Department of Homeland Security has surged ICE and Border Patrol agents to cities, leading to protests that have only swelled as numerous U. S. citizens are wrongfully arrested and two people were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis. It also comes as federal judges have lost patience with ICE's lack of cooperation with court orders.Our Analysis:The ICEberg of Discontent: Analyzing the Shift in American Public OpinionIn a striking revelation that should send shockwaves through the hallowed halls of the Trump administration, a YouGov poll has laid bare the crumbling foundation of public support for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The data, a veritable slap in the face for the proponents of hardline immigration policies, reveals a seismic shift in the American public's perception of the agency. Let's dissect this further, shall we?The Unmistakable Cracks in the ICESupport for the Abolition of ICE Hits Record Highs: For the first time in YouGov polling history, a whopping 50% of Americans now somewhat or strongly support the idea of dissolving ICE. This isn't just a minor uptick; it's a landslide of disillusionment. The opposition, now huddled at a mere 39%, is witnessing its fortress of support crumble. What does this tell us? That the American public is growing weary of ICE's controversial tactics and perhaps, more fundamentally, questioning the moral compass of the agency itself.Bipartisan Discontent: The discontent isn't limited to one side of the political spectrum. Sure, 77% of Democrats waving the banner for abolition grabs headlines, but the more telling statistic? A staggering one in four Republicans are now stepping into the light, advocating for the agency's dismantlement. This isn't just a crack; it's a chasm forming within the party's own ranks, signaling a profound disillusionment that transcends partisan boundaries.Independents and the Middle Ground: With 52% of independents advocating for the abolition of ICE, it's clear that the middle ground is no longer a safe haven for the agency. This demographic, often pivotal in swaying elections and shaping policy, is casting a damning vote against ICE's continued existence.The Call for Transparency and AccountabilityIn what could be interpreted as a desperate plea for a semblance of accountability, the American public is not merely stopping at the call for abolition. Should ICE continue to operate, it demands reforms that strip away the anonymity under which the agency's officers have operated. A staggering 75% of Americans assert that ICE officers should be clad in uniforms, making them identifiable as part of the agency. Moreover, a majority believe that these agents should not be allowed to wear masks that hide their faces. This is a clear indictment of the agency's operations, underlining the public's demand for transparency, accountability, and, ultimately, humanity.The Backdrop of TurmoilThe context of these shocking statistics cannot be ignored. Under President Trump's directive, ICE and Border Patrol agents were surged into cities, igniting protests and leading to the wrongful arrest of U. S. citizens and the fatal shooting of two individuals in Minneapolis. This, combined with federal judges losing patience over ICE's lack of cooperation with court orders, paints a damning picture of an agency in crisis, operating with a blatant disregard for legal and ethical standards.Conclusion: A Systemic Error in Need of RectificationThe YouGov poll is more than just numbers; it's a clarion call for introspection and change. The growing public disdain for ICE, coupled with a bipartisan call for either its abolition or significant reform, underscores a systemic failure that demands immediate attention. As the Trump administration faces the music, the question remains: will it heed the call, or will it continue to fan the flames of division and discord? The answer, while uncertain, is crucial to the very fabric of American democracy and its standing on the world stage.In the grand scheme of things, these findings aren't just catastrophic numbers; they're a referendum on the soul of America's immigration policy. The path forward demands courage, accountability, and a profound shift in how we perceive and implement law enforcement and immigration control. Will America rise to the occasion? Only time will tell, but the numbers, as they stand, paint a stark picture of a nation at a crossroads, yearning for change.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:In a 6-3 ruling handed down on Monday, March 2, the U. S. Supreme Court's GOP-appointed supermajority ruled to uphold a congressional map favoring Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-New York) — who serves in the U. S. House of Representatives via parts of Staten Island and Brooklyn. The ruling in Malliotakis v. Williams overturned a previous decision by a judge who decided that the map discriminated against Black and Latino voters in New York City. The ruling came down along partisan lines, with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining fellow Democratic appointee, Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissenting opinion. All six of the High Court's GOP appointees sided with Malliotakis. Mother Jones' Ari Berman offers a biting critique of the ruling in an article published on March 3, arguing that Justice Samuel Alito's opinion is an ominous sign for voting rights. Sotomayor, Berman notes, "blasted the Court's conservative majority for using one set of rules to uphold redistricting maps that benefit white voters and Republicans in states like Texas while using a completely different set of rules to strike down maps that benefit racial minorities and Democrats in places like New York.""The majority did not explain its reasoning," according to Berman, "but most concerning was the concurring opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, in which he wrote that districts drawn 'for the express purpose of ensuring that minority voter are able to elect the candidate of their choice' represented 'unadorned racial discrimination, an inherently odious activity that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause except in the most extraordinary case.' Alito is essentially saying that districts drawn under the Voting Rights Act or other federal and state laws to remedy centuries of racial discrimination are as racist as the racism, including the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, they were meant to rectify."Berman continues, "Court watchers speculate that Alito, because he has not authored an opinion from the Court's term last October, is writing the majority opinion in a hugely important case the Court has yet to rule on concerning the constitutionality of the last remaining section of the Voting Rights Act. If that's the case, the VRA — and by extension, the fate of American democracy — will be in very, very bad shape."The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, forbids racial discrimination in voting and was a landmark part of the Great Society — LBJ's expansion of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Alito, Berman warns, "seems certain to kill the VRA outright or narrow it to the point of irrelevancy.""If the Court were to rule against the VRA this spring," the Mother Jones journalist writes, "that could shift roughly a dozen seats in the GOP's favor this year, turbocharging Trump's efforts to manipulate the midterms. Alito is now telegraphing just how far he's prepared to go."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:The White House found itself under fire for its failure to plan ahead, as Americans find themselves stranded in the Middle East during the U. S. bombing campaign against Iran. The Trump administration urged Americans to flee 16 Middle Eastern countries as the bombing campaign rages. Desperate citizens trying to escape were instead greeted with a cold shoulder and a recorded message saying the government wouldn't help. In response to reports on the dangerous snub, the Trump administration went into damage control.“Yes, the State Department is actively securing military aircraft and charter flights for American citizens who wish to leave the Middle East,” said Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary of State for Global Public Affairs.“The United States State Department is actively working on plans to help Americans in the Middle East return home,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The debacle sparked outrage on social media. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) wrote on X, "You all should have had a plan in place before you started a war. The only guidance Americans have gotten is find your own way home. The State Department needs to charter flights and buses for Americans and their families immediately."Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff to Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), expressed astonishment on X, writing, "'Working on plans?' Trump ordered a second carrier group to the region three weeks ago! How did you not think about this before today???"Max Steele, senior director of communications at Everytown for Gun Safety, chided on X, "4 days into the war."John Oleske, counsel for Complex Legal & Business Matters, joked on X, "They have concepts of a plan!"

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has reportedly agreed to sit for an interview with the House Oversight Committee about his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On Tuesday, Axios reported that Lutnick volunteered to testify in a deposition after his name appeared in recently released files on Epstein's case."I look forward to appearing before the committee," Lutnick said in a statement. "I have done nothing wrong, and I want to set the record straight."During a New York Post podcast last year, Lutnick said that he had only met Epstein in 2005 before pledging, "I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again."The Epstein files, however, showed that Lutnick met Epstein at his home in 2011 and on his island in 2012."I don't recall why we did it," the Commerce secretary told the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding the meeting on Epstein's island.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump said he was going to expose the deep state and end America’s regular warmaking, and yet according to a former Republican congressman, Trump is supporting the deep state and waging unconstitutional wars.“If you're a Trump supporter right now, you're a Trump voter right now, you're Mr. or Mrs. MAGA right now, man, your head's gotta be swimming, baby,” former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) said in a Substack post on Monday. “You got to be dizzy, baby, because not only do you know now MAGA, not only do you know now Trump voter, that Donald Trump is actually on the side of the deep state — and that's been so tough for you to grasp, and it has been, because I engage with hundreds of Trump voters every single day, and Donald Trump keeping doing what he can do to keep the Epstein files hidden, and man, the disillusionment I've heard from MAGA, the confusion I've heard from MAGA is off the charts.”Walsh recounted how during the 2024 presidential election Trump promised to release files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, a longtime Trump friend and convicted sex trafficker known to have associated with the world’s rich and powerful. Once he became president, however, Trump kept them covered up, as did other Trump officials who had previously promised to release the files including Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.“I want to say that again to every American, most especially every one of my MAGA brothers and sisters listening to me: Donald Trump initiated the cover-up of the Epstein files,” Walsh said. “He's the boss. He ordered Bondi, Patel, all of them. Keep my name hidden. Keep the names of all the other predators hidden.”The former Tea Party leader, who served in Congress from 2011 to 2013 where he developed a reputation as a conservative firebrand, also criticized Trump for starting wars in Venezuela and Iran as well as threatening them in Cuba and Greenland without congressional approval. The Constitution forbids the president to wage war without congressional authorization.“It's a really, really dangerous thing for the whole entire world to have a cruel, idiotic sociopath, a madman in the White House,” Walsh said. “It's a dangerous thing for the whole world. As of this morning, four American service members are dead. Four American service members killed in the war so far that America launched on Iran, Friday night. Four Americans so far killed, that number will go up.”He concluded, “Rest in peace, soldiers, heroes, warriors all. Our thoughts and prayers with their families. No matter where you stand on what Trump did, those four dead American service members are heroes, are warriors.”Last week Walsh blasted Trump for saying that he will “nationalize” the midterm elections so that Republicans will not lose control of Congress, which both Trump’s sagging polls numbers and historical precedent suggests will happen."What do you call someone who is at war with our elections process?” Walsh asked during his Friday podcast. “What do you call someone who tries to delegitimize America's elections? What do you call someone who tries to sow distrust in our elections? What do you call somebody who f—— with our elections?”Overall, Walsh argues that Trump supporters are no longer conservatives but instead members of a political “cult.”“I do my damnedest not to call Trump voters cultists, because I used to be a Trump voter,” Walsh explained in his Substack on Tuesday. “I don't always hold to that rule, but I try my best. But when it comes to my former congressional colleagues — these Republican members of Congress, and all these conservative right-wing talk radio guys and Fox News guys, the world I used to be a part of — man, I'll call them members of a cult till the cows come home.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump was photographed from the side during a medal ceremony on Monday, showing a large red mark that some observers said looked like a rash of some kind. The redness was so noticeable that the word "shingles" was number one in the X trends in the News section mere moments after his speech. "President Trump is using a very common cream on the right side of his neck, which is a preventive skin treatment, prescribed by the White House Doctor. The President is using this treatment for one week, and the redness is expected to last for a few weeks," the statement from Dr. Sean Barbella, Trump's doctor, said in a statement, according to CBS News. It didn't stop speculation and mockery online, with some claiming it was a disease Trump picked up on trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's island, others questioning if it was syphilis, scurvy, or even leprosy. "Statement from Trump's physician on the rash on the side of the president's neck (as photographed from the Medal of Honor ceremony today) ... The question now is what exactly is this a preventative for? And why does the president need this treatment?" questioned CNN reporter Alayna Treene."The man is molting right in front of a media that fully ignores it," complained Tara Dublin, sometimes host at SiriusXMProgress."Bruising on his hands, swollen ankles, rashes on his neck… it’s getting bad," commented activist Harry Sisson."Sending all possible love and support to this rash," quipped Evan DeSimone, content creator for TubeFilter.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump said he was going to expose the deep state and end America’s regular warmaking, and yet according to a former Republican congressman, Trump is supporting the deep state and waging unconstitutional wars.“If you're a Trump supporter right now, you're a Trump voter right now, you're Mr. or Mrs. MAGA right now, man, your head's gotta be swimming, baby,” former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) said in a Substack post on Monday. “You got to be dizzy, baby, because not only do you know now MAGA, not only do you know now Trump voter, that Donald Trump is actually on the side of the deep state — and that's been so tough for you to grasp, and it has been, because I engage with hundreds of Trump voters every single day, and Donald Trump keeping doing what he can do to keep the Epstein files hidden, and man, the disillusionment I've heard from MAGA, the confusion I've heard from MAGA is off the charts.”Walsh recounted how during the 2024 presidential election Trump promised to release files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, a longtime Trump friend and convicted sex trafficker known to have associated with the world’s rich and powerful. Once he became president, however, Trump kept them covered up, as did other Trump officials who had previously promised to release the files including Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.“I want to say that again to every American, most especially every one of my MAGA brothers and sisters listening to me: Donald Trump initiated the cover-up of the Epstein files,” Walsh said. “He's the boss. He ordered Bondi, Patel, all of them. Keep my name hidden. Keep the names of all the other predators hidden.”The former Tea Party leader, who served in Congress from 2011 to 2013 where he developed a reputation as a conservative firebrand, also criticized Trump for starting wars in Venezuela and Iran as well as threatening them in Cuba and Greenland without congressional approval. The Constitution forbids the president to wage war without congressional authorization.“It's a really, really dangerous thing for the whole entire world to have a cruel, idiotic sociopath, a madman in the White House,” Walsh said. “It's a dangerous thing for the whole world. As of this morning, four American service members are dead. Four American service members killed in the war so far that America launched on Iran, Friday night. Four Americans so far killed, that number will go up.”He concluded, “Rest in peace, soldiers, heroes, warriors all. Our thoughts and prayers with their families. No matter where you stand on what Trump did, those four dead American service members are heroes, are warriors.”Last week Walsh blasted Trump for saying that he will “nationalize” the midterm elections so that Republicans will not lose control of Congress, which both Trump’s sagging polls numbers and historical precedent suggests will happen."What do you call someone who is at war with our elections process?” Walsh asked during his Friday podcast. “What do you call someone who tries to delegitimize America's elections? What do you call someone who tries to sow distrust in our elections? What do you call somebody who f—— with our elections?”Overall, Walsh argues that Trump supporters are no longer conservatives but instead members of a political “cult.”“I do my damnedest not to call Trump voters cultists, because I used to be a Trump voter,” Walsh explained in his Substack on Tuesday. “I don't always hold to that rule, but I try my best. But when it comes to my former congressional colleagues — these Republican members of Congress, and all these conservative right-wing talk radio guys and Fox News guys, the world I used to be a part of — man, I'll call them members of a cult till the cows come home.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com