Transcript:WASHINGTON — On Capitol Hill, questions keep mounting about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 election investigation and whether she’s using foreign surveillance officers and resources on U. S. soil. Democrats demanding answers about why DNI Gabbard was present for the hugely controversial FBI raid on an election office in Fulton County, Georgia last month are eager to grill her when she publicly testifies before the Senate intelligence Committee in March. “It raises serious questions, because it would be a violation, in some cases, of laws if our foreign intelligence service was operating in the United States,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) told Raw Story on Capitol Hill. As the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reed’s an ex-officio member of the Intelligence Committee. “The CIA clearly can't do anything [on U. S. soil], but no, it's just there's no explanation for” Gabbard’s actions, he said. “The Department of Justice issues a warrant, etc, and you have an intelligence official down there? I don't know what's happened.” Reed’s far from alone, as questions swirl and the administration remains mostly mum. ‘The plan all along’ As President Donald Trump fixates on his defeat by former President Joe Biden in 2020 and repeats disproved claims about election fraud in that contest, reports that Gabbard’s office last year took control of and tested voting machines in Puerto Rico only raised fears of interference in this year’s midterm elections. “I've heard people indicate that she's trying to regain favor [with President Trump], so she might be given another mission like make sure 2026 goes our way,” Reed said. “Are you nervous?” Raw Story asked. “I am,” Reed said. “Everyone should be.“Because if you look at the cumulative steps from the first day — taking apart the cybersecurity infrastructure approach, taking out the agency, the FBI, that handles election security — you know, it’s as if the plan all along is we won't have those protections we need for the election.” President Trump’s recent call to “nationalize” those midterms isn’t helping.“Nationalizing … is unconstitutional,” Reed said. As Fulton County officials fight in court to reclaim control of election materials, critics say the conspiracy-fueled underpinningings of the Trump administration investigation are becoming clear. On Tuesday, Fulton County officials wrote in a court filing that, “instead of alleging probable cause to believe a crime has been committed,” the FBI search warrant application did “nothing more than describe the types of human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election — without any intentional wrongdoing whatsoever.”The filing also noted the warrant relied on debunked conspiracies propagated by Kurt Olsen, an election denier sanctioned by a number of courts for unfounded claims that 2020 results were invalid. ‘No legitimate legal role’ For congressional critics, watching Gabbard claim new domestic investigative powers based on debunked conspiracies is especially alarming. “She has no legitimate legal role to be at the Fulton County voter election bureau,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) told Raw Story, on the House side of the Capitol. “It feels like a desperate ploy to get back in Donald Trump's good graces, but the fact that they're doing this by trying to elevate years-old, multiple-discredited, crazy conspiracy theories should be really concerning to everyone.” The DNI’s role is “supposed to be about foreign threats,” Scanlon added. Conspiracies beget conspiracies, it seems: Scanlon and others wonder if Trump’s fixation with Venezuela — and the dramatic January raid to capture its then-leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores — wasn’t tied to wild claims that the South American country controls voting machines across the globe and had a hand in Trump’s 2020 defeat. “Certainly the fear that I've heard expressed is that now that they have the president, former president, purported president of Venezuela in custody and they have this crazy theory from 2020 that Venezuela somehow took over voting machines, can they get him to cop to doing this as a ‘get out of jail free’ card?” Scanlon said. “I mean, it's a wild thing to even be thinking about, but we have seen that this is an administration that doesn't care what depths it descends to.”Which is why Scanlon and others say the DNI investigating local American elections is so worrisome. “We do need to look at what kind of domestic surveillance is going on or has been going on and the misuse of taxpayer funds to do political work,” Scanlon said. Reports that Gabbard called President Trump after the Fulton County FBI raid are also concerning to Democrats. “Let’s be clear: It is inappropriate for a sitting president to personally involve himself in a criminal investigation tied to an election he lost,” Senate Intelligence Vice-chair Mark Warner (D-VA) told congressional reporters. ‘Destroying democratic norms’ Nonetheless, the Trump administration seems set on testing the bounds of what’s politically appropriate — and the Constitution itself. DNI Tulsi Gabbard, at the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center. REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage “Obviously, they are destroying our national security infrastructure, destroying democratic norms every single day,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Raw Story. “Yes, it should freak everybody out that the director of national intelligence is sitting outside of an election office in Georgia, but there's lots of things every day that should freak people out. “None of this is normal, and nobody should act like it's normal.”Back when he sat in the House, Murphy served alongside Gabbard, then a first-term Democrat from Hawaii. While the two teamed up on some foreign policy measures, Murphy says he barely recognizes her now. “She's just desperately searching for relevance in the MAGA world and to get back on Trump's calendar,” Murphy told Raw Story. “I've sort of stopped long ago trying to decipher the internal dynamics of the MAGA ecosystem.”Gabbard’s scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 18.Our Analysis:The Unsettling Dance of Tulsi Gabbard: Between Intel Oversight and MAGA AllegiancesIn an era where the lines between national security and political maneuvering blur with increasing regularity, the role of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has become a focal point of contention and concern. The latest saga involving Gabbard's purported use of foreign surveillance resources on U. S. soil, and her presence at a controversial FBI raid in Fulton County, Georgia, epitomizes the Trump administration's cavalier approach to democratic norms and constitutional boundaries. This analysis peels back the layers of this complex issue, exposing the underlying dangers to democracy.Foreign Surveillance or Domestic Overreach?The crux of the controversy lies in allegations that DNI Gabbard has appropriated foreign intelligence resources for domestic political purposes. Such actions, if proven true, not only trample legal precedents but also signal a dangerous pivot towards the politicization of intelligence. Senator Jack Reed's concerns underscore the gravity of the situation, highlighting the potential illegality and the breach of trust inherent in such operations. It's worth noting that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is expressly prohibited from conducting domestic operations—a restriction that seems to be conveniently overlooked in Gabbard's case.The Shadow of Election InterferenceThe specter of election interference looms large over Gabbard's actions, particularly in light of the investigation of voting machines in Puerto Rico and the raid in Georgia. These activities feed into a broader narrative of undermining electoral integrity, one that President Trump has eagerly promoted. The administration's fixation on disproven claims of election fraud and its attempts to "nationalize" the midterm elections pose a clear and present danger to democratic processes. The use of debunked conspiracies to justify these actions adds a layer of absurdity to the proceedings, yet the implications are anything but laughable.A Desperate Bid for Favor?What is particularly alarming is the suggestion that Gabbard's actions are motivated by a desire to regain favor with Trump. This pursuit of political relevance at the expense of constitutional fidelity is a stark illustration of the moral and ethical bankruptcy at the heart of the MAGA movement. Representative Mary Gay Scanlon's comments highlight the absurdity of leveraging discredited theories for political gain, a strategy that undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.The Venezuelan Connection: A Conspiracy Too Far?The administration's fixation on Venezuela and the outlandish theories regarding its influence on voting machines represent a new low in political conspiracy mongering. The suggestion that the capture of Nicolás Maduro could be exploited to lend credibility to these baseless claims is a testament to the lengths to which Trump and his allies are willing to go to subvert reality in service of their agenda.The Erosion of Democratic NormsWhat stands out in this saga is the brazen disregard for democratic norms and constitutional safeguards. The involvement of the DNI in domestic election matters is a troubling precedent, reflecting a broader trend of eroding the barriers between state power and political interests. The reports of Gabbard's communication with Trump post-raid only add to the perception of a government that is more interested in serving the whims of its leader than upholding the principles of democracy.Conclusion: A Democracy at RiskThe actions of Tulsi Gabbard, as outlined, represent more than just an isolated series of misjudgments. They are symptomatic of a larger, more disturbing trend towards authoritarianism and away from the democratic ideals that have long defined the United States. As Gabbard prepares to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, one can only hope for a reckoning that brings clarity, accountability, and a recommitment to the values that this administration seems so eager to discard. However, given the track record, one would be wise not to hold one's breath.

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:A new study published today in Nature has found that X’s algorithm – the hidden system or “recipe” that governs which posts appear in your feed and in which order – shifts users’ political opinions in a more conservative direction. Led by Germain Gauthier from Bocconi University in Italy, it is a rare, real-world randomised experimental study on a major social media platform. And it builds on a growing body of research that shows how these platforms can shape people’s political attitudes. Two different algorithmsThe researchers randomly assigned 4,965 active US-based X users to one of two groups. The first group used X’s default “For You” feed. This features an algorithm that selects and ranks posts it thinks users will be more likely to engage with, including posts from accounts that they don’t necessarily follow. The second group used a chronological feed. This only shows posts from accounts users follow, displayed in the order they were posted. The experiment ran for seven weeks during 2023. Users who switched from the chronological feed to the “For You” feed were 4.7 percentage points more likely to prioritise policy issues favoured by US Republicans (for example, crime, inflation and immigration). They were also more likely to view the criminal investigation into US President Donald Trump as unacceptable. They also shifted in a more pro-Russia direction in regards to the war in Ukraine. For example, these users became 7.4 percentage points less likely to view Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy positively, and scored slightly higher on a pro-Russian attitude index overall. The researchers also examined how the algorithm produced these effects. They found evidence that the algorithm increased the share of right-leaning content by 2.9 percentage points overall (and 2.5 points among political posts), compared with the chronological feed. It also significantly demoted the share of posts from traditional news organisations’ accounts while promoting or boosting posts from political activists. One of the most concerning findings of the study is the longer-term effects of X’s algorithmic feed. The study showed the algorithm nudged users towards following more right-leaning accounts, and that the new following patterns endured even after switching back to the chronological feed. In other words, turning the algorithm off didn’t simply “reset” what people see. It had a longer-lasting impact beyond its day-to-day effects. One piece of a much bigger pictureThis new study supports findings of similar studies. For example, a study in 2022, before Elon Musk had bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, found the platform’s algorithmic systems amplified content from the mainstream political right more than the left in six out of the seven countries. An experimental study from 2025 re-ranked X feeds to reduce exposure to content that expresses antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. They found this shifted feelings towards their political opponents by more than two points on a 0–100 “feeling thermometer”. This is a shift the authors argued would have normally taken about three years to occur organically in the general population. My own research offers another piece of evidence to this picture of algorithmic bias on X. Along with my colleague Mark Andrejevic, I analysed engagement data (such as likes and reposts) from prominent political accounts during the final stages of the 2024 US election. Our findings unearthed a sudden and unusual spike in engagement with Musk’s account after his endorsement of Trump on July 13 – the day of the assassination attempt on Trump. Views on Musk’s posts surged by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%. This far outstripped increases on other accounts. After July 13, right-leaning accounts on X gained significantly greater visibility than progressive ones. The “playing field” for attention and engagement on the platform was tilted thereafter towards right-leaning accounts – a trend that continued for the remainder of the time period we analysed in that study. Not a niche productThis matters because we are not talking about a niche product. X has more than 400 million users globally. It has become embedded as infrastructure – a key source of political and social communication. And once technical systems become infrastructure, they can become invisible – like background objects that we barely think about, but which shape society at its foundations and can be exploited under our noses. Think of the overpass bridges Robert Moses designed in New York in the 1930s. These seemed like inert objects. But they were designed to be very low, to exclude people of colour from taking buses to recreation areas in Long Island. Similar to this, the design and governance of social media platforms also has real consequences. The point is that X’s algorithms are not neutral tools. They are an editorial force, shaping what people know, whom they pay attention to, who the outgroup is and what “we” should do about or to them – and, as this new study shows, what people come to believe. The age of taking platform companies at their word about the design and effects of their own algorithms must come to an end. Governments around the world – including in Australia where the eSafety Commissioner has powers to drive “algorithmic transparency and accountability” and require that platforms report on how their algorithms contribute to or reduce harms – need to mandate genuine transparency over how these systems work. When infrastructure become harmful or unsafe, nobody bats an eye when governments do something to protect us. The same needs to happen urgently for social media infrastructures. Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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:A conservative columnist is blasting President Donald Trump for continuing to spread the baseless conspiracy theory that he actually won the 2020 presidential election.“Donald Trump’s belief in widespread fraud in the casting and counting of 2020 ballots is entailed by his belief that it is theoretically impossible for him to lose at anything,” wrote George F. Will, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and columnist to The Washington Post. “His certitude infects millions of Americans, some of whom think it inconceivable that he could ever be mistaken. Others doubt that anyone could win the presidency while obsessing about a complex conspiracy for which there is no evidence.”Will correctly pointed out that Trump has a long history of claiming something was stolen from him when he loses — and it started well before politics. During a 2016 debate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accurately pointed out Trump accused the Emmy Awards of being rigged against him when he was snubbed for his work on the reality TV show “The Apprentice.” Earlier that year, after losing the Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz in the 2016 GOP primaries, Trump baselessly alleged fraud and demanded a new election. Throughout the 2016 campaign Trump said he would only accept the result if he won, and after winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote that year, he falsely blamed millions of illegal ballots and established a voter fraud commission that eventually disbanded without finding evidence of his allegations. In 2020, Trump preemptively attacked mail-in voting, prematurely declared victory on Election Night and falsely claimed votes were being "dumped" against him. Biden ultimately won by a clear margin in the popular vote (81.3 million to 74.2 million) and the same Electoral College margin (306-232), but despite this Trump attempted a coup on January 6, 2021. To this day, Trump continues to falsely claim he won the 2020 election.“Someone should read to him ‘Lost, Not Stolen,’ a 2022 report by eight conservatives (two former Republican senators, three former federal appellate judges, a former Republican solicitor general, and two Republican election law specialists),” Will wrote. “They examined all 187 counts in the 64 court challenges filed in multiple states by Trump and his supporters. Twenty cases were dismissed before hearings on their merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his supporters before hearings. Of the 30 that reached hearings on the merits, Trump’s side prevailed in only one, Pennsylvania, involving far too few votes to change the state’s result.”Will concluded, “Trump’s batting average? .016. In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm selected by Trump’s advocates confirmed Trump’s loss, finding 99 additional Biden votes and 261 fewer Trump votes.” Therefore he wrote of Trump, “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”The Pulitzer Prize-winning Will is not alone among conservatives warning about Trump’s authoritarian election-denying tendencies. Linking his 2020 denialism to his efforts to discredit Democrats if they win the 2026 midterms, a Republican who served as Maricopa County, Arizona county recorder explained Trump’s strategy."Almost every single Republican that I spoke with after the 2020 election ... knew that there was very little to Donald Trump's allegations of a stolen election,” Stephen Richer, who served when Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election, recently told The Atlantic. “At best, they stayed quiet. At worst, they went full-throated along with it because they knew it was a path to political riches."He also said Republicans are planning to dispute however many number of Democratic victories they need to stay in power, then demand House Speaker Mike Johnson reject their seats.“Speaker Mike Johnson, the outgoing speaker, will choose not to seat the new members, because they’re in allegedly disputed elections,” Richer said. Conservative historian Robert Kagan expressed the same concern, arguing Trump has trained Republicans to oppose democratic outcomes unless they get what they want.“I am worried, as I have said and others have been pointing out, about whether we will even have free and fair elections in 2026, let alone in 2028,” Kagan said. “I think Trump has a plan to disrupt those elections, and I don't think he's willing to allow Democrats to take control of one or both houses as could happen in a free election.”

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:Former Republican U. S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is sharply criticizing President Donald Trump ahead of his Thursday trip to her former district, where he made — and then apparently forgot — an endorsement in the race to fill her old House seat.“Well, we have a lot of people that want to take Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene’s place,” Trump said on Monday, as The Daily Beast reported. “Many, many candidates, and I have to choose one.” Greene ignored Trump’s gaffe, but hit him, his administration, and her former Republican colleagues head-on in a post on X where she accused them all of trying to gaslight the American people. “If you had put America FIRST from the start, instead of your rich donor class and foreign policy, you wouldn’t have to strategize on how to gaslight Americans,” wrote Greene, a former top Trump ally. READ MORE: Trump’s Wild 24 Hour Truth Social Frenzy “If you had not called the Epstein files a hoax and treated the Epstein survivors (rape and trafficking victims) like they didn’t exist and if you would release all the files and put your rich powerful friends in prison then Americans might actually listen to your ‘messaging,'” she charged. Mocking them all as on the “struggle bus,” Greene explained the situation her former constituents now face.“Approximately 75,000 households in my former district had their health insurance double or more on January 1st of this year because the ACA tax credits expired and Republicans have absolutely failed to fix our health insurance system that was destroyed by Obamacare,” she said. Republicans have blocked Democrats’ efforts — including a federal government shutdown over the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies — to prevent the health care premiums crisis. Greene said that hundreds of thousands of people in her former district saw their health insurance premiums double last month.“Many dropped their policies and no longer have health insurance,” she wrote. “And that’s on top of EVERYONE ELSE who complains DAILY about the absurdly high cost of health insurance!!!”She said the billionaires running the White House, the Trump administration, and Congress aren’t affected by the high health insurance premiums, noting that all of them have “very nice affordable government health insurance plans.” READ MORE: ‘Republicans Have to Lose’: Far Right Extremist Leader Puts Trump on Notice“I’m talking about younger healthier people and families not on meds who can’t afford to pay $1500 to more than $2000 per month just for their monthly health insurance premiums,” she wrote, “not including $7-10,000 for a deductible before their ridiculously expensive health insurance policy kicks in.”Greene also took a shot at House Speaker Mike Johnson, who, she said, “claimed he had the Republican plan during the 8 week shutdown in the fall, then carried on and has done nothing proving he lied once again.”She also blasted Trump’s “messaging” efforts. “Trump RX doesn’t fix this so that’s not your messaging answer,” she wrote. “A Truth Social Post or Trump video isn’t fixing this either.”“Messaging won’t fix this,” she added. Greene then moved on to foreign policy, warning Trump not to go to war with Iran. She also urged him to release the Epstein files, and told him to “stop the bullying, harassment, and name calling.”“It’s immature, childish, and turning so many people away. Real leaders don’t act this way and it’s a horrible example set on the world’s stage. This isn’t the behavior we want to teach our children.”“Deliver real results for the regular American people because respect is earned not given,” she said.

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:I got a colonoscopy the other day: something everyone who has one seems to complain about. They b***h about being required to drink the prep that cleans you out, then about having a tube up the nether regions, albeit while unconscious. Quite frankly, I look forward to it. This is, after all, a medical marvel that can prevent cancer or catch it in the earliest stages. This time, I had a single benign polyp removed and was told to come back in seven years’ time. Colonoscopy is a preventive measure every adult from middle-age onward should schedule at regular intervals, to stave off colon cancer. This is simple common sense and one of many reasons why we now live longer than ever before. Think about this: in 1826, the average American adult could expect to live to about 38 years old. Yes, extremely high infant and child mortality was largely responsible for bringing that number down, along with rampant infectious disease and lack of sanitation. But in general, you often died pretty young. By 1926, U. S. life expectancy had risen to roughly 58, a two-decade jump. A hundred years later, that number stands a few ticks above 78, another 20-year leap. In other words, the average time each of us has on earth has effectively doubled over the past two centuries. All things considered, that’s not too shabby. Enter Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. Assuming the role last year, he saw not a human population doing pretty well, and a medical establishment making astonishing progress against maladies that once killed by the millions, but a toxic hellscape of death from which only he could save us. Remember: this man has no medical background, no formal medical education, and no conventional medical expertise. His knowledge of medicine is no greater than yours or mine or that of any other layman. He’s a lawyer, specializing in environmental cases. And yet he claims to know more than the medical and scientific establishments combined. It’s frightening just how dangerous this guy is. His crackpot views in declaring war on vaccination have exploded into a genuine crisis, because he’s convinced a not-insignificant portion of the U. S. population that all vaccines are hazardous – considerably more perilous than the diseases they’re designed to prevent. This is, in a word, insane. And it’s threatening us all. Kennedy likes to believe that this is all about individual choice. In fact, it involves so much more. Misguided or irresponsible parents who listen to him and decide not to vaccinate their child may help spread a pathogen that can infect and kill other kids and adults — entire communities, even. This makes RFK Jr. as great a menace to mankind as any we face in our actual environment. In working so diligently to fix a system that isn’t broken, he puts all our lives in danger. Last week, Kennedy made headlines with his mind-boggling admission that he used to “snort cocaine off of toilet seats,” apparently seeking to make the point that he isn’t scared of germs and in fact sees them as his friends, key to strengthening the immune system. That is all well and good, as are his ideas around nutritious diets, eliminating processed foods, and reducing contaminants. But then off he goes into nutzo land with things like “terrain theory” (focusing on body environment as a defense against infection) and eschewing established biomedical science and core principles as hopelessly flawed. What RFK Jr. and those who follow his warped thinking fail to acknowledge is that America, and the world, was not too long ago caught in the grip of crippling and often deadly epidemics involving smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, and polio, events that spurred massive suffering and mortality. Through vaccines, in tandem with antibiotics and other medical advances, we have largely defeated these sources of significant misery. Modern miracles of scientific know-how abound — vaccines very much to the fore. And yet a small but growing percentage of the population now sees them as unsafe. I’ll tell you what’s unsafe: actually being stricken with these dreadful conditions, as those who must now endure measles as part of various outbreaks are finding. In spring 2020, when we were all consumed with fear over COVID-19, I was one of some 40,000 people who volunteered for the Pfizer vaccine trial. Friends praised me as “courageous” but I didn’t see it that way. I felt fortunate to be jumping the line, secure in the idea that ingesting an unproven serum was likely safer than contracting the actual virus, which was killing by the thousands. I didn’t get sick, the vaccine graduated to widespread use, and millions of lives were saved. Do you hear people quaking in fear over COVID anymore? No. The reason is the vaccines. Nonetheless, RFK Jr. seems determined to ultimately pull them off the market, as improperly tested and potentially harmful. I know Kennedy has no use for data, but here’s some anyway. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2020, the first full year of the pandemic, COVID claimed an estimated 350,800 U. S. lives. In 2021, that toll peaked at 416,900, the third-leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer. By 2024, the last year for which statistics are fully available, the number of deaths from COVID had dropped to 31,400. That’s still significant, but the disease had fallen out of the top 10 U. S. causes of death. You think that happens without a vaccine? Not a chance in hell. The bottom line is, we don’t need vaccines to disappear. Quite the contrary. We need RFK Jr. to go away. Now. Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.

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:White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared stunned when a reporter asked her for examples of President Donald Trump falsely being called a racist. The president this week used his statement on the death of Reverend Jesse Jackson to argue that he is not a racist.“Despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left, Democrats ALL, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way,” he wrote. On Wednesday, a reporter asked, "Where or when does the president believe he's been falsely called racist?"Leavitt replied, "You're kidding, right?""I will pull you plethora of examples," she said, vowing to get her team "going through the internet of radical Democrats throughout the years ... who have accused this president falsely of being a racist, and I'm sure there's many people in this room and on network television, across the country, who have accused him of the same.""In fact, I know that because I've seen it with my own eyes," she said, before noting that Trump is hosting a Black History Month celebration later on Wednesday. Trump, she said, will "talk about how his policies are advancing opportunity and prosperity for all Americans through record tax cuts, through the Trump accounts that all Americans can access regardless of race.""These are a great thing," she continued, before noting that the president "has also awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding to strengthen educational outcomes at historically Black colleges and universities, across the country."She also said that Trump is "protecting the hard-earned benefits of the 2.4 million Black veterans who honorably served in our nation's armed forces by reducing the Black backlog of veterans waiting for their VA benefits, and for their home loans through the Department of Veterans Affairs.""So, there is a lot this president has done for all Americans, regardless of race, and he has, absolutely, been falsely called and smeared as a racist, and I'm happy to provide you those receipts," she added. Reporter: The president said despite the fact that I am falsely consistently called a racist… Where or when does the president believe that he has been falsely called a racist? Leavitt: You are kidding, right? pic. twitter. com/gcyrS3rV11— Acyn (@Acyn) February 18, 2026

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's Federal Communications Commission began its long-threatened crackdown on political late-night talk show interviews by pressuring CBS to pull an already-filmed interview on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" with Texas U. S. Senate candidate James Talarico. But that move appears to have blown up in their faces — and some political observers are saying this could be a "boon" for Talarico's campaign. Colbert responded to the legal threats by instead uploading the interview to "The Late Show" YouTube page, where it has since spread to every corner of the internet and likely earned far more viewership than it would have airing on CBS in the first place — an excellent development for Talarico, who has trailed most primary polls in recent weeks against Dallas-area Rep. Jasmine Crockett, partly due to his lesser name recognition among Texas voters. Talarico posted the interview to X, saying, "This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas."Commentators noticed."James Talarico is having quite a moment in Texas after the Colbert interview — and according to Google Trends, Texans are now searching his name at a very high rate just in time for early voting," said election forecaster Logan Phillips in a post on X."As of 12 PM ET, view counts on the most-watched Colbert clips on his FCC-censored Talarico interview: YouTube: 1.3M; Instagram: 1.6M; TikTok: 2.4M; Twitter: 5.1M," wrote energy policy analyst Jessy Han. "For context, Colbert's show averages 2.3 million viewers on linear TV.""This incredible stat says a lot about why this @colbertlateshow interview w/@jamestalarico was such a boon for him," wrote former Barack Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod. "He gets the benefit of being banned from the airwaves by CBS under fire from Trump's FCC — a badge of honor among Dem primary voters — and the interview already has been seen by more viewers digitally than it would have been had it simply aired."Longtime Bernie Sanders strategist and Hispanic voter outreach expert Chuck Rocha agreed, simply writing, "CONFIRMED."

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:Anthony Hudson, a Genesee County truck driver running for the Republican nomination for governor, has made a habit of threatening elected officials with hanging for “treason,” making such threats at least twice since the start of 2026. On Jan. 4, in a video posted to Hudson’s social media, he says, “It’s time to get the rope” — while holding a large loop of rope around his arm — as a call to action to “Michiganians and patriots” against politicians who he alleges received kickbacks from former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, including Michigan’s U. S. Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Gary Peters, both Democrats.“My hope is that every one of them will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and may their names forever live in shame for their treason,” he says in the video. Less than a month later, on Feb. 1, in a Mason City Council meeting, speaking in opposition to data center development, Hudson again threatened elected officials — this time local government officials — with hanging.“You guys never listen, and that’s the problem. These people voted you into office so that you could be their voice in government,” he said. “When you go against that voice, you commit what we call treason. The punishment for treason is public hanging. So, I suggest you start listening.”Hudson’s statements were strongly condemned by the state Democratic party, who also urged the Michigan Republican Party and the other Republican candidates for governor to similarly condemn the threats.“Political violence is completely unacceptable, and this kind of dangerous, hateful extremism has no place in our state and country. Anthony Hudson must immediately retract these comments and issue an apology,” Michigan Democratic Party spokesperson Derrick Honeyman wrote in a statement. The Michigan Republican Party did not respond to a request for a response. But Hudson doubled down when asked to comment on his statements.“Know the law and the consequences! I didn’t write the law, as governor I will enforce the law. Educating someone about the law and what the consequences are is not threatening anyone,” he wrote in an email to the Michigan Advance. “Don’t come at me for holding them accountable and saying the worst part out loud.”Hudson’s comments are similar to those of President Donald Trump, who has accused six elected Democrats, including Slotkin, of committing treason after they recorded a video reminding military members that they did not have to follow illegal orders. In reaction to the video, Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS” later saying it was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

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:At 3:07 in the morning the pounding started. Not a knock or a doorbell: it was the kind of impact meant to wake the neighbors and erase any doubt that resistance would be pointless. Within seconds armed men were inside the house, shouting orders, refusing questions. No explanation, no warrant presented, no charges read. Just urgency, intimidation, and removal. The people taken that night would eventually learn something chilling: under the legal theory being used, what happened to them wasn’t considered a violation of their rights at all. It was 1773 in Boston. That idea is not new to America. In fact, it’s exactly the governing method that pushed the colonies into revolution. The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence weren’t reacting to isolated abuses. They were reacting to a system, one designed to make resistance legally impossible while violence remained technically lawful. Every clause they listed, every amendment that followed in the Bill of Rights, was aimed at preventing that same mechanism from ever taking hold here again. To see why, look at what Thomas Jefferson wrote, in The Declaration of Independence:“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. …“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws...“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.“For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: …“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: …“A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” [emphasis added]It’s also why the Framers of the Constitution added the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to our Constitution, which include:“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. …“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” [emphasis added]Individually, each of the following modern incidents can be argued about. People debate the details, the legality, the motives. But our nation’s Founders feared something else entirely: not separate abuses, but a governing structure where each action reinforces the next until law itself stops restraining power. That’s the pattern our Founders were trying to outlaw. And it’s the pattern that explains why courts keep ruling against these actions by the Trump regime, yet they continue anyway. Consider where we are today. Trump’s masked, “absolutely immune” fascist goons are kicking in doors and smashing car windows and violently seizing people without judicial warrants in open violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the highest law of the land. They’re building massive databases of people they consider “domestic terrorists,” surveilling protestors and, most recently, demanding that social media sites turn over to them the identities of people who post anti-Trump and anti-ICE messages. They’re visiting the homes of people who’ve attended protests to intimidate them. Their Epstein-class-billionaire fascist allies are tweaking social media algorithms to amplify pro-Trump, pro-ICE messages and shadow-banning those opposing them. Other Epstein-class-billionaire fascist allies are buying up major news sites and spinning the news and opinion they publish to normalize all this. At the same time, Trump, the 13 Epstein-class-billionaires in his cabinet, and the 150+ Epstein-class-billionaires who supported his ascent to power are grifting billions out of our economy while gutting healthcare, education, housing assistance, green energy, and any other programs that might support a middle class and a clean environment. Most Americans are reluctant to say that America is now a fascist country, hoping that the next election will bring Democrats into power and constrain Trump and his lickspittles. The senior-most leaders of Canada and Europe, however, think we’ve passed the point of no return. And they’re acting on that belief. As Dean Blundell notes:“Ottawa plans to increase military spending to 5 percent of GDP over the next decade. That would mark the largest sustained defence build-up since the Second World War. Not 2 percent. Not incremental NATO compliance. Five percent … This is not a procurement tweak. This is Canada reverse-engineering decades of structural reliance on the American military industrial complex.”Similar sentiments and actions were echoed at the Munich Security Conference this past week. The final report from the Conference says of America:“More than 80 years after construction began, the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction…” Trump and Vance are “demolition men,” and even when compared to Putin are “the most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions.”Trump’s policies “will pave the way for a world that privileges the rich and powerful, not the wider mass of people who have placed their hopes in disruptive change.”Outside of optimistic Democrats in the United States, it seems nobody in the world — and particularly Canada and Europe — thinks the United States will back away from becoming a violent police state. They believe the alliance between Trump, Epstein-class-billionaires, and Putin has won and America has permanently changed. After all, as Reuters reported last week:“Hundreds of judges around the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since October that President Donald Trump’s administration is detaining immigrants unlawfully, a Reuters review of court records found.“The decisions amount to a sweeping legal rebuke of Trump’s immigration crackdown. Yet the administration has continued jailing people indefinitely even after courts ruled the policy was illegal.”The biggest growth industry in America right now is building concentration camps to hold people who have never faced a judge or jury — in open violation of our Constitution and the Bill or Rights — and never been charged with or convicted of any criminal statute. Europeans, who’ve seen this movie before, don’t believe for a second that within a year or two those camps will be limited to brown-skinned immigrants. They expect that people like you and me will soon be in them as well. After all, Trump right now is trying to put eight members of Congress, a state judge, the form FBI and CIA directors, New York’s Attorney General, his own former National Security Advisor, his Federal Reserve Chairman, a Fed Governor, New Jersey’s former governor, Jack Smith, Miles Taylor, Christopher Krebs, and reporter Don Lemon in prison. Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene, both former allies of Trump who’ve called him out, have recently tweeted that they are not suicidal, just like opposition leaders in Russia used to do in the early days. Even Republicans are realizing that Trump’s role model is Vladimir Putin. As alarmed democracy advocates around the world point out, the list of people Trump wants in prison or dead seems to grow daily: he’s actually trying, right now — in a very real way that our media seems to be largely ignoring — to put each one of those people into an actual prison. Just like Hitler did, Mussolini did, Pinochet did, Putin did, Erdoğon did, Xi did, etc., etc. Meanwhile, as Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent at least 20 million people, mostly married women and low-income Americans, from voting this November and in 2028, the nation’s top law enforcement official, Kristi Noem, just this weekend told a group of reporters that Republicans are doing it because:“When it gets to election day, we’ve been proactive to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country.”Most Americans still assume elections alone will decide whether this stops, but our allies abroad — who’ve seen this movie before in their own countries in their grandparents’ lifetimes — appear far less certain. They’re acting as if the United States has entered a phase nations rarely reverse once fully established. Our best hope now is that America’s Founders anticipated this very possibility. They understood that a government could learn to operate in a way where individual actions seem debatable but the overall direction becomes irreversible. That’s why they embedded one final safeguard, not in the ballot box, but in a structural limit on power itself. Almost nobody talks about it anymore. Tomorrow I’ll walk through that safeguard and why, once a government crosses a particular threshold, winning elections no longer automatically restores the system that existed before. Because if we’re already past that line, like the Prime Minister of Canada and the leaders of Europe were saying out loud last week in Munich, the question Americans are arguing about right now is not the one that will actually determine what happens next. Thom Hartmann is a New York Times best-selling author and SiriusXM talk show host. His Substack can be found here.Our Analysis:A Scathing Review: The Echoes of Tyranny and the Trump Regime's Assault on DemocracyIn an era where the echoes of history's darkest hours seem to resonate with increasing volume, Thom Hartmann's analysis, while rooted in the past, casts a glaring spotlight on the present-day United States under the Trump administration. Hartmann's narrative begins with a chilling recount of a night raid, a stark reminder of the tyrannical overreach that fueled the American Revolution. This isn't just storytelling; it's a dire warning. Let's dissect the key points and the biting reality of Hartmann's assertions.The Ghosts of 1773 ReanimatedFirstly, Hartmann masterfully uses the 1773 incident in Boston to draw a parallel between the past and the present. The founding fathers of the United States rebelled against a system designed to suppress resistance through legal loopholes and technicalities. Fast forward to today, and Hartmann argues we're witnessing a similar mechanism at play under Trump's regime. The comparison isn't just apt; it's terrifying. It underscores a cyclical return to tyrannical practices that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to prevent.The Declaration of Independence: A Mirror to the PresentHartmann's invocation of the Declaration of Independence is not merely a historical citation; it's a mirror reflecting the Trump administration's actions. Each grievance listed by Jefferson against the British Crown can be seen as a parallel to the Trump regime's actions— from obstructing justice to deploying "absolutely immune" forces to carry out raids without warrants. This isn't a case of history merely rhyming; it's repeating with a vengeance.The Bill of Rights: An Unheeded WarningThe Bill of Rights was designed as a bulwark against tyranny. Yet, Hartmann points out how the Trump administration has trampled upon these rights with a brazenness that would make the British Crown blush. The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Sixth Amendment's guarantees of a speedy and public trial are treated as mere suggestions rather than the law of the land. Hartmann's comparison is not just accurate; it's an indictment of a regime that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle rather than the foundation of American democracy.A Pattern of TyrannyHartmann argues that the issue isn't just isolated abuses of power but a systemic pattern that echoes the very tyranny the Founders sought to escape. The Trump administration's actions— from using federal forces to quash protests to intimidating political opponents— aren't just troubling; they're part of a broader assault on the democratic fabric of the nation. This pattern isn't just undemocratic; it's systematically fascist.The World's View: A Fascist AmericaHartmann highlights a sobering perspective: the international community, notably Canada and Europe, views the United States as having crossed the Rubicon into fascism. This isn't hyperbole; it's a reflection of actions and policies that have eroded democratic norms to the point of no return. The construction of concentration camps for immigrants, the assault on the press, and the manipulation of social media are not just red flags; they're glaring sirens of a fascist state.The Ultimate Betrayal: Election ManipulationPerhaps the most damning indictment in Hartmann's analysis is the Trump regime's efforts to manipulate electoral outcomes. The notion that Republicans, as expressed by Kristi Noem, are ensuring "the right people voting" is not just undemocratic; it's antithetical to the very essence of democracy. This isn't election integrity; it's electoral theft.Conclusion: Democracy's Last StandHartmann's article isn't just an analysis; it's a clarion call to recognize the severity of the threat facing American democracy. The parallels drawn between the Trump administration and the tyrannical regimes of history are not mere rhetorical devices; they're grounded in a troubling reality. As Hartmann suggests, the safeguard against tyranny isn't just in the ballot box; it's in the structural limits on power itself. The question isn't whether America will revert to its democratic norms after Trump; it's whether those norms, and the democracy they support, can survive at all.In sum, Thom Hartmann's piece isn't just a warning from history; it's a distress signal from the present, urging us to confront the systemic erosion of democracy before it's too late. The echoes of tyranny are loud and clear; the question remains, will we listen?

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:A trial set to begin on Tuesday in Fort Worth, Texas will test whether President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice can use a criminalized notion of “antifa” to convict nine anti-ICE activists of attempted murder and terrorism, after they shot fireworks and vandalized government vehicles. On July 4 last year, most of the defendants showed up at the Prairieland ICE detention facility 25 miles south of Fort Worth to put on a fireworks display for immigrant detainees. A smaller group used spray paint to graffiti vehicles in the parking lot. They dressed in black and concealed their faces with masks — a tactic commonly known as “black bloc.” One activist, former Marine Corps reservist Benjamin Song, carried an AR-15 rifle. A wagon nearby was stocked with an additional rifle, body armor and bottled water. One activist had guns in his car. The defendants say they intended to hold a noise demonstration and set off fireworks to cheer up detainees. The government claims the fireworks were meant to draw officers out of the facility and elicit a law enforcement response. About 45 minutes after the activists arrived, the government alleges, Song opened fire and struck a local police officer, Lt. Thomas Gross, who returned fire. Treated for his injuries, Gross was able to return to full duty within two months. The indictment suggests that when the shots were fired, the other activists intended to retrieve guns and escalate an attack, based at least in part on a command allegedly yelled by Song: “Get to the rifles!” Statements from some defendants and their lawyers suggest they were blindsided by the shooting and fled in terror. The 12-count indictment, which describes the group as an “antifa cell,” charges four defendants alongside Song with attempted murder of law enforcement officers, even though the government acknowledges Song was the only shooter. A larger cohort is charged alongside Song with providing material support for terrorists.‘Criminalizing speech’Following the assassination last September of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, President Trump issued an executive order “designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.” The order describes “antifa” — a decentralized movement of people who oppose fascism — as “a militaristic, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.”About three weeks later, the first indictment against the Prairieland defendants repeated the language of Trump’s order almost completely. The indictment described the defendants as members of “a North Texas Antifa cell,” while defining “antifa” as “a militant enterprise made up of individuals and small groups … which explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law.”As part of the government’s effort to build an “enterprise” case around the defendants’ supposed adherence to “antifa” ideology and hold them jointly liable for the shooting, prosecutors have highlighted some defendants’ involvement in printing political literature. The indictment describes three as being “part of a group that created and distributed insurrectionary materials called ‘zines.’”During their detention hearing last September, FBI Special Agent Joseph Clark Wiethorn described a search warrant executed on the Fort Worth home of defendants Ines and Elizabeth Soto, a married couple.“We discovered, for lack of a better word, a printing production with multiple commercial-grade equipment, paper binders, cutters, industrial copiers, all for producing what we have discovered to be anarchist-type material and reading,” Wiethorn testified. The government plans to call Kyle Shideler, director for homeland security and counterterrorism at the far-right Center for Security Policy, as an expert witness. Shideler endorsed the government’s definition of “antifa” in the Prairieland case before a U. S. Senate subcommittee last October. He touted the material support for terrorists statute as a tool to crack down on “antifa.”“These networks can be targeted for engaging in material support for terrorism,” Shideler told lawmakers. “We are not talking about speech; we are talking about manifestos describing how to overthrow the government and how to do that with violence.”Lydia Koza, whose wife Autumn Hill is among the defendants charged with attempted murder, told Raw Story she believes the government’s case is all about speech.“They’re trying to throw everybody who could be even slightly ideologically opposed to Trump into this bucket of ‘antifa’ so they can be prosecuted,” she said. “This is a huge reason why this case should be alarming to everyone. This is criminalizing speech. There are precedents in American history, and none of them are good.”‘Peaceful demonstration’“My understanding is that everybody thought this was pretty standard and intended to be a peaceful demonstration, a noise demonstration,” Koza said. “Everybody anticipated coming home.”Hill was arrested the day after the July 4 action, when the FBI broke down her door in the middle of dinner and marched her outside barefoot. During Hill’s detention hearing, Agent Wiethorn testified that he didn’t know where Hill was in proximity to Song when the shooting took place, or even if she was still at the detention facility. Cody Cofer, Hill’s lawyer, asked Wiethorn to explain how Hill “helped” Song.“I think by participating in the attack with Mr. Song would be helping him,” Wiethorn replied.“And so, how did Ms. Hill participate in the attack?” Cofer asked.“With the presence with — showing up in black bloc — showing up and shooting off fireworks into the facility, participating in this group that had organized themselves, had planned, had prepared, had brought weapons, body armor, medical kits,” Wiethorn said. The indictment charges Hill, Song and three others with the attempted murder of not only the police officer who responded to the scene, but also of two ICE corrections officers who were not injured. Similarly, the lawyer for Elizabeth Soto asked Agent Wiethorn if there was any evidence her client “was anything but present” on the night of the shooting. Wiethorn said Soto participated in planning chats on Signal, although elsewhere he testified that there had been no discussion of shooting at police. Wiethorn also said Soto traveled to the event with her husband, who brought “multiple trauma kits.”Soto “was aware of what they were doing, was part of this group that had an understanding of overall intent,” the agent testified. ‘Six inches from being murdered’Zachary Evetts, a defendant charged with attempted murder, told Anne Speckhard, a psychology professor who interviewed him in pre-trial detention, he went to Prairieland anticipating a “peaceful, although loud” demonstration, according to an expert report she submitted on his behalf. Evetts told Speckhard, who leads the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism at Georgetown University, he was terrified when he heard gunshots.“I’m running and see two correction officers, one female, and there is gunfire to the left of me,” Evetts said. “I was afraid I was going to get shot. I was very afraid. I have to run now or I’ll die.”Speckhard concluded that the “available evidence establishes that the defendants prepared for a noise demonstration involving fireworks … undermining claims of planned violent escalation.”Prosecutors have asked Judge Mark Pittman to remove Speckhard as an expert witness, objecting to “improper opinion testimony.” Pittman said last week Speckhard’s language “gives the court pause” but declined to bar her testimony, saying he was open to revisiting the matter at trial. Koza told Raw Story she believes the government included Hill in the case because to do otherwise would be a tacit acknowledgement that shooting off fireworks doesn’t add up to a conspiracy to escalate a violent attack.“One of the things I noticed during the preliminary hearing is that the government is careful to not say, ‘Protest,’” Koza said. “They say, ‘Ambush, ambush, ambush,’ and, ‘Attack, attack, attack.’ They want to say that it isn’t possible that anything legitimate happened that night. I think prosecuting her is part of making the case that there is no good protester in this instance.”During the detention hearing last September, previewing the argument the government is likely to make at trial, Assistant U. S. Attorney Shawn Smith cited anarchist zines printed in the Sotos’ garage.“These individuals were involved in a long-running conspiracy that started with this philosophy centered around what I’ve called and labeled the printers,” Smith said. “They’re the ideological heads of this group. They are rendering assistance passing this information, this antifa information, this deep-seated hatred of the government.”Moving on to the gunfire on July 4 outside the ICE facility, Smith again cited black bloc, fireworks and vandalism.“They acted in concert,” he said, adding: “They don’t have to each hold a gun, but they’re part of a common plan and scheme: Destruction and murder. Attempted murder in this case. Six inches from being murdered.”Beyond the potential culpability of the eight defendants involved in setting off fireworks, vandalism and producing zines, the actions of Song, the one person alleged to have fired a weapon, loom over the trial. During the detention hearing, Song’s lawyer wrested an acknowledgement from Agent Wiethorn that he didn’t know if Lt. Thomas Gross unholstered his weapon before Song fired. Speckhard wrote that “available evidence establishes that the shooting was not premeditated or coordinated and may have occurred as an impulsive response to aggressive police action by a single individual, rather than as part of a planned or directed attack.”Prosecutors plan to call Gross to testify. In a witness list filed with the court, Song indicated he intends to take the stand in his own defense.Our Analysis:The Dubious Prosecution of 'Antifa' Activists in Texas: A Closer LookIn a case that reads more like a poorly scripted political thriller than a pursuit of justice, the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has launched a legal battle against nine anti-ICE activists on charges as severe as attempted murder and terrorism. The incident in question, involving fireworks and vandalism at the Prairieland ICE detention facility, has been dramatically escalated to a narrative fitting a government's penchant for demonizing dissent. Let's dissect the layers of this absurdity with the precision it demands.The Overreach of Criminalizing DissentAt the heart of this case is an egregious attempt to criminalize political opposition. The defendants, described as part of an "antifa cell", are being charged collectively for actions that range from vandalism to a noise demonstration meant to uplift the spirits of detained immigrants. The narrative pushed by the prosecution dangerously conflates the use of fireworks and graffiti with attempted murder and terrorism, leveraging the ambiguous and politically loaded term "antifa" to do so. This manipulation of legal boundaries to suppress dissent is not just troubling; it's a direct assault on the First Amendment rights.The Misrepresentation of 'Antifa'The indictment's reliance on President Trump's executive order designating "antifa" as a domestic terrorist organization is a masterclass in the misuse of power. "Antifa," short for anti-fascist, is not a centralized organization but a broad, loosely connected movement of individuals opposed to fascism in all its forms. By painting it as a "militaristic, anarchist enterprise," the Trump administration and, by extension, the DOJ, are not just mischaracterizing a political ideology but are weaponizing the legal system against political adversaries. This misrepresentation serves one purpose: to vilify and silence opposition.The Flaws in the Government's ArgumentThe government's efforts to build an "enterprise" case around the defendants' supposed adherence to "antifa" ideology and their involvement in printing political literature—or "zines"—is a thinly veiled attempt at criminalizing speech. The leap from participating in a demonstration to providing material support for terrorists based on the production and distribution of political literature is a dangerous precedent for the suppression of political speech. Additionally, the reliance on expert testimony from the far-right Center for Security Policy further discredits the objectivity of the government's stance, revealing a trial marred by ideological bias rather than factual evidence.A Case Built on Association Rather Than ActionThe indictment's logic—that all participants in the protest, regardless of their direct actions, are complicit in attempted murder—is a legal overreach of alarming proportions. The fact that the only person alleged to have fired a weapon is being used to implicate all other defendants is indicative of a strategy that targets association and ideology rather than criminal acts. This strategy not only undermines the legal principle of individual culpability but also sets a dangerous precedent for prosecuting political activism under the guise of counterterrorism.The Implications for DemocracyThis trial is more than a legal proceeding; it's a litmus test for the state of American democracy. At stake are the fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right to dissent. If the government succeeds in using this case to set a precedent for criminalizing political opposition, the implications for democratic engagement and civil liberties are dire. The attempt to label a peaceful, albeit loud, demonstration as an "ambush" and "attack" is not just a mischaracterization of events; it's a deliberate attempt to redefine legitimate protest as terrorism.In conclusion, the trial against the Prairieland defendants is emblematic of a broader attempt to stifle dissent and criminalize opposition under the guise of national security. It's imperative that we scrutinize the motivations behind this prosecution and the dangerous precedents it seeks to establish. The fight against fascism begins with protecting the rights of all individuals to oppose government policies without fear of being labeled terrorists or facing unjust prosecution. This case, with its flawed premises and political undercurrents, should alarm anyone concerned with the preservation of those fundamental rights.

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