Stephen Miller Calls Sam Stein ‘Repugnant’!

Summary

Bulwark Takes Episode Summary

Episode: Stephen Miller Calls Sam Stein ‘Repugnant’!
Date: October 7, 2025
Hosts: Tim Miller & Sam Stein

---

Overview

This lively episode of Bulwark Takes tackles a recent spate of incendiary tweets from Stephen Miller (the former Trump advisor, now referred to satirically as “the Deputy Deputy President”). The conversation centers around Miller's accusations against Bulwark’s own Sam Stein and other public figures, calling them "repugnant" and "vile." Tim Miller and Sam Stein dissect Miller’s online rhetoric, debate the underlying strategy, and reflect on personal interactions with the hard-right provocateur. The episode balances sharp analysis with the hosts’ trademark banter and gallows humor.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Stephen Miller’s Rhetoric & Behavior

• Escalating Online Outbursts:
  • Miller’s tweets have grown “more breathless in [their] hyperbolic and totally crazy” tone lately, particularly around domestic terrorism and opposition to Trump administration policies (01:08).
• Rhetorical Style:
  • Miller’s posts are described as “very long screeds” rather than simple tweets (01:11).
  • Tim Miller jokes about finding the German word for “diatribe” ("Estris. Estrish. I'm probably saying that right." 01:52).

2. Content of Miller’s Tweets

• Allegations of Domestic Terrorism:
  • Miller paints protests against ICE and Trump policies as “an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers,” declaring military deployment “an absolute necessity” (02:06–02:50).
  • Sam and Tim highlight the exaggeration, noting the lack of evidence for Miller’s claims: “It's like a block, not even downtown” (02:58).
• Blaming the Left and Democratic Institutions:
  • Miller accuses left-wing activists, judges, and attorneys of being part of a broad, organized, and funded movement of domestic terrorism (03:05–03:16).
  • Tim points out the narrative’s purpose: “They're trying to say that this is a broad effort… there just isn’t evidence of that” (03:36).

3. Miller’s Attacks on Individuals

• Personal Insults:
  • Miller calls Sam Stein “repugnant” and Dan Goldman “vile” in direct replies (04:30–05:57).
  • Tim and Sam debate the nuances of being called "repugnant" versus "vile" (“I think repugnant is better than vile” 06:24).
• Anti-Semitism Dog Whistle?
  • Tim jokingly asks if there’s an anti-Semitic undertone to Miller’s attacks on Stein and Goldman, both Jewish. Sam points out Miller is Jewish himself but "in a different vein" (06:26–06:39).

4. Comparison to Trump’s Rhetoric

• Contrasting Styles:
  • Trump’s insults are described as “mad grandpa” style—simple, crude—but less menacing than Miller’s high-flown, “fashy” rhetoric (07:37–08:17).
  • Sam admires Trump’s punchier insults for being “a little bit better” at landing their mark (08:17).

5. Broad Claims with Little Evidence

• Miller’s Wild Assertions:
  • Miller accuses figures like Stephen King of “pretending that an organized criminal conspiracy… is anything but domestic terrorism” without credible evidence (08:52–09:14).
• Call for Real Consequences:
  • Tim & Sam sarcastically suggest that if such a criminal conspiracy existed, government action would be warranted, but no such proof is presented: “Get on it. Make some arrests.… What are you doing?” (09:58).

6. Personal Reflections on Miller

• Early Encounters:
  • Both hosts recall Miller’s intense networking and hardline immigration stance even before the Trump era. Sam details being contacted by Miller during political campaigns—“very proactive about networking and pushing his agenda” (10:20–11:26).
• Unshakeable Convictions:
  • Miller has “deeply, deeply held beliefs that are immovable," making substantive debate with him futile (11:26–12:12).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Miller’s Twitter Behavior

• Sam Stein:
  “I felt like it was a good jumping off point to talk about what I think in any other circumstance would be qualified as totally unhinged online behavior.” (00:39)
• Tim Miller:
  “They're not really tweets anymore, even. They're... very long screeds.” (01:08–01:13)
• Sam Stein (reading Miller):
  “This is an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers. And the deployment of troops is an absolute necessity to defend our personnel, our laws, our government, public order and the Republic itself.” (02:06)

On Rhetorical Extremism

• Tim Miller:
  “They're trying to say that this is a broad effort… there just isn't evidence of that.” (03:36)
• Tim Miller:
  “It’s not like the, like Trump. When Trump fires off these screens, I mean, he sounds like he's a little demented... this is just like this. Oh, I've got out my quill. Just like calm down. Okay, Calm down. Fucking fashy.” (07:37–08:17)

On Personal Attacks

• Stephen Miller (quoted by Sam):
  “You are repugnant.… Planned and coordinated armed attacks on ICE officers by violent extremists designed to nullify the results of the 2024 election.” (04:30–04:33)
• Stephen Miller (quoted):
  “You are vile. Deeply warped and vile.” (05:57)

On Engaging with Miller

• Sam Stein:
  “If you want to engage him on the substance… it’s a fool’s errand. Like, he’s just going to… use that rhetoric and throw a bunch of at you, and it's not really an actual conversation.” (11:26)
• Tim Miller (about Miller’s political network):
  “He has deeply, deeply held beliefs that are immovable.… Psychosis. Yeah, he's implemented psychosis.” (12:12)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:39 — Sam lays out why Miller’s behavior is noteworthy
• 01:08–01:13 — Hosts discuss Miller’s shift from tweets to screeds
• 02:06 — Reading of Miller’s legal insurrection tweet
• 03:16–03:36 — Analysis of the domestic terrorism narrative
• 04:30 — “You are repugnant”: Miller’s attack on Sam
• 05:57 — “You are vile”: Miller’s attack on Dan Goldman
• 07:37–08:17 — Comparing Miller’s style to Trump’s
• 09:58–10:16 — Hosts on the lack of evidence for Miller’s claims
• 10:20–11:26 — Personal, pre-Trump-era encounters with Stephen Miller
• 11:26–12:12 — Why substantive debate with Miller is pointless
• 12:34 — Tim reassures Sam: “I don't think you’re repugnant... mostly, you're really great.”

---

Tone & Style Notes

The episode is irreverent, deeply skeptical of Miller’s motives, and peppered with humor and camaraderie. Quotes are often voiced with mock-gravity or exaggerated disdain, reflecting the absurdity the hosts see in Miller’s rhetoric. At times, the conversation interlaces dead-serious critique with inside jokes and self-deprecation.

---

Conclusion

“Stephen Miller Calls Sam Stein ‘Repugnant’!” offers a sharp, humor-laced analysis of escalating rhetoric in Trump-era politics, focusing specifically on Miller’s vilification tactics. The hosts use Miller’s tweets as a case study in hyperbolic political messaging and the dangers of manufactured narratives of domestic terror—while keeping the tone accessible and entertaining. For listeners seeking to understand both Stephen Miller’s methods and how seasoned political commentators react, this episode is both insightful and highly engaging.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody. Tim Miller from the Bulwark here with our repugnant managing editor, Repugnant in every way. Sam Stein. He wanted to review with me, Stephen Miller, the Deputy Deputy President's disgusting tweets from the weekend in which he targeted our own Sam Stein and made, like, a million really bad points. And one thing that you can. I don't know, maybe I have to hand it to him. Anyway, so what, the repugnant part? Yeah, the repugnant. You know, if the shoe fits.

[B]

Give off the vibe.

[A]

Yeah, if the glove fits, as they say. Anyway, you have the best. The greatest hits from Stephen Miller. From. You know, Let me just clarify.

[B]

This is not. I'm not doing this because I was offended, although I was offended. Stephen, Call me next time, okay. Like the old days when you just call. I just felt like it was a good jumping off point to talk about what I think in any other circumstance would be qualified as totally unhinged online behavior. Not just going after me, but just the quality of the tweets from Steven has gotten more breathless in its hyperbolic and totally crazy.

[A]

So they're not really tweets anymore, even. They're.

[B]

Yeah, they're like diet.

[A]

Very long screeds. What's the German word for diatribe? I'll. While you read one, I'll Google that.

[B]

I don't. Yes. Okay. So there's, like, a different gen about his recent tweets. They're. They're very dark. So he's been tweeting a lot about, like, the country being under attack, and, you know, he's been given this portfolio to, like, handle domestic terrorism. And basically the backstory is, is that he thinks we're in the middle of some sort of domestic terrorism incident and that it should just justify the state suppression of these terrorists. I'm going to read you a few of them. You tell me if they startle you or if you just sort of brush them off. I think the good ones are when he's responding to people like me. But I'm going to start with the just general posts.

[A]

Estris. Estrish. I'm probably saying that right.

[B]

More phlegm if you want to. Come on. All right.

[A]

Sorry, Stephen.

[B]

So this one was on Saturday night, which kind of gives away the game he's got. He needs more hobbies. Quote Legal Insurrection. This is from the Oregon judge who said you can't deputize the National Guard and send him on a minor ice protest. Legal Insurrection. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, not an Oregon judge. Portrait In Oregon law enforcement, the direction of local leaders have refused to aid ICE officers facing relentless terrorist assault and threats of life. There are more local law enforcement officers in Oregon than there are guns and badges in the FBI nationwide. This is an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers. And the deployment of troops is an absolute necessity to defend our personnel, our laws, our government, public order and the Republic itself.

[A]

There's been a 911 in Oregon since we last saw like an organized terrorist attack on the government. What are they?

[B]

It's like a block, not even downtown.

[A]

The judge said it hasn't even seen any violence since July same day another post.

[B]

The issue before us now is very simple and clear. There's a large and growing movement of left wing terrorism in this country is well organized and funded. It is shielded by far left democratic judges, prosecutors and attorneys general.

[A]

Let's stop there. Let's just stop there really quick because this ties to JD you can see how he's gotten JD and I've been going over this quote for a while where JD talks about how the Charlie Kirk assassin was part of these broader organizations and that he was funded.

[B]

Maybe they should have been investigating the networks that motivated, inspired and maybe even funded Charlie Kirk's murder.

[A]

This is their line. They're trying to, they're trying to make this falsehood real. There have been a couple of horrible one off actions of, of. Of left wing violence no doubt there's also been some horrible right wing violence over the past month. We're a fucking violent country. That's bad. It should be a condemned. But they're trying to take that and make it something bigger so they can bring down the boot of the state. Right. They're trying to say that this is a broad effort that is funded and organized by some shadowy left win when there just like isn't evidence of that.

[B]

I mean that's why they designated antifa domestic terrorist organization. They've flirted with going after the Soros foundation because they think there's. They're trying to paint the picture of some sort of coordinated campaign. Anyways, that was the end of the tweet. He just said the only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism terrorism networks. Here's where it gets really good though. It's the replies because the replies are amazing. There's the one to me, I'm just going to read, you know, I guess worth just being open about it to.

[A]

Me you are repugnant.

[B]

You are repugnant. Planned and coordinated armed techs and ICE officers by violent extremists designed to nullify the results of the 2024 election. I don't really get that. He keeps saying that. Nullify the results of the 2024 election. Does he think that?

[A]

I think what he's claiming is that since Donald Trump won the 2024 election, him and his henchmen get to do whatever they want. And if a judge rules against them because they broke the law, that is an attempt. That is an insurrection. That is an attempt to nullify the election.

[B]

Or he's saying that because Trump ran on deportations. Anything that gets in the way of deportations and a nullification of the election, it's not an actual nullification, it's just.

[A]

No, obviously.

[B]

So then he responded also to Dan Goldman, Congressman from New York. Dan Goldman was tweeting about this incident in South Carolina where a judge's house burst into flames. It looks like a potentially an act of arson. Democratic point to judge, I believe. But she's been in the crosshairs. A lot of questions about what actually happened there, we don't know. And so we should be, you know, cautious about talking about it. Jan was not as cautious as I would be. He said Trump, Stephen Miller and Maggie have been doxing and threatening judges who rule against Trump, including Judge Goodstein. Today, someone committed arson on the judge's home, severely injuring her husband and son. Will Trump speak out against the extreme right that did this? Question mark, question mark, whatever. Miller brings it to like a 13. You are vile. Deeply warped and vile.

[A]

Now, now talk to me about why you think that he went with vile here versus repugnant.

[B]

I think he's. I think he's got like four go tos and he just kind of rotates.

[A]

You don't think there's something specific about your kind of aura that said repugnant versus vile?

[B]

I don't know. Why did you take that one? What do you think?

[A]

I don't know. You're the one on the receiving end. I don't know.

[B]

Maybe I'm too jaded about it. Would you rather be called vile or repugnant?

[A]

I think repugnant.

[B]

Repugnant.

[A]

I think repugnant is better than vile. Yeah, Dan Goldman there does. Maybe I'm a gentile, so I can say this. A little anti Semitic, going after Stein and Goldman with Jewel.

[B]

Miller's Jewish.

[A]

Yeah, but kind of a different, different, different vein. But I. I don't know. It's something there. I don't know what it is. Let's continue.

[B]

You are vile, deeply Warped in vile. While the Trump administration has launched the first ever government wide effort to combat and prosecute illegal doxing, sinister threats and political violence, you continue to push despic lies, demented smears, malicious defamation and ferment unrest. Despicable. I mean, all right. Then he goes on. He says the Democratic AG in Virginia is fantasizing about murdering his opponents and Biden federal judge is showing radical leniency to a monster who tried to assassinate Supreme Court Justice. He's right about the Democratic AG nominee. Pretty grotesque tweets. While you post your libelous madness, we will keep focused on delivering public safety and fighting domestic terrorism. Then he did a plight of Brian Schatz, Senator for why neither Republican or vile. He went, surely you can't be this reckless and irresponsible. That's he's letting Brian off a little easy.

[A]

Recklessness, it's all just very highfalutin. You know, it's not like the, like Trump. When Trump fires off these screens, I mean he sounds like he's a little demented. I mean he doesn't, he sounds like a crazy person, but like he uses normal language uses. He sounds like a mad grandpa, you know what I mean? Or a mad uncle. Like shouting after a few cocktails. And Trump doesn't drink. He just sounds like had three beers, his team is doing poorly and he's shouting at the cut like that's the vibe of Trump's posts. This is just like this. Oh, I've got out my quill. Just like calm down. Okay, Calm down. Fucking fashy. All right, continue.

[B]

No, no, that's a good point. I, I and you gotta appreciate Trump for that. If he's gonna go off on Chris Christie, he's just gonna be like, grab another box of M M's, fatty. Yeah, it's like, yeah, it's, it lands a little bit better. All right. And then he went after Stephen King, the author, not a Jew.

[A]

So the trend there broken is he.

[B]

Hold on, I want to claim, I want to claim Stephen King. Stephen King, Jewish question mark.

[A]

King identifies as a Jew through church according to Judaism in 1991.

[B]

Yes, yes.

[A]

He is a convert like Rod LaRue.

[B]

Oh man, I knew it. See, I got this thing. I knew it. I knew it. Smart guy. Anyways, Stephen Miller responds to Stephen King. I'm sorry that your brain is so poisoned by toxic ideology that you pretend that an organized criminal conspiracy to assault docs, attack, obstruct, impede and murder federal law enforcement and their families is anything but domestic terrorism.

[A]

Blah, blah, Blah. Again, organized criminal conspiracy to murder federal law enforcement. What is the bait? Like, they keep saying that, like, words have meaning. Like what? Like, present us evidence there's an organized criminal conspiracy to murder federal officers. And if that's true, then fucking come down as hard on those people as possible. But what are you talking about? That does, that does not justify harassing people who are peacefully protesting outside an ICE office. Or, like, harassing people just because they look brown or whatever. Like, you know what I mean? Like, if that was really true, then you would have your best people, Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, on the job of identifying the organizers of this vast criminal conspiracy.

[B]

Yeah, no, that's a good point. If you knew that someone was organizing to murder, literally murder, this is his word. Federal law enforcement. Get on it. Make some arrests. I mean, what are you doing? Trying to get James Comey for something five years ago in testimony before Congress. Get to the real deal.

[A]

Have you ever.

[B]

Have you ever engaged with Stephen Miller? Not online, in person.

[A]

I mean, I've said this to people in the past. Like, you hate to hand it to isis, and so you don't want to hand it to Stephen Miller ever. But here's something that he did. Well, is back in, like, the Bush McCain era, when the, you know, the leaders of the party were pretty soft. Immigration, moderate immigration, whatever word you want to use. Stephen Miller, as a young staffer, like, saw an opening as being a hardline immigration person, branded himself that way and was very aggressive about, as you said, he used to call you, like, cold, reaching out to people. And I forget which campaign it was. On one of the campaigns he called, reached out to me because I think it was kind of an enemy of our enemy situation. He was working for the far right person. I was working for a mod. And he was like, let's try to look at the other candidate, I think, who had some record on immigration that was soft. And we, we emailed back and forth to cut a call. I mean, I, you know, it wasn't like I didn't ever have a meal with him or anything, but like, that story I just tell, because he was very proactive about that as far as networking and pushing his agenda and pushing his line. Before Trump. Way before Trump.

[B]

Yeah, no, he used to, when he was with Sessions, you know, you get a random call from him usually to talk about immigration, about, you know, why all these people should be deported and all this stuff. I mean, he's been hitting the same exact notes for year after year after year after year. And if you want to engage him on the substance. It's not. It's not that it's pointless, but the idea that you would ever move him from any of his convictions, it's a fool's errand. Like, he's just going to, you know, use that rhetoric and throw a bunch of at you, and it's not really an actual conversation. He has deeply, deeply held beliefs that are immovable. And so it's kind of like watching him ascend to this level of power and then implement this stuff. It's like you're not going to reason with the guy.

[A]

No psychosis. Yeah, he's implemented psychosis. I just want to say, because I also said on the podcast today that Steve Miller had a point. I don't think you're a pug. That I feel like people can come. Yeah, people can come and look at this video. It's just a joke between friends. I think you, you know, every once in a while, watching you chew is repugnant. But mostly, you're really great, and I appreciate you.

[B]

I appreciate that.