Thank you Dean for presenting COUNTY ATTORNEY JEFF GRAY as a BIASED & incompetent BOOB. 

Who ever heard of a prosecutor praising the VICTIM? 

Should have recused himself & requested a CHANGE OF VENUE! 

OCCUPY DEMOCRATS posted an HONEST OBITUARY of CHARLIE KIRK

(RACIST, BIGOT, HOMOPHOBE, TRANS PHONE. MISOGYNIST, LIAR....PROMOTED PUBLIC EXECUTIONS FOR CHILDREN TO WATCH, PROMOTED GUN VIOLENCE, PROMOTED LIES THAT FOLLOWERS WERE TOO LAZY TO FACT CHECK : 

THIS Honest Charlie Kirk OBITUARY Just Went VIRAL🚨

https://youtu.be/fU7PacILdes?si=L9C31HU7j3hvbDPo

🚨Charlie Kirk’s Widow Just Got Caught In A New Scandal

https://youtu.be/fU7PacILdes?si=J-72zYUxzmVG8WO9

IS UTAH TRYING TO LOSE THE CHARLIE KIRK MURDER CASE? The Utah prosecutor just previewed the state’s case against Tyler Robinson on live TV—alleged confessions, motive, and all. It made for great television and terrible trial strategy. Dean Blundell Sep 17 September 17, 2025 YOU drive this Substack. SO, we’re giving you 50% OFF for unlimited access, for life. Monthly, Annual, and Founding plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET) Imagine a high‑stakes murder trial where the prosecutor hands the defense a gift‑wrapped win on live TV—before a jury is even seated. That’s exactly what Utah County did in the Charlie Kirk killing. In a case already drowning in skepticism (those suspiciously polished messages that surfaced just in time to “seal” the story), County Attorney Jeff Gray stepped to a podium and read alleged confessions and text exchanges as if they were closed‑book truths after eulogizing Charlie Kirk for a solid ten minutes (possible bias): Is this mere sloppiness—or a calculated “overshare” that risks torpedoing the prosecution’s own case? Buckle up. We’re diving into how one press conference can blow up a capital murder prosecution before it properly starts. Could Utah be trying to lose this case, or is this a masterclass in constitutional self‑sabotage? Editor’s note: All facts in this piece reflect what was publicly presented by prosecutors or reported contemporaneously. Allegations remain allegations until proven in court. The defendant is presumed innocent. The Presser Breakdown — What Went Down Jeff Gray’s lengthy press conference laid out—point by point—the state’s narrative against Tyler Robinson, the 22‑year‑old charged with the aggravated murder of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. Gray read from charging documents and described what he characterized as a damning trove of alleged evidence: A handwritten note: purportedly left under a keyboard, pointing to intent and opportunity. A stream of (very convenient) text messages, allegedly sent to Robinson’s partner, includes statements that prosecutors interpret as admissions of planning (“I had the opportunity… planned for a bit over a week”) and remorse (“I am, I’m sorry”). An alleged motive in the messages: frustration with Kirk’s rhetoric framed as the animating reason (“I had enough of his hatred”), inserting Robinson’s alleged relationship with his (alleged gay/trans) roommate. Physical evidence: a rifle recovered near campus and forensic results prosecutors say tie Robinson to the weapon, including DNA. Digital breadcrumbs: a short confession‑style message on a chat platform (“It was me”), presented as coming from Robinson. Theatrics: engraved bullet casings with taunting phrases—details prosecutors highlighted to paint state of mind and a nod to Trump and Robinson’s dad. He then punctuated the narrative with sweeping rhetoric about national tragedy and political violence. The “too convenient” problem: The timing and packaging of this reveal coincided with the emergence of online skepticism about the authenticity and tone of the messages. The set pieces—confessional texts, a neat handwritten note, engraved casings—play like a movie. Prosecutors insist it’s straightforward evidence, and it may be. But by airing it all at once, and before any judge has vetted admissibility, the state risks looking like it’s trying to cement a story in the public mind rather than in a courtroom record. Every piece of questionable evidence fits Trump’s narrative, too. A basic evidentiary reality check: The text messages shown publicly lacked the usual forensics a court demands—full metadata, precise timestamps, export method, device of origin, and carrier corroboration. That doesn’t mean they’re fake. It means context and authentication will decide their fate, not a microphone discussing the information you claim to have without any verification of proof. Constitutional Carnage — Why This Is a Huge No‑No Let’s translate the legal risks—plainly and practically: Due Process & the Right to an Impartial Jury (Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments). Televising alleged confessions and curated snippets before voir dire risks poisoning the jury pool. Courts exist to test evidence under rules. Press conferences do not. Presumption of Innocence vs. “Facts” at a Podium. However many times a prosecutor says “alleged,” a televised walkthrough of supposed admissions sounds like adjudicated truth. That flips the burden in the court of public opinion. Trial‑Publicity Ethics. Prosecutors have special responsibilities. Most jurisdictions—including Utah—track the rule that lawyers must not make extrajudicial statements if they create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding. Reading alleged confessions and motive language is the kind of content ethics committees flag. Fourth & Fifth Amendments—What They Actually Cover. Important nuance: Broadcasting messages isn’t itself a Fourth/Fifth Amendment violation. The Fourth is about how evidence was obtained (warrants, scope, consent). The Fifth guards against compelled self‑incrimination during custodial questioning. The presser turns those issues into pretrial battles about suppression and admissibility—but the immediate, concrete harm from the presser is pretrial prejudice, not a freestanding 4th/5th breach. You Can’t Unring the Bell. Once jurors have seen or heard a confession summary on TV, instructions to “ignore what you saw” are about as effective as telling someone not to picture a pink elephant. Relatable gut check: If this were your trial, would you want your texts splashed across national media before a judge reviews the chain of custody and completeness? Exactly. The Lame Cover‑Up — Disclaimers and Empty Promises Yes, Gray tacked on disclaimers about the presumption of innocence and the limits of what he could say. But after a 40‑plus‑minute parade of alleged admissions, motive, and colorful “state of mind” details, a one‑paragraph disclaimer lands like “sorry about the red wine on your white carpet.” The promise to “say nothing further during the trial” doesn’t un‑say what was already said, and it doesn’t un‑hear what the public just heard. Does this sound like confidence in strong evidence—or panic that a too‑perfect narrative might crumble under cross‑examination? And, doesn’t it look like there is a rush to create proof and motive instead of presenting it at trial? The Fallout Forecast — Motions, Mistrials, and Mayhem Expect the defense to move aggressively and early. Here’s the likely ladder: 4) Change of Venue / Continuance / Sequestration If the presser saturates the local community, the defense will ask to move the trial or delay it until publicity cools, and may seek to sequester jurors once selected. 3) Gag Orders on Participants Courts can restrict what lawyers and agents say (not the press) to prevent further contamination. The standard balances fair‑trial rights against speech—restrictions aimed at trial participants have a much better chance than prior restraints on media. 2) Evidentiary Knife Fights Authentication (Rule 901). Who pulled the texts? From what device? Forensic image or screenshot? What are the hash values? Is there carrier‑level confirmation? Completeness (Rule 106). Are we seeing curated snippets or full conversations with timestamps and context? Hearsay / Non‑Hearsay. Admissions by a party opponent are generally admissible; but the other statements in the threads? Defense will force granular rulings. Chain of Custody. From seizure to lab to courtroom—every handoff documented, or the defense will argue contamination or tampering. 1) Appellate Tripwire If the trial court shrugs at the publicity problem and a conviction follows, expect reversible‑error arguments on appeal (pretrial publicity, failure to cure prejudice). Translation: this presser could become Exhibit A in undoing the verdict. The “convenience” angle: If the messages were already suspect to skeptics, this media roll‑out conveniently opens extra doors to challenge them. Coincidence—or design? Supreme Precedent — History Isn’t on Utah’s Side A quick tour of the cases every judge keeps in their back pocket: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966): The media circus case. Conviction reversed because the court didn’t shield the trial from prejudicial publicity. The takeaway is that judges must take “strong measures” to ensure an impartial jury, including a change of venue, continuances, sequestration, warnings to participants, and tight control of the courtroom. If Utah was looking for a fair trial, they just tipped the scales in favor of ‘not.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976): Prior restraints on the press are almost never permissible. Courts should use less restrictive alternatives to protect fair‑trial rights (think: move the trial, expand voir dire, sequester, admonish jurors, rein in participants’ speech). Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991): Lawyers can be disciplined for public statements that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice. The state’s interest in a fair trial justifies tighter reins on lawyers’ speech than on the public or press. Irvin v. Dowd (1961), Rideau v. Louisiana (1963), Estes v. Texas (1965): When pretrial publicity or broadcast confessions swamp a community, prejudice may be presumed; convictions can’t stand. Skilling v. United States (2010): Not every high‑profile case needs a venue change—if the court employs rigorous voir dire and the publicity isn’t so pervasive and inflammatory that prejudice must be presumed. The lesson: process and posture matter. Modern twist: Multiply Sheppard by social media. Viral clips, podcasts, and 24/7 feeds mean prejudice travels faster, sticks longer, and is harder to cleanse. If anything, judges today must be more—not less—proactive. How Digital Evidence Really Gets In (and Falls Apart) An educational pit stop for readers who want to understand the sausage‑making: 1) Acquisition Forensic imaging of devices (full physical or logical) with write‑blocking and hash verification (e.g., SHA‑256). Provider records (subpoena/warrant to carriers or platforms) for timestamps and message logs. Cloud backups with access credentials or lawful process. 2) Authentication (Rule 901) Hash values match from seizure to courtroom. Custodian testimony (for business records) or expert examiner testimony (for device extractions). Corroborating artifacts: geolocation, IP logs, contact lists, message headers, EXIF, system logs. 3) Admissibility & Hearsay Party‑opponent admissions by the defendant are non‑hearsay. Statements by others in the thread may require exceptions (e.g., present sense impression) or redaction. Rule 403 balancing: probative value vs. unfair prejudice (those flamboyant engravings may invite a 403 fight). 4) Completeness (Rule 106) If the state offers a snippet, the defense can demand the rest of the conversation for context. That includes timestamps, earlier drafts, and deleted segments, if recoverable. 5) Common Defense Attacks Spoofing/account compromise claims (necessitating device‑level proof). Editing/fabrication arguments (challenging export method, chain of custody). Misattribution (shared devices, shared accounts, SIM swaps). Bottom line: a press conference preview proves nothing. Courts decide what’s real and what the jury gets to see. Conclusion: Justice—or Just Theater? This press conference wasn’t just risky; it was predictably risky. The public has a right to know, but there’s a right way to inform the community without teaching the prosecution’s case to the internet—complete with alleged confessions, curated texts, and meme‑ready details—before a judge weighs in. If Robinson walks, don’t point at the jury. Point at the podium. Your turn: Do you buy the official story, or does some of it feel too convenient? Drop your take in the comments—and subscribe for the motions, rulings, and voir dire fireworks to come. Subscribe and don’t miss a post: Get 50% OFF for unlimited access. Monthly, Annual, and Founding plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET). Don’t miss the next deep dive as better America wrestles this mess into daylight. Subscribe to get the receipts, not the spin.

The Week Ahead September 14, 2025 Joyce Vance Sep 15 In moments like these, the threads between politics, law, and history matter more than ever. Understanding how they fit together helps you make sense of what’s really happening. Subscribing means you’ll always have that clarity and perspective at your fingertips, that you won’t miss the bigger picture—and you’ll have the information you need to make it possible for others to see it too. The Shreveport Times reported this week that “Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy said Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham should consider writing a 'blanket’ prescription for the COVID-19 vaccine for anyone who wants the shot.” This comes, of course, in the wake of the decision by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., whom Cassidy voted to confirm, to recommend the vaccine for fewer people than had been previously deemed prudent. Now, there is confusion about how to access the vaccine and whether it’s necessary, as Kennedy, who is a vaccine skeptic, continues to discourage the use of immunizations that have kept Americans safer for decades. Currently, the CDC website offers no guidance on taking the vaccine for the 2025-26 season. Despite his request of his home state’s surgeon general, Cassidy, a medical doctor, continues to support the HHS secretary he helped to confirm. But if his recent tweets are any measure, he doesn’t seem to support a lot of his policies. Cassidy, without criticizing Kennedy, points out the Louisiana whooping cough outbreak and notes unvaccinated babies are being hospitalized and even dying. And of course, measles. Kennedy notably opposes the vaccine. He downplayed its value as cases surged earlier this year, only grudgingly changing course and recommending it while falsely claiming the protection doesn’t last for very long. A measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019 proved catastrophic after Kennedy visited the country and discouraged vaccination, part of his work as chairman of Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine nonprofit. Kennedy had a contentious oversight hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on September 4. It was marked by heated exchanges with both Republicans and Democrats, given the turmoil at federal agencies that support public health in America. Cassidy grilled Kennedy on issues like the inconsistency between his denigration of the Covid vaccine even as he agrees Trump deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, which delivered it. Despite the exchanges at the hearing, neither Cassidy nor other Republicans are calling for Kennedy’s resignation. Mediocrity, even dangerous risks to Americans, are apparently preferable to expulsion from the party and the Congress. You might think Cassidy would feel betrayed by Kennedy and the administration. His statement announcing his key vote to advance Kennedy’s nomination out of committee included this: “Mr. Kennedy and the administration reached out seeking to reassure me regarding their commitment to protecting the public health benefit of vaccination … He has also committed that he would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems. If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes.” But Cassidy, who is up for reelection in 2026 after being one of the seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump following his impeachment related to January 6, apparently is more concerned with his upcoming primary than with his constituents’ health. He is trying to deal with some of the consequences of Kennedy’s “leadership,” but he is doing so without addressing the root cause of the problem, the Secretary himself. It’s yet another example of the defining principle for the MAGA Republican Party: hypocrisy. Support Trump in all things, including his nomination of people who are totally unfit for their important roles in government; put yourself above the people who elected you to serve them; try to keep your seat by, for instance, skirting plain medical truths. We enter the week with a heavy dose of that hypocrisy hanging over the country. Memphis, Not Chicago “We’re going to Memphis,” Trump said last week during a Fox News interview, calling it a “deeply troubled” city. “National Guard and anybody else we need. And by the way, we’ll bring in the military too, if we need it.” Apparently, he’s backing down from a fight with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and angry Chicagoans and is setting his sights on the blue dot in the deep red state that is Memphis. A friendly governor will give him an easier path towards using claims of out of control crime (and Memphis has its fair share of problems) to expand the acceptable reach of the federal government in putting National Guard troops on American streets. We will learn this week if he is serious, but shifting his goal signals an unfortunate level of foresight and planning as Trump continues his efforts to expand the scope of presidential power. Prosecuting Charlie Kirk’s Murderer For now, at least, Tyler Robinson is being charged with state crimes in connection with Kirk's murder. That’s what we would expect. Most murders are charged in the state system. Federal cases are limited to those involving federal employees and officials, crimes that occur on federal lands, or specific kinds of crimes like civil rights offenses. State prosecutors tend to have greater expertise with these cases. We expect Utah prosecutors to charge Robinson with aggravated murder, which is death-penalty eligible, and related charges on Tuesday. Motive is not an element in most murder cases, but of course, it’s the pressing issue here. People want to know why. Earlier information that this could be a feud between “Groypers,” ultra right-wingers led by Nick Fuentes, is now being countered with allegations that Robinson had parted ways with his full-on MAGA family and was living with a transgender woman who is his girlfriend. I’ll issue the same caution I did last Wednesday: Let’s wait and see what the evidence shows and leave the political narratives aside. But one thing that a state prosecution will bring with it is cameras in the courts, which means we are likely to be able to watch much of the proceedings. Under Utah law, there is a provision that proceedings will be televised at every stage, including when Tyler is in court on Tuesday for his initial appearance. The law provides that “There is a presumption that electronic media coverage by a news reporter shall be permitted in public proceedings where the predominant purpose of the electronic media coverage request is journalism or dissemination of news to the public. The judge may prohibit or restrict electronic media coverage in those cases only if the judge finds that the reasons for doing so are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the presumption.” Ironically, this is taking place as the trial of Ryan Routh, which began last week, continues in federal court in Florida. Routh is charged with trying to assassinate Trump last September, while Trump was playing golf at his West Palm Beach club during the campaign. Routh was charged with attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, assaulting a federal officer (a Secret Service Agent), felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Ironically, the case has received less attention because reporting can only be based on reporters sitting in on the trial, since cameras are not routinely permitted in federal trial courts. Government Shutdown With all of this going on, it would be easy to forget that there is a government shutdown looming on the horizon at the end of the month. On Friday, Trump told Republicans that they shouldn’t “even bother dealing with Democrats,” because their leaders are refusing to support spending bills that do not include Democrats’ healthcare priorities. Democrats have historically fought and compromised to keep government open. But there is some sentiment this year that the extraordinary step of closing down government may help to slow Trump’s roll. Although shutdowns disrupt necessary work and waste resources, this may be the year that they refuse to play along—particularly since Trump has already disrupted much of government on his own, firing key appointees, doing away with agencies like USAID, cutting entire divisions at DOJ, and ending DEI programs. Democratic votes will be essential in the Senate to get past a filibuster. We’ll learn more about how fraught this situation will become in the week ahead. There are basically two options for extending government funding: a short-term stopgap into November or December or a longer-term Continuing Resolution until January or February if agreement can’t be reached. Before I leave you tonight, some good news, the best kind of news, for the week ahead. My dear friend Marissa Rothkopf is out this week with her first book, The Secret Life of Chocolate Chip Cookies. I’ve been the beneficiary of some of Marissa’s exceedingly fine baking and recipes over the years, and I have been waiting for this ever since she told me over a year ago that it was in the works! This moment calls for delicious chocolate chip cookies, the ultimate in comfort food. I’ll be a special guest at her launch party on Tuesday, and I hope you’ll join us. You can order the book here. A super bad picture of Marissa (at the bottom, in her kitchen) at a Markers for America Zoom call last year, because I’ve just realized we don’t have a decent picture of us together. Life is too short to skip the chocolate chip cookies. I’ll be baking as soon as the book lands here! We’re in this together, Joyce

FOCUS: Charlie Kirk Suspect’s Grandma Says Family Is All MAGA

 

 

13 September 25

IMMEDIATE NEED FOR ASSISTANCE ON SEPTEMBER DONATIONS — We need a few donations to stabilize RSN’s budget. We sincerely wish we could run the site without funding. It is not possible. We are doing our part, back us up with your support. The situation is quite bad now. Thank you.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

FOCUS: Charlie Kirk Suspect’s Grandma Says Family Is All MAGA
Amber Levis, The Daily Beast
Levis writes: "Tyler Robinson, the prime suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination, comes from a proud MAGA family, according to his grandmother."

 

---

donate  •  support 

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

“We Got Him”: Inside the Fast Arrest of Alleged Kirk Killer Tyler Robinson—and the Spin That Followed A gripping, fact‑driven narrative of the alleged Charlie Kirk shooter: the family tip, the evidence trail, the profile—and why rushing to blame “the radical left” outruns facts. Dean Blundell Sep 12 September 12, 2025 Content note: violence, legal process, political rhetoric. The suspect is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. You drive this Substack. So, for September, get 50% OFF for unlimited access! Monthly, Annual, and Founding plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET) The Arrest The governor stepped to a podium and said the line every shaken community waits to hear: “We got him.” Less than two days after a single shot killed Charlie Kirk during a daytime campus event, a 22‑year‑old named Tyler Robinson was in custody. At a press conference this morning, Utah’s Governor Cox said, “We got him.”: That couldn’t be farther from the truth. Tyler Robinson’s dad, a youth pastor, turned him into the FBI. It began when a parent recognized a face and a gait in the still frames released by investigators—grainy rooftop images of a figure in motion, leaping down and vanishing. Instead of stonewalling, the family picked up the phone. They reached out not to a political operative but to someone they knew personally: a youth pastor who also serves on a U.S. Marshals task force. Within hours, that network routed the information to the right hands. A young man was quietly detained. The scramble and fear gave way—for the first time in a day and a half—to a breath. No victory laps. No televised perp walk. Just a family who did the right thing, and a governor’s grandstanding, and a brief sentence: “We got him.” 2) Reconstructing the Evidence Trail (What each piece can—and can’t—prove right now.) Rooftop video. The clip that galvanized the search shows a figure moving along a roofline, then jumping down and fleeing. It places a person at the scene, moving away from the firing position, close in time to the shot. It does not, on its own, prove identity; that requires corroboration—comparative clothing, gait analysis, or device data that ties a specific individual to those exact steps. Prints and impressions. Investigators described shoe impressions and palm/forearm prints along the route to and from the rooftop. If matched to Robinson, prints do two things: they locate him on a path to the firing position and they timeline his presence. They don’t, by themselves, establish motive. And like all forensics, they’ll be tested by defense experts. Discord messages. A roommate presented messages that referenced acquiring and ditching a rifle, an outfit change, and even engraving bullets. If authenticated (device in hand, chain of custody intact), these logs can be powerful. But screenshots aren’t evidence until they’re forensically tied to the suspect and to a verified account. The content, tone, and timing will all matter. The rifle. Search teams recovered an older bolt‑action rifle—described as a Mauser‑pattern .30‑06—wrapped in a towel in a wooded area off campus. The chamber reportedly held a spent casing. If ballistics match the projectile that killed Kirk, and if unique tool marks tie the casing to that rifle, prosecutors gain a critical link: means. Defense will scrutinize where it was found, who had access, and whether any DNA or prints connect Robinson to the weapon. Engraved casings and bullets. Investigators said they found a fired casing and several unfired rounds marked with phrases—some political, some meme‑y, one a crude anti‑gay taunt. That matters for state of mind, but it does not prove a clean ideological motive. People engrave everything from song lyrics to inside jokes. Until prosecutors pair these artifacts with long‑form writings, search histories, or posts, interpretation is speculative. The path from stills to a name. Put together, the video, prints, messages, and rifle don’t yet tell a complete story—but they narrow the field. Add the family tip and the pastor‑to‑Marshals connection, and you get a credible route from pixels to a person in cuffs. 3) Who Is Tyler Robinson? Age & status. 22 years old. Not a Utah Valley University student. He reportedly attended Utah State University for one semester in 2021 and did not return. There’s no public record of military service or formal firearms training. Ideology: Information about Tyler being terminally online has revealed that he is a Nick Fuentes/Groyper, yet to be confirmed, but Groypers are an army created by Nick Fuentes, and Fuentes has encouraged violence against Trump acolytes over the Epstein Files. Groypers are violent white nationalists who categorically hate Trump, Shapiro, and Kirk, et al. Where arrested. Southern Utah, in the St. George/Washington County area, far from the campus where the shooting occurred. Voter registration. Public voter files list Robinson as unaffiliated/non‑partisan. That is a data point—not a worldview. Registration does not equal motive. Family dynamics. What we can say without doxxing: a parent recognized the imagery investigators released and contacted a trusted faith‑community leader who also happens to work with federal law enforcement. That call became the hinge in the case. Family members also told investigators that Robinson had grown “more political” recently and had spoken disparagingly about Kirk before the event. What’s not known. There is no public confirmation of a manifesto, a diary, a screed, or membership in a named group. There’s no official word on substance use, past arrests, or mental‑health history. If any of that exists, it will surface—first in probable‑cause affidavits, later in discovery. Presumption of innocence. Robinson is alleged to be the shooter. He is in custody. Charges are pending. He is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 4) The Narrative Vacuum—and How It Got Filled While investigators stuck to facts, the nation’s microphone snapped to the loudest voice. The president blamed “radical left lunatics” and said “we just have to beat the hell out of them.” He also called for nonviolence in other remarks, but the vivid line is the one that stuck. It’s what lines like that do: they burn into the timeline. Here’s the problem. At the time of arrest, authorities had not announced a motive. The ballistics weren’t public. The Discord logs awaited full authentication. The engravings on the shells were suggestive but ambiguous. The voter file said “unaffiliated.” And the family—not a leftist cell or a right‑wing militia—was the key actor that brought a suspect in. That doesn’t mean the shooter wasn’t ideologically motivated. It means we don’t know yet. And when we pretend we know—when leaders hurl an entire bloc of Americans into the suspect box—we prime the next act of retaliation. We grow the very climate we claim to fear. “Eradication Politics”: How Trump Is Turning Charlie Kirk’s Death Into a Crackdown Agenda Dean Blundell · Sep 11 September 11, 2025*SEPTEMBER ONLY: 50% OFF for Unlimited access! Monthly, Annual, and Founding plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET). Read full story 5) What the Evidence Can—and Can’t—Tell Us Right Now Can tell us: A person used a bolt‑action rifle from an elevated position; a spent casing was left behind; a route away from the scene exists; impressions and prints were found; digital footprints point to planning and disposal; family recognized the suspect and sought law‑enforcement help. Can’t tell us (yet): The ideology, motivation, or possible radicalization that animated the act; whether online posts were venting or directives; whether the engravings were sincere, sarcastic, or performative; whether the suspect acted with help; whether this was primarily political, personal, or psychological. Investigations translate maybes into evidence. They also surface the messy middle—the parts that don’t fit anyone’s script. 6) Standards That Keep Us Safer Due process isn’t a courtesy; it’s a safety measure. It slows the stampede. It forces facts to carry more weight than slogans. It protects the innocent and strengthens the prosecution of the guilty. The opposite of Trump’s rhetoric. Accurate attribution is a civic duty. If the motive is ideological, say it—with proof. If it isn’t, say that too. But resist the reflex to slap a brand on a tragedy before the lab work is dry and the phone records are read. Refuse violence—including in rhetoric. When leaders promise to “beat the hell” out of entire categories of people, they don’t deter violence; they license it. They also hand extremists on all sides exactly what they crave: the feeling of righteous permission. 7) The Work Ahead In the coming days, expect the probable‑cause affidavit to sketch a motive theory. Expect a charging decision—possibly with capital‑eligible counts. Expect device forensics to clarify whether the Discord chatter lines up with a longer diary of intent. Expect defense counsel to challenge every link in the chain. Our job is simple, if not easy: Stay with the facts as they harden. Correct what we get wrong. Condemn violence without turning millions of neighbors into suspects. Hold leaders—including presidents—to a standard of language that cools the country down. Because the only thing worse than a murder on a college campus is what comes next if we let anger become policy and rumor and a desire for more blood to become proof. *SEPTEMBER ONLY: 50% OFF for Unlimited access. Monthly and Annual plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET) Thanks for reading this piece. If you want to help others correct the record or prevent a rush to judgment/conviction of “radical left lunatics”, please feel free to share it.