No one should be surprised at the violence directed at figures like Charles Kirk. He was a proponent of racism, discrimination against women, did not believe in the separation of church and state, demonized opposing political parties, denigrated anyone who was not white and of the Christian faith, and had misogynistic views about women. He trivialized violent crime if it was directed at anyone who did not support his views. Trying to normalize this man and portraying him as merely a victim is not showing the whole picture. His message was hateful, divisive, and destructive. The fact that the Republican Party has embraced everything that he believed, compounds this problem. No one should have to die because of their political views period. However, if one cultivates a culture that is based around hate, divisiveness, denigration of other cultures and opposing views, that will serve as a catalyst to violence. There are always going to be people regardless of their political affiliation, who will cross that line. Political figures are always a target and stoking hate and a message of intolerance and arrogance, certainly increases the likelihood of violence.
Patel’s incompetence likely delayed the capture of this suspect. Twice he said they had a suspect. Well that lets everyone’s guard down as Weissmann says here. A security video and searching the woods eventually led to a capture but not until the family turned him in. Leaving the weapon behind in the woods was an amateur method of carrying out the crime. Fortunately a competent FBI agent was there on the ground. Now let’s get back to the Epstein files.
According to a friend who lives there, the first guy was a local man well known there for being mentally ill and showing up at every meeting of Republicans and trying to grab attention onto himself: so he claimed he'd done it when he had not, and was quickly released when people went, Oh, THAT guy.
THe mistakes are not surprising and we can expect more and more in every area of the government, since the chosen cabinet is full of ex Fox employees, they are all incompetent and they could not care less for the common good. And so does the Executive ( his own words). I feel sad for the USA.
Now that events are unfolding, my question is how apt is it for the head of the Bureau to show up personally at a crime scene? I don't recall that happening in such a high-profile way. And isn't the peremptory release of unconfirmed information an indicator of priorities? A "look at me!" tack that puts personality over the damn job?
What comes from the top--loser Trump--is a perpetual lack of self-control that is reflected in all of his picks' actions, which says "we don't have to meet any standards." What effective law enforcement agency works from one man's gut reaction?
If those pictures of Tyler Robinson released by the FBI were on the stair case going up to the roof where he shot Kirk, where was the rifle? In his backpack? Would it fit in the backpack? He had to assemble it before shooting? And that video of someone running across the roof and jumping off the roof right the shot was fired? Where the rifle there? Don't see it being carried or dropped from the roof. When they found the rifle in the woods, was it disassembled? I don't get it. Nobody's asking.
In other words, why should we believe a single thing from the FBI or DOJ? They have lied so many times--and all of Trump's other agency heads lie equally--that we won't be able to trust any information coming from the government until there is a regime change. Tell you what, I'm not interested in spending my next years immersed in conspiracy theories. Fortunately, I'm old enough to have armed myself with logic, critical thinking, and skepticism. I sure feel sorry for the AI generation. They won't know which end is up.
My questions were meant to be genuine questions, not a comment on the truthfulness of FBI. I read somewhere (NYT) today that the shooter was seen with a limp in his right leg while walking up the stairs. Nobody has said it out loud, but I assume there was some thought that the rifle was stuffed down his pants. The limp disappeared along the way. I assume there is an explanation of where the rifle was in those stills and video. I think those rifles are about 44 or 45 inches long. Would one fit in his pants with a scope on it? Journalists may need to ask. We all deserve a full explanation of what went on.
And, by the way, people making false confessions are not uncommon in situations like this. I know the FBI knows about that.
I honestly don't care anymore, given that the target was a turd of a human being and no information from this administration can ever be trusted. I fully believe that Trump's "assassination" was or could easily have been staged in order to get that photo op for his book cover and his campaign literature. So, if I'm not in the gun sights, I'm looking at how kids would process this stuff.
They are not equipped to do that anymore. Social media and using AI to do homework have already seriously reduced life skills. What's bad and confusing today is going to be anathema tomorrow. Just really glad I write for young readers and can help them learn some logic and critical thinking. The clowns who led the FBI? I can't help them. Positive they don't read.
With the rising level of violence that we're called upon to see as normal, (it isn't) it is not surprising that an incident like this would happen. GOP leadership has been priming the pump of the acceptance of violent action.
Question: Is it appropriate to use the term assasination to hype the killing of this man? The Oxford English dictionary defines: "The murder of an important or famous person, especially for political reasons." Was Charlie Kirk that famous and was his murder politically motivated?
What kind of legal defense will liberal organizations like Indivisible need against Trump's threaened investigation of them as "domestic terrorists"? Or can anti-defamation organizations pre-emptively sue Trump & spokes-sycophants for defamation?
No one should be surprised at the violence directed at figures like Charles Kirk. He was a proponent of racism, discrimination against women, did not believe in the separation of church and state, demonized opposing political parties, denigrated anyone who was not white and of the Christian faith, and had misogynistic views about women. He trivialized violent crime if it was directed at anyone who did not support his views. Trying to normalize this man and portraying him as merely a victim is not showing the whole picture. His message was hateful, divisive, and destructive. The fact that the Republican Party has embraced everything that he believed, compounds this problem. No one should have to die because of their political views period. However, if one cultivates a culture that is based around hate, divisiveness, denigration of other cultures and opposing views, that will serve as a catalyst to violence. There are always going to be people regardless of their political affiliation, who will cross that line. Political figures are always a target and stoking hate and a message of intolerance and arrogance, certainly increases the likelihood of violence.
That's right. Wearing a nice suit and speaking "politely" doesn't put lipstick on a bigot.
Love that!
Patel’s incompetence likely delayed the capture of this suspect. Twice he said they had a suspect. Well that lets everyone’s guard down as Weissmann says here. A security video and searching the woods eventually led to a capture but not until the family turned him in. Leaving the weapon behind in the woods was an amateur method of carrying out the crime. Fortunately a competent FBI agent was there on the ground. Now let’s get back to the Epstein files.
According to a friend who lives there, the first guy was a local man well known there for being mentally ill and showing up at every meeting of Republicans and trying to grab attention onto himself: so he claimed he'd done it when he had not, and was quickly released when people went, Oh, THAT guy.
It always amazes me when innocent people confess to a crime.They’ve got to have an intense need for attention.
Mr. Kirk’s legacy is a trail of racist, homophobic, and misogynistic words that embraced violence, specifically gun violence.
THe mistakes are not surprising and we can expect more and more in every area of the government, since the chosen cabinet is full of ex Fox employees, they are all incompetent and they could not care less for the common good. And so does the Executive ( his own words). I feel sad for the USA.
Andrew’s analysis is so sane and competent, better than any of the current administration.
I really appreciated this talk in the context of how FBI protocol is supposed to unfold versus how the amateurs do it.
Now that events are unfolding, my question is how apt is it for the head of the Bureau to show up personally at a crime scene? I don't recall that happening in such a high-profile way. And isn't the peremptory release of unconfirmed information an indicator of priorities? A "look at me!" tack that puts personality over the damn job?
What comes from the top--loser Trump--is a perpetual lack of self-control that is reflected in all of his picks' actions, which says "we don't have to meet any standards." What effective law enforcement agency works from one man's gut reaction?
If those pictures of Tyler Robinson released by the FBI were on the stair case going up to the roof where he shot Kirk, where was the rifle? In his backpack? Would it fit in the backpack? He had to assemble it before shooting? And that video of someone running across the roof and jumping off the roof right the shot was fired? Where the rifle there? Don't see it being carried or dropped from the roof. When they found the rifle in the woods, was it disassembled? I don't get it. Nobody's asking.
In other words, why should we believe a single thing from the FBI or DOJ? They have lied so many times--and all of Trump's other agency heads lie equally--that we won't be able to trust any information coming from the government until there is a regime change. Tell you what, I'm not interested in spending my next years immersed in conspiracy theories. Fortunately, I'm old enough to have armed myself with logic, critical thinking, and skepticism. I sure feel sorry for the AI generation. They won't know which end is up.
My questions were meant to be genuine questions, not a comment on the truthfulness of FBI. I read somewhere (NYT) today that the shooter was seen with a limp in his right leg while walking up the stairs. Nobody has said it out loud, but I assume there was some thought that the rifle was stuffed down his pants. The limp disappeared along the way. I assume there is an explanation of where the rifle was in those stills and video. I think those rifles are about 44 or 45 inches long. Would one fit in his pants with a scope on it? Journalists may need to ask. We all deserve a full explanation of what went on.
And, by the way, people making false confessions are not uncommon in situations like this. I know the FBI knows about that.
I honestly don't care anymore, given that the target was a turd of a human being and no information from this administration can ever be trusted. I fully believe that Trump's "assassination" was or could easily have been staged in order to get that photo op for his book cover and his campaign literature. So, if I'm not in the gun sights, I'm looking at how kids would process this stuff.
They are not equipped to do that anymore. Social media and using AI to do homework have already seriously reduced life skills. What's bad and confusing today is going to be anathema tomorrow. Just really glad I write for young readers and can help them learn some logic and critical thinking. The clowns who led the FBI? I can't help them. Positive they don't read.
Main channel TV news showed limping with an overly straight leg and suggested the shooter was hiding the rifle down his pants' leg. Watch for updates.
I’ve read so many takes on this whole business, too many really. I do appreciate Andrew’s straightforward delivery of good information.
Why so much delay between an interview and when it airs?
The algorithm?
Very useful perspective from Andrew thank you.
With the rising level of violence that we're called upon to see as normal, (it isn't) it is not surprising that an incident like this would happen. GOP leadership has been priming the pump of the acceptance of violent action.
Question: Is it appropriate to use the term assasination to hype the killing of this man? The Oxford English dictionary defines: "The murder of an important or famous person, especially for political reasons." Was Charlie Kirk that famous and was his murder politically motivated?
Jen, thanks for reaching out to yet another excellent source in your extensive network.
No accountability for anyone who lied during the confirmation process, and that includes everyone.
What kind of legal defense will liberal organizations like Indivisible need against Trump's threaened investigation of them as "domestic terrorists"? Or can anti-defamation organizations pre-emptively sue Trump & spokes-sycophants for defamation?