Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed in Utah

Yesterday, young conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, a group for campus conservatives, was shot at a rally at Utah Valley University north of Provo. He was declared dead at a local hospital shortly thereafter.

Kirk was 31 with a wife and two children. He gained a national audience by going to college campuses and debating liberals. He had a daily talk show and was very active on social media. He was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, who will no doubt miss his organizing abilities. He ran a major get-out-the-vote operation for Trump in 2024.

Police believe Kirk was shot from inside a building, the Losee Center, about 500 feet from where Kirk was speaking. The suspect escaped and a hunt is now on for him or her. Authorities initially arrested a "person of interest," but most outlets are now reporting that the "person of interest" was actually more like "oops, wrong guy."

The script for this one was a little different, at least in some ways. On the Democratic side, quite a few politicians took this as an(other) opportunity to make the case for gun control. Utah House Minority Leader Angela Romero (D), for example, said that gun violence is horrible and goes both ways. She blamed Utah's lax gun laws. She noted that anyone can legally come to a college campus with a loaded gun. How are students supposed to feel safe? She said that while she didn't agree with Kirk politically, what happened is horrific.

Gabrielle Giffords, a former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head near Tucson in 2011 and miraculously survived, said: "I'm horrified to hear that Charlie Kirk was shot at an event in Utah. Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence."

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) who—you may not know—is running for president, got on eX-Twitter and declared: "The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form." An agreeable sentiment, but it feels like he's overselling it a bit. We find Romero and Giffords to be much more genuine here. In any case, these are just three examples; the list of Democratic politicians who said things along these lines yesterday is very long.

Among the Democratic rank and file, the response often took a different tack. Back in 2023, Kirk hosted an event right after a school shooting, and (rather callously) decreed: "I think it's worth to have a cost of—unfortunately—some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment. That is a prudent deal." That remark, and the footage of him making it, were posted and reposted to social media tens of thousands of times yesterday, and read and viewed millions of times. Other folks took notice that literally the last words that Kirk ever uttered were a couple of comments about mass shootings, in which he villainized trans people and (implicitly) Mexican immigrants. Still others observed that Kirk was a full-throated supporter of Donald Trump, who for years has used the threat of violence against his enemies as a tool. The obvious implication here, as regards Kirk, is something along the lines of "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." A not unsubstantial number of lefties (at least, we assume they are lefties) went beyond implication, and were rather more forward about their feelings, declaring that they were glad Kirk is dead, that he got what he deserved, etc.

On the Republican side, the general focus among leadership was about how these acts of violence must stop. That includes Donald Trump, although he expressed it in typical fashion in a video message delivered from the White House:

For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.

And just hours before Kirk died, Trump sent this message out on his social media platform:

The ANIMAL who so violently killed the beautiful young lady from Ukraine, who came to America searching for peace and safety, should be given a "Quick" (there is no doubt!) Trial, and only awarded THE DEATH PENALTY. There can be no other option!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Either Trump doesn't see how his own rhetoric is part of the problem, or he just doesn't care.

To take another example from that side of the aisle, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) jumped straight to the heart of the matter: Political violence must stop, he decreed. People should stop shooting each other. He didn't mention how he would bring this about, however, and certainly didn't mention whether Congress had any role in the matter.

Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT), to give a third example, offered words that seemed heartfelt:

We just need every single person in this country to think about where we are and where we want to be. To ask ourselves, is this it? Is this what 250 years has wrought on us? I pray that that's not the case. I pray that those that hated what Charlie Kirk stood for will put down their social media and their pens and pray for his family, and that all of us will try to find a way to stop hating our fellow Americans.

We wish he had stopped there, but Cox felt the need to saber-rattle, and so punctuated his remarks by observing that Utah has the death penalty, and he intends to see that punishment imposed on the shooter. Again, does he not see how that undermines his message? Or does he just not care?

The response from many rank-and-file Republicans, particularly on social media, was just... soul-crushing. Blame was heaped upon liberals, libtards, Democrats, and Democrat-fascists in general. Many, many righties said that the blood of Charlie Kirk is on the hands of Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris, or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), or Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), or all of the above. There were many calls from the MAGA rank and file, to the MAGA rank and file, to begin preparing for the war that is coming.

It is abundantly clear that many conservatives are deeply upset by Kirk's death, in a way that we've not seen after other such deadly incidents. Several readers wrote in to note, for example, that there was also a school shooting at a high school in Colorado. That story was the 12th one listed on Fox's website. The 11 stories above it were all about Kirk.

This deep sense of loss was even expressed in the halls of Congress, where several members lost emotional control. The House observed a moment of silence, or at least tried to, but it was broken by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who decreed that "silent prayers get silent results," and demanded that an out-loud prayer take place instead. Before the members could respond to that, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) burst into tears and shouted that the Democrats were responsible for all of this. Several Democrats responded by wondering why the victims of the school shooting in Colorado were being ignored. The sniping, from both sides, continued for several minutes thereafter.

In the end, of course, nothing is going to change. There are a couple of presidential assassinations that produced some meaningful response thereafter (e.g., James Garfield's assassination led to the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Act), but that's about it. Other assassinations, school shootings, mass shootings, etc. sometimes generated a strong emotional response in the immediate aftermath, but even if they did... the "reform impulse" faded. There will be no new gun laws in response to Kirk's murder. Nobody will tamp down the rhetoric (in fact, there's every chance the rhetoric will get worse).

The really scary thing, however, is this: Republicans are really, really angry and really, really upset about Kirk's passing. And, as we wrote just yesterday, the Trump administration is actively searching for a predicate act to justify making war against Democratic-run cities and states. And please remember again, that term "war" is not our term (we actually used "invasion"). No, it is Trump himself who used that word, in the context of his future plans for Chicago. And on top of all of this, the White House would also love a distraction from Jeffrey Epstein (more below).

What it amounts to is this. If and when the assassin is found, let us hope that he is a straight, white, Christian man. It's odd, and somewhat perverse, that such a thing should matter so very much, but it does. If the assassin turns out to be gay, or trans, or Black, or a Democratic socialist, or just a Democrat, or an immigrant, or Mexican, then god help us all. (Z & V)

Trump: Birthday Letter is a Dead Issue; Republicans: Maybe Not

Donald Trump has called the Epstein birthday letter a "dead issue." Time to move on. However, more details are starting to leak out about the world's most famous birthday book. First of all, it is not a scrapbook with cards pasted onto the pages. It is a leather-bound book, three volumes long, running 238 pages, with sections "friends," "girlfriends," and "business." Ghislaine Maxwell, who produced it, is not a cheapskate, and knew Jeffrey would appreciate a quality present.

The book is loaded with sexually explicit language and images. Some of them portray (almost) naked young girls; others allude to violence. Maxwell wrote an introduction saying: "The idea behind the book was simply to gather stories and old photographs to jog your memory about places and people and different events."

The submissions came from Wall Street billionaires, a past president (Bill Clinton), women Epstein knew, and others. Some letters were light but others were aggressive and dark. One submission said: "We picked up girls on the beach. I tell them with knife in my hand to take suits off." Another letter writer wrote: "You began to realize that you could get away with sh**! That chicks and people in general were schmucks!"

A poem read: "Blonde, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically/With this net of fish, Jeff's now 'The Old Man and The Sea.'" One letter had an image labeled "1983" in which a man gives balloons to three girls in skirts and pigtails. In the next image the man is getting massages from topless blond women.

Trump denied the letter he signed is from him and sued The Wall Street Journal, which first reported it, for defamation. If the letter wasn't from him, the person who wrote it did an excellent job of forging Trump's signature. Maxwell would know who sent her that letter of course. Someone ought to ask her. Trump also said he didn't draw pictures, but he has often drawn pictures that were auctioned off by the charities he gave the pictures to.

This is not the first time in history the issue of a suspected forged signature has come up. People have been forging signatures (e.g., on checks) for hundreds of years. Just ask ASQDE, the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. These are the pros who do forensic research into questioned documents. Actually, you don't need to ask them, because The Washington Post already did. The paper's staff talked to Thomas Vastrick, the president of ASQDE. He wasn't absolutely certain, but he did say "It's very consistent in letter design, slant, and letter height ratios. For someone to say it's not his handwriting or doesn't look like his handwriting, I don't know where they're coming from. It certainly does have the pictorial evidence of it."

Since the letter was published, reporters have been asking Republicans in Congress what they think about it. Most of them are saying that they haven't seen it, so they can't comment—despite the letter being on the front pages of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, dozens of other publications and all over social media. Among others, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Nancy Mace (R-SC) say they haven't seen it. The members are apparently too busy legislating to have time to follow the news. We expect loads of new laws soon as a result. When exasperated reporters printed out copies and handed them out, members like Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) said: "I don't know anything about it. I'm sure it is an unconfirmed rumor now." Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said the signature was a forgery done with an autopen.

In addition to the letter Trump signed, he is mentioned several other times in the book. In one image, Epstein is holding up a large novelty check signed by D.J. Trump with a note suggesting that Epstein had sold him "a fully depreciated woman for $22,500." The signature on the large check is not actually Trump's, though.

What comes next? By the end of September, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) will probably have enough signatures on his discharge petition to force the House to vote on a bill requiring the DoJ to release everything it has on Epstein. The Senate probably won't pass Massie's bill (although Rand Paul, R-KY, Josh Hawley, R-MO, and all the Democrats are "yeas"), but the vote will be embarrassing. There may not be a client list in the DoJ files, but Epstein's victims are compiling their own list. Also, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, wants to investigate the many large and mysterious transfers into Epstein's bank account. He claims that Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent is blocking him.

Another development is the move by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He filed an amendment to the must-pass defense authorization bill. The amendment requires AG Pam Bondi to release all the Epstein files within 30 days of the bill becoming law. However, the Republicans voted to table the amendment to prevent a vote. (V)

District Judge Blocks Attempt to Fire Lisa Cook

Donald Trump fired Fed governor Lisa Cook because he is president and presidents can do whatever they want to, the law be damned. The law, in this case, states that Fed governors can be removed only for cause—that is, when they commit some serious offense while in office. Trump's nominal reason is that Cook was alleged to have claimed two homes as her primary residence on her mortgage applications, although that would only be a crime if her intent were to defraud a bank. Having two primary residences is not that unusual. Some people live in one home in the winter and a different one in a different state in the summer. As long as the bank knows this, it is not illegal. She has not been charged with intent to defraud and that certainly hasn't been proven in court. Trump just wants to get rid of her so he can appoint a replacement.

On Tuesday, Federal Judge Jia Cobb, a Joe Biden appointee, said "not so fast." She ruled: "President Trump's stated cause refers only to allegations regarding Cook's conduct before she began serving on the Federal Reserve Board. As discussed above, such allegations are not a legally permissible cause." Consequently, she ordered Cook reinstated until all the appeals have run out.

Cobb noted that Trump didn't address any potential misconduct while Cook was in office, which would be the only grounds for firing her. She also noted that Trump does not claim that Cook failed to carry out her statutory duties or that she lacks the competence or trustworthiness for the office. He merely wants to be rid of her so he can replace her with someone of his own choosing and the law forbids that.

If Trump wins this, then any member of any federal board or agency can be later fired if there is any allegation of any crime in the person's past, even if the person was not indicted and tried for it. Someone claims you jaywalked at age 9? You're fired.

Cook's lawyers took a different angle. They defended the idea that Congress created the Fed as an independent agency precisely so that it did not have to obey the wishes of the current president. They argued that Trump is simply trying to circumvent this restriction he doesn't like in an underhanded way. The judge accepted that and noted that the country's economy could be harmed if the Fed were made subservient to the president's political goals.

The administration has already filed an appeal. (V)

Democrats Are Pre-Caving on Shutdown

The government will shut down if funding for the new fiscal year is not approved by midnight Sept. 30. Appropriations bills can be filibustered in the Senate, so the Republicans need seven Democratic votes there. The Democratic base wants to use this leverage to force the Republicans to rein in Donald Trump or make structural changes, like making recission bills subject to filibusters. However, the Democratic leadership appears to be caving long before the deadline, in exchange for an extension of health insurance subsidies for 9 months. This is the type of deal the Republicans would never accept—a bit of extra funding but no changes in the rules.

Democratic leaders think that the 20 million people who will benefit from keeping the health insurance subsidies will be eternally grateful to them, and if not eternally, at least until Nov. 3, 2026. However many rank-and-file Democratic House members don't believe this. They believe that since voters won't see any change with current policy, they are not going to suddenly reward the Democrats for keeping the status quo. Voters won't even realize there was a battle and the Democrats got some minor concession in return for their not shutting the government down. This will make the Democratic base even angrier than it already is. Many Democratic representatives have just gotten back from a month of hearing constituents telling them to stand up and fight the Republicans. Caving like this in advance is not exactly what the constituents want.

However, there is no deal yet. The Freedom Caucus does not want to extend the subsidies at all. In fact, they would prefer abolishing all of them. Progressive Democrats who see this as a lost opportunity to force the Republicans to rein in Trump aren't going to like it either. So it is not sure the deal will work. What often happens in this situation is kicking the can down the road with a continuing resolution to continue funding the government at current levels for a few weeks. Of course, that solves nothing, but it takes the pressure off for a short time. (V)

There Are Multiple Ongoing Legal Fights about Redistricting

Texas' decision to redraw House districts mid-term is leading to lawsuits, but Texas is not the only state with redistricting lawsuits going on at the moment. Here is a rundown of the major ones right now.

• Texas: A number of groups have sued Texas for this year's redistricting, claiming it violates what is left of the Voting Rights Act. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) claims that, by destroying Latino districts, the new maps prevent Latinos from electing their preferred representatives. The first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 1. It is likely that if the case gets to the Supreme Court, the Court will use it to destroy the rest of the VRA.
  
  
• Louisiana: About one-third of the state is Black, so Black leaders think that two of the six House seats should be in districts where a Black candidate stands a good chance of winning. State legislators thought otherwise and after the 2020 census drew a map with one majority-Black district. That map was used in 2022. Then the 5th Circuit ordered the state to draw a new map or go to trial. In response, legislators drew a new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of white voters sued over that map, saying that it discriminated against whites. Instead of ruling on the case, in June the Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for the fall. Oral arguments Round 2 are scheduled for Oct. 15.
  
  
• North Dakota: After the 2020 census, the North Dakota state legislature decided to draw a map in which Native Americans had one majority district for the state House, down from three in the 2010 map, not because the population had changed much, but because they could. The Native Americans sued on the basis of the VRA. A lower court ordered a new map, but the appeals court said that private citizens could not sue to enforce the VRA, only the DoJ could do that. The final decision on this could determine who can enforce the VRA. If the answer is "only the DoJ," then groups deprived of their rights have no recourse if the DoJ isn't interested in helping them. As is the case with, say, the current DoJ.
  
  
• Mississippi: The case here is similar to the North Dakota one. Here the NAACP sued over legislative maps that were discriminatory. Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS) is fighting this in court, saying that the NAACP has no standing to sue over the VRA; only the DoJ can do that. If it is not interested, well, tough luck.
  
  
• Utah: In 2018, the voters passed an initiative creating an independent commission to draw district maps. So what did the legislature do? It repealed the law the voters passed. The courts then ruled that no, the legislature can't just repeal laws passed by the voters. The case is now before the Utah Supreme Court.

All these cases have a common theme: Republican legislatures trying to disenfranchise people they don't like. All of them will almost certainly get to the Supreme Court, eventually. (V)

Administration Is Checking Voter Lists for Noncitizens

The administration has constantly been trying to get states to turn over their voting rolls to the federal government. It wasn't entirely clear what the feds were going to do with them if it got them. Now it is becoming clear. Apparently it has some magic software, called SAVE, that can run a person's name, last four digits of their Social Security number, and date of birth (and possibly partisan registration?) and determine if that person is a U.S. citizen. The government has not explained where it got the software, the corresponding database, or how it works. It certainly hasn't allowed any external experts to examine or test it. We don't see how that information can be enough to determine citizenship, since applying for a Social Security number does not require proof of citizenship. Many noncitizens living legally in the U.S. have Social Security numbers (e.g., green card holders). The government now has the voter registration information for 33 million voters.

Although the feds cannot remove voters from the rolls, they can (and have) asked states to do so and some have complied. Ohio will soon remove thousands of people who haven't voted recently on the presumption that they are dead. If the information given to the states is based on the Social Security death index, there will be a massive number of incorrect removals.

Why? Well, here's the problem. Suppose a state sends in a voter named John Smith whose last four SSN digits are 1234 and the SSA finds a John Smith 1234 who died last year. That DOES NOT mean this voter should be purged, because there are an estimated 47,000 John Smiths in the country. With only 10,000 combinations of the last four SSN digits, it is likely that there are four or five "John Smith 1234" people out there. Also, four or five "John Smith 9876" and every other four-digit number. That one of them died doesn't mean all of them died. Within a state there will be fewer, but there could be two or three in a big state and people move all the time. This system will produce massive errors, especially with common names.

Although this system may seem racially neutral, it may not be. Black people tend to have a much more limited number of names. Enslaved people often took on the last name of their owner. Names like John {Williams | Johnson | Smith | Jackson} are pretty common so there are going to be many Black people with the same name. Statistically, someone named Krzysztof Paderewski is not likely to be Black and is not likely to be confused with one of the hundreds of other Krzysztof Paderewskis in the state because there aren't hundreds of them in any state. Consequently, an automated system is likely to kick out many Black voters because they are easily confused with dead people with the same name. This will be less common with white people, because their range of names is greater and there are fewer "duplicates." (V)

Republicans Are Whining about Bill Pulte

Bill Pulte is a wealthy and extremely Trumpy real estate developer. He parlayed that into a job as a minor federal regulator, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. From that perch he has access to most mortgages in the U.S. and has been feeding Donald Trump a steady stream of people who have claimed two primary residences on their mortgages (e.g., Congresscritters who own a house in or near D.C. and one back home). This is not illegal unless there is an intent to defraud the bank (see above).

But he has gone way beyond leaking confidential information to Trump. He has become a vicious attack dog on social media and gotten into fights with some people in the administration. At a private dinner held at the Executive Branch, an exclusive club for the ultrarich, attended by many top officials, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent threatened Pulte. Five eyewitnesses reported that Bessent went up to Pulte and said: "Why the fuck are you talking to the president about me? Fuck you. I'm gonna punch you in your fucking face." Bessent then tried to get Pulte thrown out. When Pulte resisted, Bessent offered to meet him outside. When Pulte asked: "To talk?," Bessent replied: "No, I'm going to fucking beat your ass." Others then intervened and they were seated at opposite ends of a long table.

Now some members of Congress are celebrating Bessent's move. One said, of Pulte: "I think he's a nut." A member of the House Financial Services Committee agreed: "The guy's just a little too big for his britches." There are others also backing Bessent. A third congressman said: "I would have done the same thing."

On the other hand, members of the Freedom Caucus are all-in on Pulte. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) said: "I think he's doing a great job." Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) said Pulte "is doing a good job exposing some of the stuff around these mortgage [applications]."

Earlier this year, Bessent also challenged Elon Musk and the DOGEys and tried to keep them from accessing the Treasury Dept.'s payment system. Bessent is seen by some people as the adult in the room. (V)

Fake Electors in Michigan Get Away with It

After fake electors in Michigan got together following the 2020 presidential election and signed false election certificates certifying that Donald Trump won Michigan, the state's AG, Dana Nessel (D), charged them with forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. They were facing 14 years in prison. The case has been rattling around in the courts for years. On Tuesday, State District Court Judge Kristen Simmons, a 2019 appointee of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), threw the case out. The fake electors will not stand trial.

The judge said the fake electors genuinely believed Trump had won the state so they had every right to do it. She literally said from the bench: "Their statements make it very clear that they believed that they could seek redress from their state senators." So the new way to ask state senators for help is to forge official documents. Got it. This suggests that any time citizens now believe that an election result is wrong, they can forge legal documents to "correct" it, presumably also including forging the signature of the secretary of state if need be.

The concept that someone can break the law if they sincerely believe they are allowed to do it certainly breaks new ground. What if a recent immigrant from a country where honor killings are common kills someone who insulted his sister because he genuinely believed it was legal? Is that now fine with the courts? What if someone refuses to pay federal tax because he genuinely believes the government is wasting his money? It is a long list.

The election in Michigan wasn't even close. The result did not depend on a few ambiguously marked ballots like the 2008 Al Franken-Norm Coleman Senate election. Joe Biden won by 155,000 votes.

The ruling could have ramifications beyond Michigan. AGs in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin have filed similar charges against fake electors in their states and a D.A. in Georgia has done so as well. The Michigan ruling is not binding in any way in the other states, but judges there could look to Simmons' ruling for guidance if they want to. Those cases have been bogged down by procedural and appellate delays for years. The legal system simply doesn't work any more. Any defendant with enough money for endless appeals can stretch the case out for years until the other side gives up, or until they finally stumble on a sympathetic judge. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger