Charlie Kirk Assassination Updates, New FBI Images, & What Comes Next...
PDS Published 09/11/2025
-
The hunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer is underway.
As of recording, no suspects are in custody, the identity of the shooter remains unknown, and we’re just starting to see how this latest act of political violence is tearing apart this country.
But before we get into all that, let’s start at the beginning.
Right, this happened yesterday while Kirk was speaking at Utah Valley University.
It was meant to be the first of fifteen stops on his “American Comeback Tour.”
Which his organization Turning Point USA reportedly described as being aimed at giving students “the tools to push back against left-wing indoctrination in academia and reclaim their right to free speech.”
And with that, we saw the event taking the format he had perhaps become best known for – what he called “Prove Me Wrong” – in which he invited attendees to ask him questions, debate him, and otherwise try and, you know, prove him wrong.
Right, clips from these interactions have racked up millions of views on social media.
And now, one of them has been widely seen for an entirely different – and horrifying – reason.
Right, roughly twenty minutes into the event, someone asked:
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”
Kirk answered: “Too many.”
And the same audience member went on to say that the number is five — with that person then asking Kirk how many mass shooters there had been in general in America over the past ten years.
Kirk asked: “Counting or not counting gang violence?” – and then he was shot in the neck.
Right, his head snapped back, blood poured out.
There was panic, screaming, shouting.
Some people took cover, some people ran.
And within a couple hours, it was confirmed that Kirk had been killed.
Utah Valley University told students still on campus to take shelter inside until they could be escorted out by police.
And it’s now said that it has closed its campus and canceled classes for at least the rest of the week.
By the end of the day, two people had been taken into custody, but both were released without being charged in relation to the shooting.
Though, notably, you had FBI Director Kash Patel prematurely writing on X that “The subject for the horrific shooting…that took the life of Charlie Kirk [was] in custody.”
With the New York Times reporting that it was unusual that the FBI director would personally take the lead in releasing information about the shooting – and even more unusual that he chose to share that information minutes before state and local officials were scheduled to provide a press briefing.
And with that, you actually had Patel having to walk back his earlier claim and announce that “The subject in custody has been released after an interrogation by law enforcement.” – adding:
“Our investigation continues and we will continue to release information in interest of transparency.”
Though, notably, by that time, the idea that the shooter was in custody had already been accepted by many.
And in fact, a photo of a man briefly detained after the shooting led to false claims that a Canadian man bearing his resemblance was the shooter.
The rumor reportedly originated from an account on X called Fox 11 Reno, which doesn’t actually have any relation to the real Fox News.
Instead, it’s seemingly an account that aims to capitalize on the lack of information around the shooter to drive traffic to its website and generate ad revenue.
With the consequence of that being that you had people all over social media calling this random guy a “far left extremist” or “Pure evil.”
With one post claiming he was the shooter and a registered Democrat getting almost 3 million views.
And the man also reportedly received direct messages on Facebook calling him a “savage” and other names.
Not to mention Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok repeated the falsehood in at least some of its replies to users, writing at one point that “the suspect was apprehended at the scene.”
But of course, with so much wrong information out there, we gotta talk about what exactly we do and do not know.
Starting with what we do know, authorities believe the shooter fired from a rooftop.
And specifically, videos recorded before and after the shooting show a person on the roof of a building more than 100 yards from where Kirk was standing.
In one video, an onlooker says they saw someone run across the roof and lie down.
And in a second video, the person can be seen rushing away from that spot immediately after the shooting.
And with that, you had the FBI saying in a press briefing this morning that they had been able to track the movements of the suspected shooter all the way from him arriving on campus, going up a stairwell, and getting onto the roof to jumping off the roof and fleeing into a neighborhood after he took the shot.
The agency also claimed the suspect "appears to be of college age" but said they couldn’t “comment specifically on his face."
And they said they found a “high-powered, bolt-action rifle” in a wooded area near the scene.
And with that, you had the Wall Street Journal reporting that investigators found ammunition engraved with expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology inside that rifle.
However, as of recording, that detail hasn’t been publicly confirmed by authorities.
And similarly – even though there’s a lot that can be deduced from the circumstances of the shooting and what we’ve learned since – we don’t have any official word on the shooter’s motive as of recording.
And so with that, let’s move on to the response, reactions, and sort of fallout that we’re seeing now.
Starting with the president, you first had Trump writing on Truth Social:
“No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us.”
And with that, you also had him announcing American Flags would be flown at half-staff and adding today that he’d be awarding Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom award.
You’ve also had other Republicans and members of the administration coming out and singing Kirk’s praises – including RFK Jr., Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Mike Johnson, and JD Vance, who actually went to Utah to today to to pay respects to Kirk’s family
Right, he was previously scheduled to travel to New York to attend the annual 9/11 memorial ceremony
But then, outside of those responses expressing condolences or praising Kirk, you also had people blaming the “left” for what happened to him.
With Elon Musk being maybe the most prominent voice here, writing on X:
“The Left is the party of murder.” []
Also writing “exactly” in response to a post which claimed:
“The left-wing mainstream media, as well as figures like Gavin Newsom claiming Trump plans to be dictator, has created a climate of hysteria against right-wing figures that could radicalize any number of unstable people to engage in political violence.[]
And then adding to that, you had the likes of far-right influencer Laura Loomer – who is also been known to have influence over Trump – not only blaming the left but calling on Trump to crack down on it, writing, for example,
“It’s time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization.”[]
“More people will be murdered if the Left isn’t crushed with the power of the state.” []
“It’s time for the full power of the Executive Branch to come crashing down on the heads of news companies and media personalities who incite political violence in our country.” []
And notably, with all that, that’s more the tone we saw Trump taking in his remarks on Kirk’s death last night.
“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. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country. From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a health care executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others. Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” (1:58 - 3:05)
And of course, notably, Trump is absolutely right if he’s saying political violence is a huge and growing problem in this country – but it is very clearly not a one-sided one.
Right, last year, according to capital police, there were nearly 9,500 threats and concerning statements made against Congress members, their families, and their staff –
up from about 8,000 the year prior, and up from less than 4,000 in 2017.
And similarly, judges and prosecutors? Threats against them reportqwedly double from 2021 to 2023 according to the U.S. Marshals Service.
And besides threats, there’s a whole lot of other stories he could’ve mentioned.
Right, in addition to the incidents mentioned by Trump – like his own assassination attempts – back in 2020, the Democratic of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer was the subject of a kidnapping plot.
You then had the January 6th attack on the capital in 2021 – for which Trump has pardoned almost all involved.
In 2022, Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked in their San Francisco home by a man wielding a hammer.
In DC, you’ve had armed men arrested and accused of heading toward the homes of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and former President Barack Obama with the intent to kill them.
And this year,
one) a man who ran for the New Mexico legislature as a Republican was convicted for planning a politically motivated shooting spree against four Democratic officials;
two) a guy shot up the CDC after allegedly falling prey to misinformation about the COID-19 vaccine;
and three) a man with a list of dozens of potential Democratic targets killed Minnesota’s house speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, while wounding state senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette.
Right, and you may remember after that, Republican senator Mike Lee wrote a mocking post on X, saying: “Nightmare on Waltz Street,”[]
With him also pushing conspiracy theories trying to blame that act of political violence on “Marxists.” []
In contrast to that, in response to Kirk’s death, we’ve seen universal condemnation from the country’s most prominent Democrats — including Obama, Biden, Harris, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, the list goes on.
All more or less saying "political violence has no place in America” and must be rejected in all forms.
Now, with that, I will say, to be very clear, it’s not that there is not some horrible stuff being shared online in response to Kirk’s death – there is.
There are people celebrating, saying he got what was coming to him, many, for example, pointing to his stance on gun control, with this one clip in particular making the rounds:
“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 to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” (00:02 - 00:15)
Although, of course, with that, as much as trying to make some sort of “gotcha” out of someone being killed is sickening, the debate around gun control is definitely relevant here.
And we actually saw that – and the rest of what we talked about – coming up in a shouting match that broke out in Congress yesterday
Right, Mike Johnson paused the House in the middle of a series of votes to call for a moment of silence and prayer for Kirk.
For around 30 seconds, people from both parties respected the moment of silence.
But when Johnson tried to get things going again, Lauren Boebert started calling for him to have someone lead a spoken prayer for Kirk, who was reported at the time to be in critical condition.
With her saying:
“I believe silent prayers get silent results.”
And so several Democrats objected, pointing out that there had also been a school shooting earlier in the day – which we’ll talk about soon – and there was no prayer for those kids.
But then Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican who was close to Kirk, started angrily yelling back, saying to Democrats:
“You all caused this.”
As other Republicans began yelling at Democrats, you had at least one Democrat responding, “Pass some gun laws!”
And notably, with that, Utah, where Kirk was killed? It has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, allowing the purchase and possession of firearms in most cases without a permit or license.[]
And in May, Utah lawmakers actually updated state law to allow the open carry of weapons with a permit on college campuses.
Of course, we don’t know if stricter gun laws would’ve helped in this specific case, but it’s definitely something that gets you thinking.
And with that, we’ve also seen the likes of Hasan Piker chiming in on this issue – kind of speaking as a left-wing version of Kirk who’s also worried about being the target of political violence:
“The only thing that could have potentially saved Charlie Kirk from getting shot in the neck was if our administrations prior to this one and this one as well actually had reasonable gun control as a policy provision in the immediate aftermath of I don't know a hundred other school shootings that took place. This is why I keep responding over and over again to people that go, "Hey man, why don't you get security? Hey man, why don't you get a vest?" There's nothing, none of those things, none of those things will save you.” 59:36 - 1:00:12
I need you to understand this is an issue that is obviously very close to myself, considering that not only do I engage in public speaking with regular frequency at events as a very visible political commentator—who just yesterday was called a terrorist and a 9/11 lover by the former governor of New York—okay, there is a lot of tuning up and agitation that I receive. I receive death threats with regular frequency. All this stuff is very close to the chest, okay?” (1:00:20 - 1:01:03)
But with that, that’s where we are now, what we know, what some of the conversation has been – and of course, there’s a lot more that could be discussed, we couldn’t go over every point that has been made.
So please, keeping it respectful, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this whole situation or any aspect of it in the comments.
-
But then, as the news about Charlie Kirk was playing out, we also saw headlines about a school shooting in the suburbs of Denver.
The suspect is a male student who reportedly opened fire and injured two other students before taking his own life at Evergreen High School.
Both victims were initially considered in critical condition, but one was eventually in stable condition by early evening.
Some local outlets also say another student was injured, but not from gunshot wounds, instead from trying to escape the school to flee elsewhere.
As for exactly what happened, officers received a call of an active shooter at around 12:30 and arrived at the school in two minutes, then encountered the shooter within five, but they did not discharge guns.
There were reportedly hundreds of witnesses to the incident, and right now we do not know if the victims shot were specifically targeted.
It is also unclear where the shooting started, but investigators say shots were fired both in and outside of the building.
And there is still an ongoing investigation into the suspect, and his locker, car, home and social media will all be looked at to identify a motive.
The whole thing obviously terrified students and the community, the New York Times speaking to one mother who received a text from her teen daughter saying:
“Someone just shot up the school mom. I'm so scared mom.”
That mother saying the whole ordeal made her vomit.
Sources saying students who heard the shots were running in every direction away from the school,
And 18 reportedly made it to a nearby house and pounded on the door to ask for help, with that resident telling local news he is a retired educator and his wife is a retired nurse who could help them with their shock.
And he took down all their names, as well as the names of the parents who later came to pick them up, adding:
“I hope they feel like they ran to the right house.”
And this shooting, especially given the timing of it, happening around the same time Charlie Kirk was shot on a college campus, has tons of people underscoring the issue of school shootings.
According to CNN, there have been 47 so far this year, killing 19 people, injuring 77 others.
And Evergreen High School, the site of yesterday’s shooting, is in the same district as Columbine High School, which was obviously home to one of the biggest school shootings in U.S. history in 1999.
So you had Tracy Dorland, the superintendent of the district, issuing a statement saying:
“We cannot pretend this is just another tragic incident. The pain of this incident reopens old wounds. I know there are many in our Jeffco community hurting and grieving tonight, in Evergreen and beyond. The urgency this moment demands is undeniable.”
“We all know expressions of support, condolences, and gratitude are not enough…The nation is tired of statements filled with platitudes and ‘thoughts and prayers.’ What we need is courage. What we need is the collective will of our entire community. Violence involving our young people should never be normalized, and we must face the difficult truth that too often, it is.”
The Governor of Colorado also writing:
“No family should ever fear for their child's life as they send them to school.”
Classes at Evergreen High School have been canceled for the rest of the week and mental health resources have been made available to the community.
But that is where we are on this story, obviously it is another very bleak one.
-
We’ve gotta talk about Trump’s FBI, because the allegations in this lawsuit will leave you speechless.
It comes from three fired senior officials who are taking FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the entire federal government to court. [Image, then image]
This over what they called a “campaign of retribution” for their perceived “failure to demonstrate sufficient political loyalty” to the president. [Quote]
And this is a big deal not only because it’s the first lawsuit from former FBI agents challenging their firings,
But also because it paints just a humiliating picture of Kash Patel and his deputy director, Dan Bongino. [Image and Image]
Right, in the words of The New York Times, it describes these “right-wing influencers with far less experience than any of their predecessors as almost cartoonish figures more interested in social media or handing out oversized ‘challenge coins’ than in running the day-to-day operations of the nation’s flagship law enforcement agency.” [Quote]
And if you’re wondering, ‘the fuck is a challenge coin?’ Apparently Patel had these large tokens minted with his own name printed on them, with the S in “Kash” being a dollar sign. [Quote, find “Ka$h”]
And according to the lawsuit, when one of the plaintiffs received this coin, he also noticed a collection of whiskey bottles and cigars on the director’s desk. [Quote same link, find “whiskey”]
But anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself; let’s dive into the more serious accusations.
Starting with the first and most senior plaintiff, Brian Driscoll [Pronounce 00:17], a widely respected professional who worked at the agency for two decades and eventually became Trump’s acting FBI director before Patel got confirmed. [Image]
Though, funny story about that, he was actually supposed to be deputy director, with the director role going to another senior agent, Robert Kissane. [Image]
But when the White House issued a public statement announcing the promotions, it listed Kissane as deputy director and Driscoll as director, reportedly because of a “clerical error.”
But then, instead of fixing the mistake, the White House just rolled with it, giving one of the most powerful posts in federal law enforcement to the wrong guy.
Now that’s something we already knew; what we’ve just learned from this lawsuit is how Driscoll supposedly got selected for the role.
With it stating that in January, he got a call from Patel informing him that he would soon be vetted by Trump’s presidential transition team. [Quote, find “prolific”]
And when he asked what that would entail, Patel allegedly responded that as long as he was not prolific on social media, did not donate to the Democratic Party, and did not vote for Kamala Harris, he would be fine. [Same quote]
Then, when the call came, he says the man on the other end was Paul Ingrassia [Pronounce 00:00], a then 29-year-old political appointee with zero prior experience in the White House, DoJ or FBI.
But more concerning were the questions, which allegedly included: “Who did you vote for?” “When did you start supporting President Trump?” “Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?” “Do you agree that the FBI agents who stormed Mar-a-Lago … should be held accountable?” “What are your thoughts on diversity, equity, and inclusion?” [Quote same link]
So Driscoll refused to answer most of those, reportedly informing Ingrassia, whom he would later be told did not understand how the government worked, that talking politics on the job would violate the Hatch Act. [Quote same link, find “Hatch Act”]
But despite having been told he “failed” the interview, Driscoll says then-acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove [Uh-meel Bo-vay] vouched for his character and got him appointed anyway.
Though almost as soon as he entered his new office, Driscoll’s “character” was put to the test.
With the lawsuit alleging that Bove demanded the names of every FBI agent or employee across the country who was involved in the January 6 prosecutions.
To which Driscoll informed him that the list would include thousands of people, and “to emphasize the magnitude and breadth” of the request, noted that he himself would be among them. [Quote same link]
But under relentless pressure, Driscoll says he eventually handed over nearly 6,000 employee ID numbers, hiding their names to protect them from harassment should the list leak. [Quote same link, find “6,000”]
Then, when Elon Musk’s infamous “fork in the road” email went out to government employees, Driscoll reportedly told Bove it was causing “panic and anxiety” in the FBI, and thereby putting its mission and national security at risk. [Quote same link]
But according to him, Bove replied that the creation of panic and anxiety was the point. [Same quote]
Next, Patel was confirmed as the permanent director, and Driscoll got another senior role in the FBI, but he still got into hot water with the administration.
With officials allegedly pressuring him to fire a pilot who flew the FBI’s private plane because he was involved in the raid of Mar-a-Lago, among others. [Quote, find “pilot”]
And when Driscoll pushed back, Patel allegedly said “they,” meaning the White House, “had directed him to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump.” [Quote]
With the lawsuit continuing: “When Driscoll explained that firing people based on case assignments would be in direct violation of internal FBI processes, … Patel said that he understood that and he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed.” [Quote same link]
But allegedly he added that “he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended” on it. [Quote same link]
With him explaining that “there was nothing he or Driscoll could do to stop these or any other firings, because,” and here the suit quotes Patel:
“‘The FBI tried to put the president in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.’” [Quote same link]
So it wasn’t long after that that Driscoll was fired for good.
Then, the next plaintiff is Steven Jensen, who was head of the FBI’s Washington field office. [Image, guy in middle]
And he tells this story about Dan Bongino that is just so bizarre.
With it starting when the deputy director called Jensen into his office, at which point Jensen recalls:
“Bongino looked as if he had not slept for several days. He seemed extremely anxious and agitated.” [Image and Quote]
And when Jensen asked what was wrong, he says Bongino told him that he’d found classified documents from the Russian collusion probe next to “burn bags.” [Quote]
To which Jensen informed him that using burn bags are standard practice for investigations that have been closed, or papers that are no longer needed because there are digital copies. [Same quote]
Also, adding to his alarm at Bongino’s apparent unseriousness, Jensen worried that the deputy director spent more time “creating content for his social media pages” than doing actual police work. [Quote same link]
But the last straw came when, according to the lawsuit, Bongino asked him to fire an agent he believed was involved in the Russian collusion probe.
With Jensen reportedly defending the agent, pleading to at least delay any firing because the agent’s wife had stage four cancer and had just days left to live. [Quote, find “cancer”]
Then, about a month later, both the agent and Jensen were fired.
And finally we have the last plaintiff: Spencer Evans, then head of the Las Vegas field office. [Image, guy on right]
With him coming under fire from right-wing social media because during the pandemic, he was responsible for approving and denying requests for COVID protocol exemptions. [Quote, find “pandemic”]
And although he claims both Bongino and Patel liked him at first, he says they turned on him after social media lit them up for keeping him on board.
With his termination letter reading: “You demonstrated a lack of reasonableness and overzealousness in the implementation of COVID-19 protocols and policies.” [Quote same link]
So now, all three of these men — Driscoll, Jensen and Evans — are seeking a jury trial, and asking to be both vindicated and reinstated in the FBI.
And if that happens, it could be a good fireworks show, because many of the people named in the suit might be forced to testify.
-
Then I have a few quick pieces of political news I want to hit on.
Starting with Republicans in the Senate voting to block a proposal from Sen. Chuck Schumer to release of the Epstein files.
Right, Schumer had proposed to move as an amendment to the annual defense policy bill being hashed out in Congress.
But the Senate voted 51-49 to table the measure, with only two Republicans — Josh Hawley and Rand Paul — voting alongside Democrats.
And while vote ultimately failed, it’s still significant because it brought the Epstein battle to the Senate — which, unlike the House, has largely been able to avoid the fight.
But Schumer made it clear that his GOP colleagues won’t be able to get out of this so easily, saying:
“If Republicans vote no, you’ll be saying to the American people that they should not see the Epstein files. I ask my Republican colleagues: After all those years you spent calling for accountability, for transparency, for getting to the bottom of these awful crimes, why won’t you vote yes?”
And meanwhile, things are seriously heating up over in the House, where Reps. Thomas Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna have been gaining steam with their bill to release the files.
Right, the two have been circulating a discharge petition, which would allow them to skirt around leadership and force a floor vote on the measure as long as they can collect signatures from a majority of House members.
With prominent Republicans signing on, including Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And yesterday, the petition collected its 217th signature after the swearing in of a new Democratic representative who won a special election in Virginia.
So now, Khanna and Massie just need ONE more signature to reach the 218 threshold.
And while they hope another Republican will sign on, the final signature could also come from the winner of a special election in a solidly blue district in Arizona, where a Democrat is expected to win.
-
Then, next up, in very surprising news, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a trans student in a South Carolina bathroom ban case.
Right, the case centers around a 14-year-old transgender boy who is challenging the state law that requires students to use bathrooms that align with the gender they were assigned at birth.
With the student alleging that the law violates his Constitutional rights under the equal protection clause and goes against Title IX, which bans discrimination based on sex in education.
And last month, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals temporarily ordered the students’ school to let him use the boys’ bathroom while his case played out in court.
So South Carolina filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court justices to uphold the bathroom ban.
But yesterday, a majority of justices rejected that application, letting the Appeals Court decision to stand and allowing the the student to use the bathroom he wants at school while his case continues.
But, very notably, the ruling only applies to this one kid.
And the court made it clear that their decision was based on the state’s failure to meet the standards for an emergency order, adding that their denial “is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented.”
But the Supreme Court might weigh in on similar issues soon — the justices have agreed to hear a major case during the term that starts next month that could decide whether trans girls can play on women’s sports teams at school.
