As I've expressed in several articles since September 10, like many, I was quite shaken by Charlie Kirk's murder — for a number of reasons: The video of the murder itself, of course, was horrific; the heartache for his wife and two young children, his parents and sister, and all those who knew him personally; the sadness at the thought of a young life of promise cut short; the sick dread of contemplating the evil motivations behind it all, particularly as a colleague.
And then there's been its political/cultural aftermath. If Kirk's assassination was the earthquake, the reaction to it has been a tsunami. And social media has been awash in it.
I saw this video (below) shared by several people following Kirk’s murder. I wasn’t familiar with the account (“PoliticsGirl," aka Leigh McGowan) and, while I suspected I’d likely not agree with some (or much) of what was said, I took the time to watch and listen to the whole video. As I did, I found myself wanting to push back on a number of assertions that were made. But I held off. I let it sit with me for several days. And then, four days after I first saw the video, I began to very thoroughly take a look at what was said and add my own commentary.
To help distinguish, I highlighted McGowan's factual assertions in blue and opinion in green. I separated her comments out into bullet points and followed them with my own comments.
Before I began this endeavor, I wrote the following note in an effort to be completely up front:
I disagree with much of what this woman says. However, I also agree with some of what she says. What is driving me to do this is my recognition that there are several factual assertions she makes that are verifiably…inaccurate. Further, there are a number of opinions she offers up as “facts.” I’m going to try to approach this as clinically and dispassionately as I can. I’m not going to argue her opinions — I’m simply going to point out when they’re inaccurately being presented as “facts.”
And as I began it, I didn't know what I would do with it when it was done. Would I turn it into a RedState article? I knew on some level I’d be tempted to share it directly with those I’ve seen sharing this video — not so that I could say, “Ha! You’re wrong!” but because watching people I care about draw conclusions that place us at odds based on bad information or manipulative framing is downright painful.
Ultimately, I decided to turn it into an article to share here, so that others could watch the video and observe my attempt at deconstructing it and draw their own conclusions. I realized as I was in the process of dissecting it that there were points I wanted to argue, too, so I separated those out, and there will be a Part 2 of this article to follow, in which I "debate" some of McGowan's arguments.
So, here's the video in question:
RELATED: New Information About Charlie Kirk's Assassin Doesn't Fit the Left's Narrative
The Legacy Media Has Fallen So Far, Their Charlie Kirk Propaganda Is Just Self-Soothing
Below is my effort to separate fact from opinion, identifying where factual assertions are either unsupported (or verifiably inaccurate) and where opinion is erroneously couched as fact. The initial bullet points are McGowan's words; the sub-points are my responses/observations.
"So I haven’t spoken about the Charlie Kirk murder until now because we didn’t know anything, and since my channel was created not to report the news, but to make sense of it, I felt like the only responsible thing to do was to wait until there was more information."
I agree with the idea of waiting to know more to weigh in. Will simply note that the video was posted roughly 48 hours after the shooting, so there still remained a fair amount of unknowns at that point. Also note that “make sense of it” = “share my view on it.”
"It now appears that the person who shot and killed right-wing political commentator Charlie Kirk was like the majority of shooters in America: a young white male from a conservative, pro-gun, religious background."
Facts first: Alleged shooter Tyler Robinson is young, white, and male — check. There's also an indication that his parents (at least his dad) are conservative, and there's reference to a youth pastor, so we'll go with religious, too. Not sure "pro-gun" has been established, but we know the family had a gun (or guns), and there’s some reporting about a pic of the family posing with guns, so we’ll go with that, too. The problem with the "conservative" and "religious" descriptors is that she implies that they apply to Robinson himself. That does not appear to be the case — per the charging docs (p. 7): “Robinson’s mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political, and had started to lean more to the left — becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented…This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father, who have very different political views.”
Opinion: “Like the majority of shooters in America” is questionable. How is she defining “shooters”? Is she referring to mass shooters (which Robinson, by definition, is not)? (Statista has the breakdown on that.) Is she implying that the majority of shooters (or mass shooters) in America are also conservative and religious? If so, what’s her basis for that?
"After being told for two days that the Left had declared war on America, that the shooter was most likely trans — or, in Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s words, “pro tranny” — after the Wall Street Journal published an article they had to later walk back, that the bullets had a pro trans message because it turned out to be the just the markings of one of the world’s biggest ammunition factories, they were wrong."
Facts first: First part there is her repeating of others’ opinions/characterizations, BUT I think it’s fair to say that was part of the narrative out there.
Facts first: Second part about the WSJ is accurate up until the “world’s biggest ammunition factories” part. I don’t know where she’s getting that from, but while it’s fair to say the early characterization of the engravings may have been off, I’m not seeing any indication other than that Robinson himself added the markings. (See, e.g., charging docs (p. 6, 8).)
Opinion: “They were wrong” — this is opinion presented as fact.
"We still don’t know the motivation for killing, but we will find out more in the coming days."
Facts first: True enough (at the time she said it).
"But here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to put it in context because I think the biggest takeaways we have right now are the following: We have a gun problem in America. People who are unhappy have easy access to high-powered firearms to take their unhappiness out on others."
Opinion: I’m not going to argue her takeaway/opinion here. Just noting that it is an opinion.
"The two children who were shot in school the same day Kirk died were shot by a 16-year-old who had been radicalized online by white supremacist groups and had easy access to a handgun."
Facts first: This appears to be largely accurate, though I would note that the reporting indicates the Evergreen shooter had a fascination with gore/killings in general, so it’s not entirely clear that this was ideologically motivated, even if he espoused abominably nasty views, but that’s rather beside the point. The question is: To what extent is it relevant to this case? If she’s making the point about unhappy people and easy access to guns — we don’t yet know exactly how he gained access to the gun, just that he was able to. Is she attempting to link his apparent radicalization/motive to Robinson? If so, she’s apparently missing the mark. (Again, she didn’t know on Friday what we now know…but that sort of underscores the point of not getting ahead of ourselves with the blame-game.)
"After years of being told by our own law enforcement, including the FBI, that the majority of domestic terrorism is perpetrated by white extremist groups, who are the greatest threat to our national security, we have done absolutely nothing but allow those groups to flourish and grow."
Facts first: Okay, she’s right that this is what we have been told (setting aside any questions as to whether that is an accurate assessment), but…what does that have to do with Tyler Robinson? Is she contending he was influenced/radicalized by a white extremist group? If so, what was she basing that on? If not, why inject that into this discussion?
Opinion: I suspect that the FBI — whether under the Biden presidency or the Trump presidency — would quibble with her assertion that they have done “absolutely nothing” to address the issue, but, fine, this is her opinion.
"Charlie Kirk himself was one of the people who grew that movement."
Opinion: Is she asserting that Charlie Kirk grew the “white extremist” movement? That he was a white extremist? I’d like to ask her to show her work. (But I realize I’m wandering off into arguing opinion territory, so I’m going to leave that be.)
"You need to talk to black women and minority groups and marginalized groups or immigrants he personally targeted to get a firsthand account. Or look back on any of his speeches or comments or debates to see that white Christian misogynistic narrative that he was preaching."
Opinion: This is pure opinion. Again, not here to debate it. But what is her point here?
"Now, that does not mean that Charlie deserved to be shot. No one deserves to die in such a violent way. But we should question why this one death resonated so strongly with the same people who know school children die in the same horrific way every day but don’t care."
Opinion: Again, this is pure opinion. And hyperbole. And supposition.
"I want you to take what happened to Charlie Kirk and imagine that as a six-year-old boy in class, or a 70-year-old grandmother at the grocery store, or a mother of four at Walmart. What is the difference? Is it that you saw it happen? That he felt like one of yours? That the event was so visceral and vicious that it shook you up?"
Opinion: Pure opinion; hyperbole; supposition.
"I understand that, but then let’s take that as a lesson that this kind of violence should be unacceptable to our country, and we should be doing everything we can just stop it."
Opinion: Okay, which kind of violence? Isn’t it already unacceptable?
"And speaking of stopping it, everyone, from our president to members of Congress to media personalities, chose to blame this event, without evidence, on their political opposition. Not just for one person’s actions, but for violence and radicalization in general."
Facts first: This is kind of a hybrid statement, but I’m trying to parse it. “Everyone,” of course, is hyperbolic.
Opinion: “Without evidence” is a mixed bag. She’s right that it’s inappropriate to jump to conclusions about motive, etc., until there’s adequate information. However, the contention that there was NO evidence to support the conclusions is inaccurate, even on Friday.
"It should feel ludicrous to blame one half of the country for a single person’s actions."
Opinion: This is opinion/argument.
"Not only that, but to demonize the political party who has done everything they can for decades to limit gun violence, the party who begged you to care about your fellow Americans being slaughtered at the movies or in churches or concerts or schools, but were met with nothing but thoughts and prayers and AR-15 lapel pins."
Opinion: We’re in full-on opinion territory here. With a side of hyperbole.
"How is it possible that the party of common-sense legislation and the Office of Gun Violence Prevention could be the party being blamed for someone getting shot?"
Opinion: Pure opinion/argument.
"And if we’re talking about political violence, then we need to remind people that historically, it is the left who are the targets of political violence. It is the people who see the equality and change and justice and fairness who are most often assassinated — everyone from Lincoln to JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X. Gaby Giffords was shot in the head on stage Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman was executed with her husband and dog in their home this summer and she was only one of 70 people on a list of Democratic lawmakers targeted for death."
Facts first: Lincoln was of the left? No question that both Giffords and Hortman are Democrats who were targeted, but the Giffords shooter wasn’t ideologically motivated, and the jury’s still out on Hortman’s killer. He’s a weirdo mixed bag, but I will grant that his targets appear to have been Democrats. Of course, there’s also Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, who faced assassination attempts. There’s Steve Scalise and congressional Republicans. There’s Brett Kavanaugh. There’s, oh, you know, Donald Trump. Twice. So, if we’re going to talk about political violence, we’ve seen plenty of people on both the left AND right targeted. [Sorry - this is argument, but the factual assertions need to be checked because of what they imply.]
Opinion: This is opinion/argument.
"So I refuse to sit here while the Democrats left are painted as the party of war."
Opinion: Okay.
"The Republican president himself just changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War and threatened to invade Chicago."
Facts first: Yes, he did that (changing the name). The Chicago bit, that’s hyperbole. What do either have to do with Charlie Kirk’s shooting?
"It was the right-wing agitators who stormed the US Capitol looking for lawmakers to kidnap and kill."
Facts first: This is charged language, but factually in bounds (though lacking considerably in context). But…again, what does this have to do with Charlie Kirk’s assassination? I guess she’s setting up her narrative that the right are the bad guys here?
"It is the right wing who spent the past two days creating a false narrative, blaming an entire group of people for a violent execution with no evidence."
Opinion: This is opinion/argument, presented as fact.
"The right wing, who is using another American family’s tragedy with gun violence as an excuse to start a war they already wanted to start."
Opinion: This is opinion, argument, and supposition.
"So unlike everyone on the right who tried to capitalize on Kirk’s death to spin some narrative to their own benefit and everyone on the left who felt the need to lionize the man for free speech who did more damage with that speech in his lifetime than most people could ever dream of, I’m just gonna stick with the facts."
Opinion: This is opinion, argument, and an attempt to couch same as “the facts.”
"And the facts are this country has been deliberately divided and set on each other to the benefit of a small group of people in power, and we keep helping them."
Opinion: This is opinion, dressed up as fact. Now, she may be entirely right in this. But this is her opinion/assessment.
"We are fighting each other when we should be putting all of our attention on them — the people crashing our economy and taking our healthcare and bankrupting our farms."
Opinion: This is opinion/argument.
"The day Charlie Kirk died, the Republicans in the Senate voted not to release the Epstein files, something Kirk himself had called for them to do."
Facts first: She’s correct that on September 10, the Senate voted to table an amendment to direct the AG to make Epstein docs publicly available. I am going to assume, without verifying it, that Kirk called for the release of Epstein files/related material, though whether he would have supported this particular measure (offered by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer) is unclear.
"But so many people don’t even know that happened because their news and social media feeds were filled with a call to bring war and death to the Democrats."
Opinion: This is kind of a hybrid of opinion and fact, but it’s also supposition.
"Sometimes things aren’t as complicated as they seem. Ask yourself who benefits from something, and then see who tries to capitalize on it."
Opinion: This is opinion/argument, but it’s actually sound practice.
"The Democrats didn’t do this terrible thing, but an entire political party and industry went into overdrive trying to make you think they did."
Opinion: This is opinion dressed up as fact.
"Why? And what did we miss while we were dealing with that?"
Opinion: These are fair questions (to ask in any situation and as to all those in power)
Alright. That's my effort to deconstruct a video that, near as I can tell, has gotten close to 4.5 million views across YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X. Again, I did my best to limit my own argument(ative nature) here and just identify fact versus opinion, point out several factual inaccuracies, and note where McGowan characterized opinion as "just the facts."
Stay tuned for Part 2, in which I'll respond to some of McGowan's arguments with my own...
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member