I think this goes too far in demonizing HCR. Pointing out misinformation is one thing, but this article feels more like an attack on an individual. I also wish there had been some indication that HCR was given a chance to respond to these accusations.
How does it feel like an attack on an individual? Rather than simply pointing out her article seems somewhat dishonest? I sense disappointment rather than attack, but I am curious what you see as an attack.
Because Fleischer wants to get clout by attacking someone knownfor being a truth teller. Ironically, his attack is based on the assumption that Utah Republican Governor Cox, who regurgitates whatever Kash Patel's people tell him - which is why he lied about the meaning of the bullet markings in his first presser and is still lying about them, is the gold standard for truth and reliability.
The FBI under Patel has fired a lot of good agents - including the former Salt Lake City bureau chief, who was fired for being a woman and a Muslim - which is why their "investigation" is very slapdash and more interested in pinning crimes on imaginary transgender lefties* than on investigating the shooter's immersion in the Groyper gamer culture.
*The "transgender" angle comes from Gov. Cox repeating a FOX employee's misreading of a two-year-old TikTok video where the person in it is making fun of a video filter because it mistook the way his hoodie drapes for the kind of long hair often associated with women.
Nothing he posted was untrue. It wasn’t demonizing her, he pointed out that she jumped to conclusions and posted them as facts. I thought that when I read her post right after she posted it. I even went looking for information that might back up her claims. For what it is worth I read her posts and I am a fan, but like others she did exactly what Gabe said. It wasn’t an attack, he was simply stating what she wrote and what was the truth as far as what was known.
While I don't disagree she should have waited for harder proof before making such claims, how can we decry the hastiness of Richardson in jumping to conclusions then in the next paragraph appeal to the authority of Gov. Cox who cites zero new evidence in support of his own claim?
Furthermore, the WSJ who you are quoting from themselves were perhaps the most culpable mainstream newspaper in spreading claims about the murder before they could be sure of their validity, later having to walk back their statement that the bullets contained expressions of "transgender and anti-fascist ideology". Now that the WSJ has misled us once, as you say: how can we be sure they won't be willing to mislead us again?
I consider myself to be on the left, but like I imagine of most of your readers, I think it is of the utmost importance to always be alert to the agenda and factual basis of the sources I read, and to even seek out criticism of my current positions or beliefs to ensure I am not operating off of false confidence fueled by ideological hive minds of social media or elsewhere.
That being said, I again question the focus on Richardson here as the central, or at least first, example (I am not arguing against reporting on this whatsoever and believe it should have been included). Where is the inclusion of key rightwing sources that even now are refusing to recognize political violence as a problem that is at the very least on both sides of the political spectrum in this country such as FOX News, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump Jr., and of course the president himself?
Elon Musk, the owner of perhaps the most well-trafficked forum for political news and discussion, constantly pours gasoline on the fire with his posts about the "murderous left". How are we not talking about the man who bought the last election and gutted our government fomenting unrest and calling for the removal of a democratically elected government in the UK?
I’m not ready to demonize Richardson over this, because I’ve liked her work in the past. So, I’m inclined to hope she was misled and operating in good faith about the “facts” re: Kirk’s killer.
But! I’m a big fan of your work too, and I am starting to prefer sources like you and chris Cillizza and Chuck Todd who are less likely to be swayed or misled by partisan reporting or thinking.
So, I like Dr. Richardson. But I trust you.
Before your commentary, i would have said I trusted her too. Now I have to add an asterisk to that. She is appearing with jonathan last today on a video chat; I’m hoping she will address this subject. If she recants her rush to judgment, I will be happy to see that.
I should add that it’s my hope that nothing will emerge about Kirk’s murderer that will help bolster any narrative that jacks up the ugliness brewing in our country. I’m not a charlie Kirk fan, but I have a big problem with people dancing on his grave. Not because he deserves better— I don’t know if he does or not. But because our country deserves better.
My voting is very partisan, but I don’t like to let my political leanings become my excuse for going against my liberal values. I’m opposed to Kirk’s ideas, but I’m also opposed to partisanship, and I’m opposed to anything that causes people to dehumanize their ideological opponents. Kirk shouldn’t have been murdered, and we shouldn’t be celebrating his murder or using it as an excuse to move toward civil war.
I would prefer to remain a fan of dr. Richardson, but I’m grateful to you for reporting this straight and I will be inclined to wait until YOU report something before I accept whatever I hear next.
I never usually comment on anything on substack but I knew today's article would start a huge divide between readers. I came here to say what you said, only you wrote it more eloquently than I ever could.
Although I do subscribe to HCR and read her articles, I knew right off the bat that even though she was a historian and connected events in history to present events, her writing swayed very subjectively and it was easy to see where she stood on the political spectrum. What I always liked about Gabe was that I couldn't tell where he stood. He explained things in a way that someone like me could understand and even though, in my opinion, Trump was going off the rails, Gabe discussed everything that was happening with a neutral tone. That really helped me and talked me down off a ledge, so to speak.
i'm saddened by everything that's going on in our country right now, and admittedly, I was someone using pieces of information I found to make a judgment about the killer as well. In fact, when I read HCR's piece, I said out loud to my husband “here's proof! He WAS a republican!” When I saw the words she use (“in fact”), I (subconsciously/consciously whatever) immediately jumped to my assumption. That one is on me. When information comes from someone I trust, I tend not to parse out the little details and take all of it in one whole. So this was a good lesson for me, not just with that particular article but with any article.
In this article Gabe mentioned that the shooter was in a relationship with a transgender person but yesterday I saw a snippet that showed a picture of this roommate from two years ago when they used the TikTok filter to make themselves into an anime character. So talk was that this is where the transgender rumor was coming from. I realized that once again, I have to sit it out and wait before making a rush to judgment and participating in the back-and-forth volley that Gabe was talking about in this newsletter.
Anyway, I apologize for the long response to your comment. I guess today's newsletter just brought up feelings of “mommy and daddy are fighting” (as the young kids say), so I came here to see the comments. When I read yours, I agreed with them and wanted to thank you for putting what I was thinking into a very clear comment!
HRC uses appropriate language to reinforce that the ideas are just that - “appears” and “seems” are important words in the segment analyzed. Yet, neither word was acknowledged within the context of your piece. I also question your overuse of parentheses. If you have something to say in print - say it. Why use them as a subtext explainer to the perceived uninformed reader? It sends a message that your average reader is less thoughtful or not as informed as you are. They come across as “here’s the truth you are too uninformed to realize” and therefore sheds a condescending tone.
The point remains what is HCR’s evidence? What is she relying on? Without factual support, something that “seems” and “appears” is nothing but gossip. It makes Gabe’s point: a respected writer — who knows many trust and shape their opinions on her words — should not spread “gossip” in order to support her position.
I’m a Gabe follower, too. I respect his work, generally. This piece felt different. - a veiled attack on a competitor. HRC’s post did not come close to qualifying as “gossip” for me personally. That’s a big reach.
There is a widely circulated picture of the shooter in a MAGA t-shirt. That's evidence.
He was raised in a conservative family in a conservative area. That's not proof, but it is evidence. People's political views tend to be shaped by the environment they grew up in, that's why we have red states and blue states.
He knew who Charlie Kirk was, that's evidence.
You know what we don't have any evidence of? That he had left leanings. We have a statement from the Utah government -- presented without a shred of evidence.
This is what he said before the identity of the shooter was known:
" ... I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn’t be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country ..."
"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, is a young white man from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right..."
"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left" is a categorical statement with no uncertainty. The word "appears" comes only in the next sentence and refers to something else: "... who appears to have embraced the far right..."
The only sensible interpretation of these statements is that Robinson MAY be on the far right but absolutely is NOT on the left (that is, she's saying he's on the right, but how far is uncertain, or maybe he's even a centrist). So Gabe's interpretation is correct.
I also recognized immediately that HCR’s paragraph featuring strong language about Robison’s political leanings did not seem like her. I did not see supporting evidence
per se. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.
Republican Gov. Cox, who Gabe is using as his gold standard of unbiased truth, lied and still lies about the bullet markings, repeating whatever Kash Patel tells him. (Patel fired the highly competent SLC Bureau chief earlier this summer because she was a woman and Muslim.)
The fact is that the markings are not "lefty" but associated with far-right activist Nick Fuentes' Groyper gamer culture, which often ironically appropriates memes. Even the Pepe frog wasn't originally Groyper.
I don't think it's unlike her at all. I'm a former subscriber to her newsletter. I dropped my subscription because I found her work shallow and intellectually dishonest. She cherry-picks anecdotes from history to support whatever narrative she wants to tell. No wonder she's popular; people are happy to pay to be told what they want to hear. In a better world than this one, Wake Up to Politics would have 2M subscribers and Richardson would be writing for a tiny little cult of true believers.
I like Kristin Adamski's point (https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/political-violence-shouldnt-be-a/comment/156228575) that it's easy to tell from Richardson's writing where she stands on the political spectrum, but it's not so easy to tell where Gabe stands. I think that's true and very significant. Gabe is trying to get to the truth, whatever it is, and he tries not to make assumptions without evidence. Richardson is a partisan.
We humans are so far from perfect, especially in our darkest moments, we make easy targets: HCR for jumping to and then publishing conclusions not yet supported and Gabe for finding this so distressing that his critique was fueled by negative emotion. I noticed both HCR's and Gabe's lapse and forgive them both for falling short in a terribly painful moment in our history. I do so because they contribute far more than the 99.5% of us and take enormous risks in doing so. Let's learn from these moments and not condemn the people trying their hardest to help us through them..
I do not understand why you find this important to extensively comment on right now. An attack on HRC is not necessary and unhelpful in a time of such distress. Perhaps she was reporting on the information being shared at that time, and in time, when more facts are revealed, she would address that in a future newsletter. BUt vilifying her is not a way to offer support, and begin to figure out how, as a collective, we move forward. Please Gabe offer up an apology. Perhaps you pulled the proverbial "trigger" too fast.
Why does he owe an apology for pointing out a mistake on behalf of someone he subscribes to? A mistake that could not have happened from available news, but likely from bias? He was clearly disappointed by the author, not angry.
Gabe Fleischer trusts white male Republicans who are known to have pushed false information (Cox was wrong in his first press conference about the meaning of the bullet engravings and he has refused to admit that he was wrong despite gamers and people who know far-right groyper society correcting him) over trained female historians dedicated to finding and preserving knowledge of the truth.
Note that Gabe makes zero mention of Laura Loomer's and groyper leader Nick Fuentes' long standing beefs with Charlie Kirk - or Robinson’s long standing use of groyper memes. He wants to pretend that HCR just made her statements without having any evidence at all when he knows better.
I think that Joyce Vance states it well. "Let's wait and see what the evidence shows and leave the political narratives aside." Perhaps HCR needs to apologize for jumping to conclusions. No one, no group is immune from mis or dis information. We all need to be careful in what we state with certainty.
Perhaps Fleischer needs to apologize for trusting Governor Cox after Cox was caught lying about the meaning of the bullet markings, the sole "evidence" for Robinson being a lefty. (The Guardian had to walk back their story that an alleged "high school friend" claimed that he was a lefty when the "friend" admitted that, far from being his friend, he really didn't know Robinson at all or remember much about him.)
Mediaite, a *conservative* news site, broke the story about the bullet markings being from gamer culture and used ironically by Groypers:
I have paid subscriptions to only a couple of Substack accounts, and one of them distributes your newsletters regularly. I’m surprised at the angrily presented inference of motive in your post last night, as if there has been a longtime beef brewing. It has the vibe of someone calling-out a neighbor on an HOA Facebook page rather than speaking with that person directly.
Facts with evidence and reliable sources matter, particularly on accounts with large followings and especially in this climate. Mistakes happen as well, especially when news is moving fast. No one is totally immune from getting swept up. What one does after realizing the mistake matters a great deal.
HRC certainly has a narrative in her letters, as she is a presenter of context in regards to the current news cycle, but I’m wondering if you have noticed other blatant non-facts she has presented and then failed to correct. Or is this the first?
Gabe is trusting a white Republican guy who were now know lied about the bullet markings in his first press conferences over a person who is a trained historian and dedicated to the truth.
Politics in general shouldn’t be a team sport. Just like when reading news stories you should not agree 100% with everything being said, one can never agree 100% of the time with their elected official. We are not all the same. Nor should we be. I don’t know how to get away from this team sport mentality. Perhaps ranked choice voting? Definitely election finance reform. Democracy should not be able to be bought. I fear we are too far along this destructive path for either side to want to give up their power.
I appreciate the points you are making and wish to make. And I am not one for diving into the minutia of information to provide a possible "tit-for-tat" moment, but you had published that Lisa Cook, the fed governor that the president is trying to remove, as having fudged her mortgage application for a second home, stating that it was her primary residence which gave the president and his minions "cause" to remove her. If I recall correctly, I think you used the term "fishy." I am now reading that she had listed on the mortgage application for this second house that it would be her vacation home. If this is true, I have not seen a retraction in your published comments. Perhaps I missed them, in which case..."never mind!"
I knew I'd find a boat load of comments here today.
When we are lead by a president who sets the "gold standard" for honesty and civility we the people will follow. But, when the opposite is the case...?¿
I'm with the commenters who think the reporting on today's topic should have addressed the lack of presidential behavior coming from our current administration, as this behavior has ushered in (or at least cemented) the problems being discussed.
I think HCR may have made a misstatement using information that seemed accurate at the time (she lists all her sources.) I respect both you and her and I appreciate you pointing it out. Perhaps she will correct her assumption today or tomorrow. But to label her a "conflict entrepreneur" is also misguided. Despite our desires in the instant news atmosphere of today, we all have to let the dust settle, let the truth come out, and THEN report it with confidence. Until then, all statements should be couched in "this is a developing story" terms. No matter what the public demands.
I am one of your right wing readers. I appreciate your clarity and your honesty. It is articles like this one that keep me coming back reading what you have to say. I know you are trying very hard to be fair. That is something rare in this world today. Truth telling is a difficult job in our world. I remember a time when Left and Right could communicate and debate rather than only point fingers. I wonder if we will ever reclaim that civility? I certainly hope so. But in order to do that, we have to have honest brokers on both sides. We have to credit the other side with humanity, as well.
I subscribed to HCD for a brief time but found her bias overwhelmed her scholarship sometimes and I couldn’t take the time to sort “wheat from chaff.” I don’t watch VEEP but that quote represents a type of dialogue I have with myself every time there is a violent event—a rumination about which brand of perpetrator will inspire more division. Robinson seems to offer something for everyone….a perfect storm for the conflict entrepreneurs
You and Gabe Fleischer assume that Governor Cox, who lied about the bullet markings in his first presser, is telling the absolute truth.
Notice that Gabe isn't mentioning the gamers who know that the bullet markings come from Groyper and gamer culture? Or that Nick Fuentes, the leader of the Groyper movement, has had a "Groyper War" with Charlie Kirk for years? (Kirk even posted a "chickens come home to roost" comment immediately after the shooting, then hastily deleted it and many of his other social media comments, just as Kirk enemy Laura Loomer did.)
I've been reading her for a while now. I've caught her bending the truth to fit her narrative before. I fit to read her, but much more carefully. I've found your reporting so unbiased that I haven't a clue where you stand politically. Thank you for that!
Fleischer is hanging a lot on the reliability of Spencer Cox, who he describes as "a moderate Republican who has been praised by the left and right for his response to Kirk’s shooting."
Here's what he said before the identity of the shooter was known:
" ... I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn’t be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country ..."
I think this goes too far in demonizing HCR. Pointing out misinformation is one thing, but this article feels more like an attack on an individual. I also wish there had been some indication that HCR was given a chance to respond to these accusations.
Gabe also is assuming that Republican Governor Cox, who lied about the bullet markings in his first presser, is a fountain of truth.
How does it feel like an attack on an individual? Rather than simply pointing out her article seems somewhat dishonest? I sense disappointment rather than attack, but I am curious what you see as an attack.
Because Fleischer wants to get clout by attacking someone knownfor being a truth teller. Ironically, his attack is based on the assumption that Utah Republican Governor Cox, who regurgitates whatever Kash Patel's people tell him - which is why he lied about the meaning of the bullet markings in his first presser and is still lying about them, is the gold standard for truth and reliability.
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
The FBI under Patel has fired a lot of good agents - including the former Salt Lake City bureau chief, who was fired for being a woman and a Muslim - which is why their "investigation" is very slapdash and more interested in pinning crimes on imaginary transgender lefties* than on investigating the shooter's immersion in the Groyper gamer culture.
*The "transgender" angle comes from Gov. Cox repeating a FOX employee's misreading of a two-year-old TikTok video where the person in it is making fun of a video filter because it mistook the way his hoodie drapes for the kind of long hair often associated with women.
https://bsky.app/profile/rsthomas42.bsky.social/post/3lyr5x3fl3s2i
The person may not even be Robinson’s roommate!
https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3lyr5rlrlas2m
I respectfully disagree.
Nothing he posted was untrue. It wasn’t demonizing her, he pointed out that she jumped to conclusions and posted them as facts. I thought that when I read her post right after she posted it. I even went looking for information that might back up her claims. For what it is worth I read her posts and I am a fan, but like others she did exactly what Gabe said. It wasn’t an attack, he was simply stating what she wrote and what was the truth as far as what was known.
This is Substack. She can respond in the comments or post her own article as a rebuttal if she wants.
While I don't disagree she should have waited for harder proof before making such claims, how can we decry the hastiness of Richardson in jumping to conclusions then in the next paragraph appeal to the authority of Gov. Cox who cites zero new evidence in support of his own claim?
Furthermore, the WSJ who you are quoting from themselves were perhaps the most culpable mainstream newspaper in spreading claims about the murder before they could be sure of their validity, later having to walk back their statement that the bullets contained expressions of "transgender and anti-fascist ideology". Now that the WSJ has misled us once, as you say: how can we be sure they won't be willing to mislead us again?
I consider myself to be on the left, but like I imagine of most of your readers, I think it is of the utmost importance to always be alert to the agenda and factual basis of the sources I read, and to even seek out criticism of my current positions or beliefs to ensure I am not operating off of false confidence fueled by ideological hive minds of social media or elsewhere.
That being said, I again question the focus on Richardson here as the central, or at least first, example (I am not arguing against reporting on this whatsoever and believe it should have been included). Where is the inclusion of key rightwing sources that even now are refusing to recognize political violence as a problem that is at the very least on both sides of the political spectrum in this country such as FOX News, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump Jr., and of course the president himself?
Elon Musk, the owner of perhaps the most well-trafficked forum for political news and discussion, constantly pours gasoline on the fire with his posts about the "murderous left". How are we not talking about the man who bought the last election and gutted our government fomenting unrest and calling for the removal of a democratically elected government in the UK?
Cox literally lied about the bullet engraving in his first presser. He is not the trustworthy person Gabe Fleischer wants us to think he is.
I’m not ready to demonize Richardson over this, because I’ve liked her work in the past. So, I’m inclined to hope she was misled and operating in good faith about the “facts” re: Kirk’s killer.
But! I’m a big fan of your work too, and I am starting to prefer sources like you and chris Cillizza and Chuck Todd who are less likely to be swayed or misled by partisan reporting or thinking.
So, I like Dr. Richardson. But I trust you.
Before your commentary, i would have said I trusted her too. Now I have to add an asterisk to that. She is appearing with jonathan last today on a video chat; I’m hoping she will address this subject. If she recants her rush to judgment, I will be happy to see that.
I should add that it’s my hope that nothing will emerge about Kirk’s murderer that will help bolster any narrative that jacks up the ugliness brewing in our country. I’m not a charlie Kirk fan, but I have a big problem with people dancing on his grave. Not because he deserves better— I don’t know if he does or not. But because our country deserves better.
My voting is very partisan, but I don’t like to let my political leanings become my excuse for going against my liberal values. I’m opposed to Kirk’s ideas, but I’m also opposed to partisanship, and I’m opposed to anything that causes people to dehumanize their ideological opponents. Kirk shouldn’t have been murdered, and we shouldn’t be celebrating his murder or using it as an excuse to move toward civil war.
I would prefer to remain a fan of dr. Richardson, but I’m grateful to you for reporting this straight and I will be inclined to wait until YOU report something before I accept whatever I hear next.
I never usually comment on anything on substack but I knew today's article would start a huge divide between readers. I came here to say what you said, only you wrote it more eloquently than I ever could.
Although I do subscribe to HCR and read her articles, I knew right off the bat that even though she was a historian and connected events in history to present events, her writing swayed very subjectively and it was easy to see where she stood on the political spectrum. What I always liked about Gabe was that I couldn't tell where he stood. He explained things in a way that someone like me could understand and even though, in my opinion, Trump was going off the rails, Gabe discussed everything that was happening with a neutral tone. That really helped me and talked me down off a ledge, so to speak.
i'm saddened by everything that's going on in our country right now, and admittedly, I was someone using pieces of information I found to make a judgment about the killer as well. In fact, when I read HCR's piece, I said out loud to my husband “here's proof! He WAS a republican!” When I saw the words she use (“in fact”), I (subconsciously/consciously whatever) immediately jumped to my assumption. That one is on me. When information comes from someone I trust, I tend not to parse out the little details and take all of it in one whole. So this was a good lesson for me, not just with that particular article but with any article.
In this article Gabe mentioned that the shooter was in a relationship with a transgender person but yesterday I saw a snippet that showed a picture of this roommate from two years ago when they used the TikTok filter to make themselves into an anime character. So talk was that this is where the transgender rumor was coming from. I realized that once again, I have to sit it out and wait before making a rush to judgment and participating in the back-and-forth volley that Gabe was talking about in this newsletter.
Anyway, I apologize for the long response to your comment. I guess today's newsletter just brought up feelings of “mommy and daddy are fighting” (as the young kids say), so I came here to see the comments. When I read yours, I agreed with them and wanted to thank you for putting what I was thinking into a very clear comment!
HRC uses appropriate language to reinforce that the ideas are just that - “appears” and “seems” are important words in the segment analyzed. Yet, neither word was acknowledged within the context of your piece. I also question your overuse of parentheses. If you have something to say in print - say it. Why use them as a subtext explainer to the perceived uninformed reader? It sends a message that your average reader is less thoughtful or not as informed as you are. They come across as “here’s the truth you are too uninformed to realize” and therefore sheds a condescending tone.
The point remains what is HCR’s evidence? What is she relying on? Without factual support, something that “seems” and “appears” is nothing but gossip. It makes Gabe’s point: a respected writer — who knows many trust and shape their opinions on her words — should not spread “gossip” in order to support her position.
I’m a Gabe follower, too. I respect his work, generally. This piece felt different. - a veiled attack on a competitor. HRC’s post did not come close to qualifying as “gossip” for me personally. That’s a big reach.
There is a widely circulated picture of the shooter in a MAGA t-shirt. That's evidence.
He was raised in a conservative family in a conservative area. That's not proof, but it is evidence. People's political views tend to be shaped by the environment they grew up in, that's why we have red states and blue states.
He knew who Charlie Kirk was, that's evidence.
You know what we don't have any evidence of? That he had left leanings. We have a statement from the Utah government -- presented without a shred of evidence.
This is what he said before the identity of the shooter was known:
" ... I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn’t be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country ..."
https://newrepublic.com/post/200421/utah-governor-spencer-cox-kirk-death
Are those the words of an objective reporter? Yet Fleisher wants to treat them as fact.
Look at Richardson's statement again:
"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, is a young white man from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right..."
"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left" is a categorical statement with no uncertainty. The word "appears" comes only in the next sentence and refers to something else: "... who appears to have embraced the far right..."
The only sensible interpretation of these statements is that Robinson MAY be on the far right but absolutely is NOT on the left (that is, she's saying he's on the right, but how far is uncertain, or maybe he's even a centrist). So Gabe's interpretation is correct.
I noticed this too right away when I read the post by Richardson. It was so unlike her - glad you called it out!
I also recognized immediately that HCR’s paragraph featuring strong language about Robison’s political leanings did not seem like her. I did not see supporting evidence
per se. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.
Thanks, Terri Zearing
Republican Gov. Cox, who Gabe is using as his gold standard of unbiased truth, lied and still lies about the bullet markings, repeating whatever Kash Patel tells him. (Patel fired the highly competent SLC Bureau chief earlier this summer because she was a woman and Muslim.)
The fact is that the markings are not "lefty" but associated with far-right activist Nick Fuentes' Groyper gamer culture, which often ironically appropriates memes. Even the Pepe frog wasn't originally Groyper.
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
I don't think it's unlike her at all. I'm a former subscriber to her newsletter. I dropped my subscription because I found her work shallow and intellectually dishonest. She cherry-picks anecdotes from history to support whatever narrative she wants to tell. No wonder she's popular; people are happy to pay to be told what they want to hear. In a better world than this one, Wake Up to Politics would have 2M subscribers and Richardson would be writing for a tiny little cult of true believers.
I like Kristin Adamski's point (https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/political-violence-shouldnt-be-a/comment/156228575) that it's easy to tell from Richardson's writing where she stands on the political spectrum, but it's not so easy to tell where Gabe stands. I think that's true and very significant. Gabe is trying to get to the truth, whatever it is, and he tries not to make assumptions without evidence. Richardson is a partisan.
Broken light. Why not give examples of her “ cherry picking”.
We humans are so far from perfect, especially in our darkest moments, we make easy targets: HCR for jumping to and then publishing conclusions not yet supported and Gabe for finding this so distressing that his critique was fueled by negative emotion. I noticed both HCR's and Gabe's lapse and forgive them both for falling short in a terribly painful moment in our history. I do so because they contribute far more than the 99.5% of us and take enormous risks in doing so. Let's learn from these moments and not condemn the people trying their hardest to help us through them..
This was such a beautiful comment. Thank you.
I do not understand why you find this important to extensively comment on right now. An attack on HRC is not necessary and unhelpful in a time of such distress. Perhaps she was reporting on the information being shared at that time, and in time, when more facts are revealed, she would address that in a future newsletter. BUt vilifying her is not a way to offer support, and begin to figure out how, as a collective, we move forward. Please Gabe offer up an apology. Perhaps you pulled the proverbial "trigger" too fast.
Why does he owe an apology for pointing out a mistake on behalf of someone he subscribes to? A mistake that could not have happened from available news, but likely from bias? He was clearly disappointed by the author, not angry.
Gabe Fleischer trusts white male Republicans who are known to have pushed false information (Cox was wrong in his first press conference about the meaning of the bullet engravings and he has refused to admit that he was wrong despite gamers and people who know far-right groyper society correcting him) over trained female historians dedicated to finding and preserving knowledge of the truth.
Note that Gabe makes zero mention of Laura Loomer's and groyper leader Nick Fuentes' long standing beefs with Charlie Kirk - or Robinson’s long standing use of groyper memes. He wants to pretend that HCR just made her statements without having any evidence at all when he knows better.
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
I think that Joyce Vance states it well. "Let's wait and see what the evidence shows and leave the political narratives aside." Perhaps HCR needs to apologize for jumping to conclusions. No one, no group is immune from mis or dis information. We all need to be careful in what we state with certainty.
Perhaps Fleischer needs to apologize for trusting Governor Cox after Cox was caught lying about the meaning of the bullet markings, the sole "evidence" for Robinson being a lefty. (The Guardian had to walk back their story that an alleged "high school friend" claimed that he was a lefty when the "friend" admitted that, far from being his friend, he really didn't know Robinson at all or remember much about him.)
Mediaite, a *conservative* news site, broke the story about the bullet markings being from gamer culture and used ironically by Groypers:
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/gamers-claim-writing-on-bullet-casings-in-charlie-kirk-shooting-are-from-helldivers-2-video-game/
Later, other people clarified the role the memes play in Groyper gamer culture:
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
I have paid subscriptions to only a couple of Substack accounts, and one of them distributes your newsletters regularly. I’m surprised at the angrily presented inference of motive in your post last night, as if there has been a longtime beef brewing. It has the vibe of someone calling-out a neighbor on an HOA Facebook page rather than speaking with that person directly.
Facts with evidence and reliable sources matter, particularly on accounts with large followings and especially in this climate. Mistakes happen as well, especially when news is moving fast. No one is totally immune from getting swept up. What one does after realizing the mistake matters a great deal.
HRC certainly has a narrative in her letters, as she is a presenter of context in regards to the current news cycle, but I’m wondering if you have noticed other blatant non-facts she has presented and then failed to correct. Or is this the first?
Gabe is trusting a white Republican guy who were now know lied about the bullet markings in his first press conferences over a person who is a trained historian and dedicated to the truth.
Politics in general shouldn’t be a team sport. Just like when reading news stories you should not agree 100% with everything being said, one can never agree 100% of the time with their elected official. We are not all the same. Nor should we be. I don’t know how to get away from this team sport mentality. Perhaps ranked choice voting? Definitely election finance reform. Democracy should not be able to be bought. I fear we are too far along this destructive path for either side to want to give up their power.
I appreciate the points you are making and wish to make. And I am not one for diving into the minutia of information to provide a possible "tit-for-tat" moment, but you had published that Lisa Cook, the fed governor that the president is trying to remove, as having fudged her mortgage application for a second home, stating that it was her primary residence which gave the president and his minions "cause" to remove her. If I recall correctly, I think you used the term "fishy." I am now reading that she had listed on the mortgage application for this second house that it would be her vacation home. If this is true, I have not seen a retraction in your published comments. Perhaps I missed them, in which case..."never mind!"
I knew I'd find a boat load of comments here today.
When we are lead by a president who sets the "gold standard" for honesty and civility we the people will follow. But, when the opposite is the case...?¿
I'm with the commenters who think the reporting on today's topic should have addressed the lack of presidential behavior coming from our current administration, as this behavior has ushered in (or at least cemented) the problems being discussed.
I think HCR may have made a misstatement using information that seemed accurate at the time (she lists all her sources.) I respect both you and her and I appreciate you pointing it out. Perhaps she will correct her assumption today or tomorrow. But to label her a "conflict entrepreneur" is also misguided. Despite our desires in the instant news atmosphere of today, we all have to let the dust settle, let the truth come out, and THEN report it with confidence. Until then, all statements should be couched in "this is a developing story" terms. No matter what the public demands.
I am one of your right wing readers. I appreciate your clarity and your honesty. It is articles like this one that keep me coming back reading what you have to say. I know you are trying very hard to be fair. That is something rare in this world today. Truth telling is a difficult job in our world. I remember a time when Left and Right could communicate and debate rather than only point fingers. I wonder if we will ever reclaim that civility? I certainly hope so. But in order to do that, we have to have honest brokers on both sides. We have to credit the other side with humanity, as well.
There is only one side that is devoid of honest brokers.
I subscribed to HCD for a brief time but found her bias overwhelmed her scholarship sometimes and I couldn’t take the time to sort “wheat from chaff.” I don’t watch VEEP but that quote represents a type of dialogue I have with myself every time there is a violent event—a rumination about which brand of perpetrator will inspire more division. Robinson seems to offer something for everyone….a perfect storm for the conflict entrepreneurs
You and Gabe Fleischer assume that Governor Cox, who lied about the bullet markings in his first presser, is telling the absolute truth.
Notice that Gabe isn't mentioning the gamers who know that the bullet markings come from Groyper and gamer culture? Or that Nick Fuentes, the leader of the Groyper movement, has had a "Groyper War" with Charlie Kirk for years? (Kirk even posted a "chickens come home to roost" comment immediately after the shooting, then hastily deleted it and many of his other social media comments, just as Kirk enemy Laura Loomer did.)
https://www.editorialboard.com/does-the-right-know-the-real-danger-is-to-their-right/
I've been reading her for a while now. I've caught her bending the truth to fit her narrative before. I fit to read her, but much more carefully. I've found your reporting so unbiased that I haven't a clue where you stand politically. Thank you for that!
Fleischer is hanging a lot on the reliability of Spencer Cox, who he describes as "a moderate Republican who has been praised by the left and right for his response to Kirk’s shooting."
Here's what he said before the identity of the shooter was known:
" ... I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn’t be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country ..."
https://newrepublic.com/post/200421/utah-governor-spencer-cox-kirk-death
He also misrepresented -- lied -- the nature of the messages on the shell casings. He's not an honest broker in this.