There are many threads surrounding the MAGA right’s ongoing martyr-making and canonization of Charlie Kirk. We know about the tendentious rewriting of history both from Kirk’s stalwarts and his fellow travelers; we know how his death is being used as the pretext for various crackdowns on free speech and domestic enemies. But the part of this saga that is most interesting to me is the part that is based on a fairly simple and lazy misunderstanding. It’s not a terribly large part of the story but it contains some interesting dimensions.

Ezra Klein, rather notoriously, eulogized Kirk as someone who was doing politics right. He wanted to debate everyone. He was a master of persuasion, Klein claimed. California Gov. Gavin Newsom made similar points. Each of them made slightly better points than their one-line quotes that have gotten the most circulation. But in those comments and in their penumbras an idea got hatched that Kirk was an example of people debating their disagreements, engaging rather than retreating to their echo-chamber bubbles.

The Trump administration is preparing to bail out the Argentine economy, whose current President is Trump ally Javier Milei. Says Reuters, “Markets have been roiled by corruption allegations inside Milei’s circle and a larger-than-expected loss in a local election in Buenos Aires …”

Over the weekend we had a confluence of three stories which together illustrate where the federal government is eight months into the second Trump administration. 1. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was either fired or resigned under pressure (probably the latter) for his refusal/inability to prosecute designated Trump enemies like New York Attorney General Letitia James. 2. We learned that last fall, Tom Homan was the subject of an investigation in which he had accepted a literal bag of $50,000 cash for corrupt actions during the second Trump administration should Trump again be elected. Investigators were waiting to see if Homan, who is now Trump’s border czar, would follow through on those promises once in office. (If you stiff the folks who bribed you it’s still a crime but it’s a lesser offense.) However, the Trump DOJ shut down the investigation. 3. Finally, NOTUS reports this morning that Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section has gone from 36 “experienced attorneys assigned full-time to investigate corrupt politicians and police officers” to two. That’s two as in double of one. The departures are a mix of firings, pressured or forced resignations, resignations on principle and reassignments.

We live in an age of monsters: Elon Musk, Donald Trump, the Ellison family, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, the sundry billionaires who don’t own apps. This may sound like a caustic and dramatic comment coming from me. Some of them are genuine monsters: Musk, Trump, probably Thiel. In other cases, like with Zuckerberg, they are probably more or less normal and might even be okay to have lunch with. But functionally, in the role they play and power they wield in our society, they are monsters. And the function of the Trump era has been to wind them all together into a single formation, first by allurement and then by force.

This realization first started to dawn on me in the years after Citizens United, the court decision that essentially ended meaningful campaign finance law in the United States. It came in the first reactions to Citizens United or more specifically the spending it made possible. Billionaires and centi-millionaires started gaining publicity and critical reactions to the scale of their spending and the impact it had on elections. Political giving at scale by the extremely wealthy wasn’t new. It had just taken a half-century hiatus. Perhaps the difference was the internet. Whatever it was, the years after 2010 spawned the idea that the very wealthy and the extremely powerful needed to be afforded more protections, more privacy for their giving then ordinary people who might donate $50 or even $5,000 up near the candidate donation limit.

Kate and Josh discuss the Charlie Kirk killing and its fallout, the Republicans’ stopgap bill and leadership’s refusal to endorse Zohran Mamdami.

Let me start by noting the obvious: What we saw yesterday with Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension by ABC News was a brazen and unabashed attack on free speech in the United States in a way that was unimaginable until a few months ago. It manages to be both shameful in its audacity and criminality while also absurd. It’s not a newspaper being shuttered or a political party being proscribed. It’s a comedian’s show being taken off the air. But dictators and authoritarians never like comedians. They are jesters, not warriors. So their lance strikes and ripostes are oblique in their approach and more difficult to react to.

I don’t want to participate in the, “How bad is this?” discourse. It’s bad. We know that. An apolitical person told me yesterday this whole development was “frightening.” I agreed. So why don’t you seem more upset about it? this person asked. Because I already knew we were here.

All I have time for is what one does in response. So a few thoughts on that front.

Neither of these deals have been realized. But I want to flag something on the horizon that is potentially a very big deal. Yesterday, the Wall the Street Journal broke the news that the White House has negotiated a purchase of TikTok by a consortium that includes Oracle, Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz. The deal hasn’t been finalized yet. And it’s a whole other issue that you have the White House organizing something like this. The key, for our purposes, is Oracle and the Ellison family. This potentially takes TikTok out of the hands (indirectly) of the Chinese government (though the details there remain to be seen) and places it into the hands of key allies of President Trump. Meanwhile Paramount and CBS are now owned by Skydance, under the nominal rule of David Ellison, son of Oracle kingpin Larry Ellison. And Skydance/Paramount is now making a bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.

We’ve now heard the first official word about the murder of Charlie Kirk as part of the official charges brought against him today. I want to reiterate a point I made yesterday. Despite the concerted effort to portray Tyler Robinson as a proponent of “left-wing ideology,” as Kash Patel put it, that’s really not clear at all from the evidence contained in the charging documents. What we have in there are mostly statements from Robinson’s mother to the police that he “had started to lean more to the left” over the last year and become “more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.”

I want to point you to a report from Ken Klippenstein, who got access to parts of the much-discussed Discord channel that Robinson and fellow gamers spent time on. Klippenstein’s report sheds more light on Robinson and his milieu than basically anything that’s appeared in the mainstream press over the last week. I really recommend you read it. There’s no bombshell. Just a general impression of the guy. But still very revealing.

This is kind of a secondary issue. But it’s important to focus on for a number of reasons. In the past, generally speaking, you could use formal communications and background briefings from federal law enforcement, within important parameters, as a guide to the state of an investigation. It’s a given that they would be sure to make you think that whoever they thought was guilty was definitely guilty. They could also be relied on to speak in the institutional interest of their department or agency. But for a general understanding of what an investigation had uncovered, you could learn a lot from it, so long as these critical points of skepticism were borne in mind. Federal law enforcement, certainly off the record, could also often provide some constraint or filter on what the administration was saying. My point isn’t to romanticize the old system. But it was, from a journalistic perspective, often a key source of information.

In the current environment I think it’s fair to say there’s really no reason to believe anything we’re hearing from federal law enforcement, either formally or on background to reporters.

This is a post about TPM. So that’s just as a heads-up. It’s not about the news of the moment. It’s inwardly looking about this website.

On Friday, I did an interview tied to our 25th anniversary celebration. It should be out closer to the date of the anniversary in mid-November. Toward the end of the conversation, the interviewer asked me if I thought TPM had stayed true to the vision I originally had for it and, if so, what that was. I began by referencing a point I’d made earlier in the interview which was that it couldn’t be true to the original vision because I didn’t have any clear sense of what I was trying to do at the beginning. But pretty quickly I did. When I thought about the site and its continuity I realized there are three things that make up TPM. Oddly, in the interview, I only mentioned two of them. I probably just lost my train of thought. It was toward the end of an hour-long interview. But I wanted to share with you what those three things are.