It takes a certain kind of detachment — or deliberate blindness — to look at a flood of celebratory online posts following the assassination of a public figure and declare, with a straight face, that it never happened. But that’s exactly what historian Heather Cox Richardson tried to do on her podcast Politics Talk this past Friday.
If this is real? The mother posted this thinking it was funny... We're in more trouble than I thought... pic.twitter.com/cqZ2stZ3QP
— Jeffy (@JeffyJFR) September 14, 2025
Richardson claimed that “the radical right” invented the idea that Charlie Kirk was targeted by leftist hatred, insisting she saw no such celebration online — despite being, in her words, “online significantly that day.” She brushed off the narrative as manufactured, dismissing it as nothing more than a cynical ploy by conservatives to create a martyr.
But facts, as they say, are stubborn things.
Within hours of Kirk’s death — shot in front of a live audience that included his own young children — posts flooded platforms like X and TikTok. Some were flippant. Others were gleeful. Still others were grotesquely celebratory, openly mocking his death or insinuating he deserved it. Tom Elliott of Grabien News compiled a supercut of these posts, laying bare what Richardson apparently “didn’t see.”
It’s not speculation. It’s not right-wing fiction. It’s documented, timestamped, archived.
And Richardson’s claim collapses under the weight of that evidence.
Yep now imagine if (God forbid) those assassination attempts had happened and then one of his closest allies have been brutally assassinated on video.
I suspect we would not be getting calls for kumbaya and "let's not point fingers" from Democrats and the media. https://t.co/bksTNQ4huk
— Sunny (@sunnyright) September 14, 2025
Even ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith, who’s never been confused for a MAGA Republican, felt compelled to condemn what he saw online. “I don’t care what his political beliefs were,” Smith said passionately. “I care about the fact that a man was gunned down in front of two of his children… and I’m going online and I’m seeing people celebrating it! Shame!”
That word — shame — is one many have forgotten how to use. But it fits here.
While the historian’s podcast tried to portray the narrative of liberal celebration as a conservative fever dream, reality tells a different story. People were fired for expressing glee. Institutions distanced themselves from those who said Kirk “had it coming.” One nurse was suspended — and is now suing — after reporting a doctor who allegedly cheered Kirk’s death in front of patients.
🚨BREAKING🚨 Leftists creating a website to help anyone who was fired for praising the assassination of Charlie Kirk on social media.https://t.co/cnJHdqu2fo
Do NOT go here to flood them with fake stories. pic.twitter.com/IgjA7tsvtI
— David Santa Carla 🦇 (@TheOnlyDSC) September 14, 2025
What Richardson is really trying to do isn’t clarify the record — it’s to revise it. She isn’t denying isolated cases; she’s denying a pattern. She’s engaging in a subtle, but powerful, form of gaslighting: attempting to erase the social media trail with academic gravitas and dismiss what millions plainly saw and documented.
But America watched it happen in real time.
Whether or not Kirk was politically targeted by his assassin remains for investigators to determine. But culturally? He was already a lightning rod — and the response to his murder only solidified that. Activists, academics, and anonymous online users treated his death not with sobriety, but with a twisted sense of satisfaction.