WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance says there is “clear evidence” that 23-year-old accused assassin Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, he shared in an interview with The Daily Wire, but that he is “always going to wonder” who radicalized his friend’s killer. The vice president shared that he managed to follow parts of Utah hearing for Robinson, though not all of it, and he told The Daily Wire that “the evidence against Robinson is just really, really compelling.” In a wide ranging interview as the hearing concluded on Friday, Vance put a rest to the notion that he believes the viral conspiracy theories about Kirk’s death, stating firmly that Robinson killed his friend. “Do I think Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger and killed Charlie Kirk? Absolutely,” Vance said. “I think the evidence is clear on that.“ Throughout the past week, prosecutors spent days revealing surveillance footage, forensic evidence, an alleged confession note, and testimony from Robinson’s ex-roommate and transgender lover Lance Twiggs, as well as Robinson’s parents. Vance and Kirk were close friends, and Vance has spoken openly about the role Kirk played in convincing President Donald Trump to choose him as his vice president. Vance addressed claims in an upcoming book from New York Times journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, who report that Vance’s “instincts told him that there was a larger plot behind” Kirk’s murder in the days following Kirk’s death. Swan and Haberman wrote that Vance “went down countless online rabbit holes, becoming so consumed by the videos and the theories that his wife, Usha, told him she was worried about him.” The vice president emphasized that the aspect of Kirk’s death that will always haunt him is the possibility that other individuals were involved in radicalizing Robinson. Vice President JD Vance, Usha Vance, and Erika Kirk escort the body of Charlie Kirk on September 11, 2025 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images) “Do I think that Tyler Robinson is part of a broader network of left wing radicals who have fomented and encouraged violence? Absolutely. Do I know that they communicated with Tyler Robinson before the shooting? No, I don’t have evidence for that.” “I’m always going to wonder,” Vance said. “I’m always going to wonder what was said and how many contacts he had beforehand. By the way, it doesn’t mean that [Robinson’s] any less guilty. But do I wonder if there are other people who are more directly involved in Charlie’s murder? Absolutely, because I don’t think that it’s possible for a young man to get radicalized like that without somebody encouraging him, whether informally or formally.” “I think there are a lot of people with blood on their hands in the case of Charlie Kirk, but of course, the person most directly who has blood on their hands is Tyler Robinson,” he concluded. “The truth is that Charlie is dead because a bunch of left-wing radicals have preached a message that it’s okay to kill people you disagree with, and unfortunately, for my friend and and importantly for his family, there’s at least one guy in Utah who took that message to heart and and and murdered a young innocent father,” Vance said. “The worst part about all of this is not my my personal grief, as much as that’s very real, and the country’s loss, but the fact that I know that Erika and two little kids are going to grow up without their husband and father.” Vance says his hope is that what transpired last September causes leftists to reconsider the violent rhetoric that they too often unleash against political opponents. “If I was on the left, whatever the ideas that I had about politics and policy, if I saw that the result of some of the violence that I pushed is the death of Charlie Kirk, I would think twice about what I said and what beliefs led me to advocate for violence against people,” he added. “Because way too many leftists have advocated for violence for too long in our country, and it’s had real consequences.”  Donald Trump Jr., then Vice President-elect JD Vance, and Charlie Kirk during the Turning Point USA Inaugural-Eve Ball.  (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images) During the court proceedings this week, the prosecution played an interview with Robinson’s ex-roommate and lover Lance Twiggs, showing some of their text exchanges about the murder. Twiggs revealed to the court that Robinson cried at their apartment after he shot and killed Kirk and said he wished “he hadn’t done it.” Vance said he had seen this report, calling it “very compelling evidence for a court of law.” He sighed as he added: “In all Christians, if we’re being honest for us, there is a thirst for justice and a thirst for vengeance. And you know what God encourages to do is to care about justice and not vengeance. And so, if I’m being honest, my mind wishes for justice and hopes that Tyler Robinson is able to find forgiveness and find mercy. But I don’t feel that, and I don’t particularly care about that person or what happens to him.” Reflecting on his own grief after the death of his friend, Vance said he remains as “heartbroken.” “I think selfishly, I was thinking about what it would mean for for us, for the movement, and then you know, non-selfishly, I was thinking about what it would mean for Erika and the kids,” he said. “And you know, Charlie was one of those guys who was not just a friend, he was sort of a confidant. He was a guy that I could rely on. He was a guy that I could confide in. And there aren’t that many people when you’re the vice president of the United States.” “It was a very, very big loss to me,” he shared. Vance also repeatedly returned to the impact that Kirk’s death has on his family, his wife Erika, and his two children.  “I think about this a lot as a young father, and this is probably the thought that I’ve had the most consistently since Charlie’s death: thank God, my kids are at an age where, if God forbid, something happened to me, they would they would have memories of me, and Charlie’s kids are at that age where, especially for his youngest child, but even for his oldest child, you just worry that a young father who poured his heart and soul into that family, you worry that those kids won’t have any memory of them, and I think that is the greatest tragedy of all of this.” “And I know it’s something Erika cares a lot about,” added Vance. “It’s certainly something I’ve thought a lot about over the last year, but I think we have to take some some, as Lincoln would say, some measure of devotion to that, that his kids should know at the very least who he was, that that they were beloved, and that their dad gave his life fighting for the very best principles of the country that he loved.”

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) this week provisionally lifted its suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), opening the door to Russia’s potential return for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The announcement paves the way for Russia’s broader return to Olympic competition after several years of sanctions, doping scandals, and restrictions tied to both state-sponsored cheating and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the IOC moved to bar Russian athletes and teams from competition — formally suspending the ROC in October 2023 over its absorption of sports organizations in occupied Ukrainian territory. According to The Guardian, only 27 Russian athletes were permitted to compete at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris and the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina after undergoing vetting to demonstrate they had not supported the war. Those athletes competed as Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN), without Russia’s flag or anthem. Russian athletes had already spent years competing under modified designations because of sanctions tied to the country’s state-sponsored doping scandal. They competed as Olympic Athletes from Russia in 2018 and later under the Russian Olympic Committee banner, rather than officially representing their country. Russia has historically been one of the strongest Olympic nations, meaning its return could significantly expand the field in several sports.  While the IOC has maintained its stance against the ongoing invasion, its president, Kirsty Coventry, doesn’t believe athletes should pay the price.  “We wanted to ensure all athletes have the possibility to compete at the Olympic Games and not be held responsible for their government’s actions,” Coventry said.  “The decision allows for Russian athletes to take part in sport competitions – but we have also been very clear that we do not support violence around the world,” she added. According to the IOC, the suspension was provisionally lifted after the Russian Olympic Committee removed regional sports organizations in Ukrainian territory from its membership. The IOC said the special participation conditions it imposed on Russian athletes following the suspension are no longer applicable. The decision does not amount to a complete restoration of Russia’s Olympic status. The IOC said all Russian athletes returning to international competition must continue to meet anti-doping requirements. It also will not organize IOC events in Russia or invite the Russian government or state officials to its events. The IOC said it will decide at a later date whether Russia may display its flag, colors, anthem, or other national identifiers at the Olympic Games.

Netflix has had some hits. The series finale of “Stranger Things,” for example, pulled in 31.3 million views worldwide, and it wasn’t even the streamer’s biggest show. That would be “Squid Game,” season one of which achieved 265.2 million views. Season one of the second-biggest series, “Wednesday,” released in 2022, drew 252.1 million views. Season two of “Wednesday,” released in 2025, dropped to 119.3 million views. Season three is slated for release in 2027 – that’s three seasons in five years. Since Netflix began offering original programming, though, it’s canceled 85 series, at least at the time of writing. The problem is that those cancellations are basically Netflix’s specialty. While easy to attribute the gaps between seasons to the dropoff in numbers, and thus the need to cancel, it’s not just that, though the gaps are ridiculous. It’s the business model. It lives to cancel series. And while the service is profitable, it also sucks. Killing programming shouldn’t be the goal of production studios. Substacker Aakash Gupta has a theory about why Netflix suffers in a way that, say, HBO Max does not. On X, he posited that the gaps punish Netflix twice. That is, since it releases series all at once, it encourages bingeing, but then when people have to wait years for another season, they’ve lost interest. HBO Max, which also has ridiculous gaps between seasons, at least draws them out, forcing people to wait between episodes. That creates a stickier product because viewers invest months in each season rather than a weekend. This could be accurate – or not. Streaming services don’t like sharing their data because it could be used by competitors. Perhaps it is that Netflix’s internal metrics reveal a much less popular show than it would seem to viewers. On the other hand, it could be that the company is simply quick to cancel rather than putting in the effort to develop a show, such as network favorite “The Office,” with massive potential. This happens, or at least used to happen, more than people realized. “Seinfeld” had a weak start, something even we fans have to admit. “Cheers,” which ended up wildly successful, was almost canceled in its first season. “Futurama” has been canceled twice, with its final season streaming this year. This isn’t a phenomenon that’s unique to television, either. Many bands and artists that ended up with long, successful careers started off with a flop or two. Bruce Springsteen, Hall and Oates, Genesis, Pantera, Tori Amos, David Bowie, Shakira, Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan, and Bon Jovi all would’ve been axed had they been streaming shows. Musicians and bands, though, can bypass the studio gatekeepers much more easily now. For starters, the barriers to entry are much lower than they once were. They don’t need recording studios, just some equipment, an interface, and a laptop. Second, once they have a product, they can simply upload it to Spotify, SoundCloud, Beatport, and YouTube. Unless, God forbid, AI becomes a popular way to produce video content, it still costs money to make a show. And unlike music, a field which also became more ruthless when sabermetrics came to dominate all, it’s not as easy for those who want to make it to bypass those gatekeepers. Gone are the days of deciders with good instincts willing to take a chance on a product. Now, it’s all analytics. (Unrelated, but please comment and share this article, and subscribe if you don’t already do so.) And there is nothing inherently wrong with an analytical approach to business. The problem is when the business of art, which is what streaming platforms sell, becomes purely analytically driven. No, something like “Eastbound and Down” isn’t what people would traditionally consider art, but when you really dig into just how juvenile and vulgar Shakespeare was, you gain an appreciation for how sometimes being really old can change people’s perceptions. Incidentally, “Eastbound and Down,” an HBO show, is a more modern example of beating the system, even though it aired on cable. Part of its brilliance was Danny McBride’s. The show was filmed in North Carolina. Although there were family concerns, a major reason was the lack of direct flights from L.A. to Wilmington, which allowed them to create season one without interference from the executives. Season one was successful, and the studio trusted them moving forward. Now, though, the execs are always watching, keeping up with the numbers, canceling without compunction. And while it makes money, the modern system, particularly as Netflix employs it, doesn’t tend to create the lasting sort of programming that the old ways did. For even though “Stranger Things” closed out with strong numbers, it also closed out with a very anticlimactic ending, after only five seasons over nine and a half years. As things currently stand, the Netflix formula is unlikely to change unless its profits turn south. Which is a shame, because the future would be better with a return to executives looking to make not just money, but also great programming, even if the numbers don’t initially justify keeping a show on for another season. Step one is to get rid of the ridiculous gaps and the focus on bingeing. Both are overrated, and as the push notification from the Wall Street Journal I received while writing this suggests, they actually aren’t working out so well for maintaining overall engagement. The proposed solution? Adding live television, which is a revolutionary idea. In any case, maybe it’s not that analytics are bad after all, but how the executives respond to them. *** Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to here. You can also follow him on X: @rcromwell4

Jennica Pounds, also known as DataRepublican, is a data analyst and self-described algorithm geek. In the Weekend Punch interview, she speaks with The Daily Wire about debunking wild conspiratorial claims surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination, widespread skepticism about information, and what it means to pursue the truth. The following quote is Pound’s X response to Candace Owens and her conspiracy theories in light of the evidence presented at Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing, which concluded this week. Hello Mrs. Owens, You told millions of people that Tyler Robinson “wasn’t even there.” That you felt “confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not kill murder Charlie Kirk.” He was on camera. Prone on the Losi rooftop at 12:22. Shot at 12:23:28. DNA on the screwdriver at 30 quintillion to one. DNA on the rifle at 1.7 octillion to one. He told his family what he did. His parents helped him surrender. He texted his roommate: “I am, I’m sorry.” He engraved “Hey Fascist! Catch!” on the ammunition a month before he used it. You said police “didn’t even question” Lance Twiggs. He was interviewed twice. FBI the morning after. Joint state-federal team seven months later. His own attorney. Voluntary phone surrender. You laughed when you said it. You told Shawn Ryan a shaped charge killed Charlie. That PETN was in his microphone. The medical examiner says gunshot wound. Bullet fragments were recovered from his body. A .30-06 Mauser with Robinson’s DNA was found in the woods. Neither side — not prosecution, not defense — has mentioned explosives. Not once in four days. You said the shot came from below. The Losi building is above the amphitheater. You called Erika Kirk a “clinical psychopath” to an audience of millions. You said the assassination was “an occult ritual.” You said Charlie was “sitting in a pentagram.” You told people Israel killed him because he refused Netanyahu. You made over a hundred episodes. You built a franchise on a dead man’s name. And the hardest fact of all: Tyler Robinson’s own defense lawyers — the people whose entire career is on the line to get him acquitted — have refused to make a single one of your arguments. Not one. They’re challenging DNA methodology. They are doing their jobs. You were doing something else entirely. Charlie Kirk changed my life. He platformed my work when nobody knew who I was. He had my back when I was doxxed. I was the ten-thousandth most important person in his world and I will never be able to repay him. So I did what I know how to do. I read every transcript. I watched every hour of testimony. I cataloged your claims and I held them up against what was said under oath. Every single one failed. I don’t know why you did this. I’m not going to speculate on your motives, because that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I’ve spent my career refusing to be. But I know what you did. You told people confident lies about a dead man’s murder, and millions of them believed you, and some of them turned that belief into threats against his widow. The trial continues. And every day of sworn testimony is another day your words get tested against reality… under oath, on the record, where it counts. I’ll be here for all of it… because just as Charlie defended me, I will do what little I can to defend his legacy and @TPUSA and @MrsErikaKirk from evil.   Ben Domenech: You’ve done extensive research on the details surrounding the shooting of Charlie Kirk, particularly regarding the conspiracy theories that have spread online like wildfire. What topline details have you found that you think are most important for people to know? Jennica Pounds: After a week, all of the conspiracy claims have been thoroughly demolished in court. [Tyler] Robinson’s own defense team isn’t making any of the claims circulating online. They’re making procedural challenges to not show evidence. The people who have the most to gain from a conspiracy being real won’t even touch any of Candace [Owens]’s claims. Data analysis is a skill. The hardest part isn’t connecting dots; anyone can do that, as Candace and her fans have proven. It’s knowing when not to connect them. When you find yourself pulling more and more people into your theory as villains to make the story hold together, that’s when it crosses into fan fiction territory. Except in this case, fan fiction is posing a very real threat to Erika Kirk’s life. BD: We live in an era of heightened skepticism after a cascade of media scandals that destroyed public trust. It’s reiterated constantly – consider Graham Platner the most recent example. How do you go about breaking through that skeptical assumption – that everyone is lying – with the truth?  JP: The skepticism is earned. People have been lied to by institutions for years, and they’re right to demand receipts. So I give them receipts. Now, I’ve made mistakes and been wrong. But I’ve never gone wrong by letting the receipts talk as much as possible. Also, most people in this space try to destroy the person they disagree with. I’m not interested in that. What I do is show people the story they’ve been told, and then show them what the evidence actually says, and let the distance between those two things do the work. The trick is that you don’t have to convince anyone of anything. You just have to make the evidence accessible and let people be honest with themselves. BD: Candace isn’t alone. Her conspiracy theories – too many to count – have been echoed and defended by Ian Carroll, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly. What’s your interpretation of why people would entertain these theories as legitimate, given the evidence? JP: I’m not going to speculate on anyone’s motives; that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I just warned you about. What I can tell you is what I see in the data. None of these people have gone line by line through three days of sworn testimony. None of them have spent hours cataloging their own claims to track how far the theories have drifted from anything falsifiable. They built a narrative before the evidence was available, and the narrative is more important than anything. And I’d be remiss not to mention Joel Finkelstein at The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), a good friend, who has done more work than anyone studying the assassination culture that took Charlie’s life… and that may take more lives if it isn’t confronted. We need to learn the difference between data and narrative, and fast. BD: There are clearly a lot of people obsessed with the idea that Candace and her supporters have uncovered some vast political conspiracy. If you were sitting next to someone who thought that way at a local bar, what would you say to them? JP: I’d tell them that Charlie Kirk changed my life. He gave me a platform when nobody knew who I was. He stood behind me when I was doxxed by Rolling Stone. I owe him more than I’ll ever be able to repay. Then I’d buy them a drink and tell them I get it. We’ve all been lied to by people in power, and the instinct to distrust official narratives is earned. But finding the truth isn’t making a conscious decision to follow a different narrative to the prevailing one. It’s about following the data, the actual data, no matter where it goes. The data shows that many institutions are failing us and are taking escalating actions to maintain their legitimacy by coercion. That’s true. But the data also shows that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and that’s becoming more obvious every day the court proceedings are televised. BD: The effort that goes into heavy research these days seems harder than in the past, but also more accessible. What approaches and tools do you wish young journalists would use to pursue information and data rather than just chasing after everyone else? JP: AI is a double-edged sword for sure. Most people use AI to replace their thinking – that’s why those stories of lawyers using AI-hallucinated citations are becoming more common. For me, agentic AI has been a godsend in analyzing gigabytes of video transcripts, books, documents, website mirrors – and connecting them all together. It’s not unusual to burn 100+ subtasks to compile a 12-post thread. If AI is making your job easier rather than challenging you to meet a 100x productivity increase, you’re probably using it wrong. BD: I have bottle 887 of Distilled Data in my bar. It is nearly empty. Can we get a rerelease? JP: Glad you enjoyed it! I’ll petition my husband. ***

It’s a shame that “Saturday Night Live” is on its annual summer break. Otherwise, we’d laugh about the show ignoring the scandals coming out of the Graham Platner camp. Except it’s not actually funny. Once upon a time, when a politician stepped on a rake, a crush of comedians would rise up to tease them. That fueled late-night king Johnny Carson’s decades-long reign, among many others. Carlin. Sahl. Klein. Miller. Bruce. Politicians, in turn, had to watch their backs. That was good for their political futures and good for the country, too. Now, we have a new generation of political figures charitably described as comedy gold. Hunter Biden. AOC. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. And, of course, Platner. The problem? They’re all Democrats, and the current comedy zeitgeist won’t lay a glove on them. Meanwhile, every Republican in the public arena is mercilessly mocked for both real and imagined flaws. Night after night after night. It’s something mystery author novelist Daniel Friedman called out on X. This is not harmless and this is not meaningless. Democrats have successfully incepted the idea into voters’ heads that Republicans are absurd, clownish and unqualified and the one-sided mockery in entertainment media has helped to spread this lie when the Democrats are actually a collection of hideous weirdos and circus freaks that media has somehow convinced you are normal. Why would comedians ignore political targets just because they align with their world view? Call it the Palin Effect. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was new to the national scene when Sen. John McCain selected her as his running mate in 2008. “SNL” tasked cast member Tina Fey to portray Palin as a bumpkin, a rube who told the audience she could see Russia from her house. The impression, to Fey’s credit, was solid gold. And it stuck in the public psyche. Some actually believed the real Palin uttered that “Russia” quote. The moment showed the comedy community that their skits and yuks can impact public opinion. It’s no accident “SNL” took a hard-Left turn following that election cycle. Even “SNL” cast member Jay Pharoah, who portrayed President Barack Obama on the show, later admitted the show’s brain trust “gave up on the Obama thing,” meaning it pulled its punches on a sitting president. Why? He wasn’t a Republican. Both parties have their fair share of political embarrassments. Colorado Republicans just nominated Victor Marx, a man who told an interviewer that it doesn’t matter how many people he’s killed, to be the next governor. That’s just the tip of the unhinged Marx iceberg. Marx’s ramblings already snagged the attention of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” “The Daily Show,” and “Last Week Tonight.” That’s both appropriate and predictable. Expect more national ribbing in the weeks to come. And, as Desi Lydic did on her “Daily Show” skewering, they might tie Marx to the GOP brand. Heck, you can bank on that. Late-night hosts typically ignore Democrats behaving badly. When Jimmy Kimmel finally gave Platner a full-bodied mention, he used the alleged rapist to somehow smear the GOP. That’s the level of dishonesty in comedy circles today. That’s the same Kimmel who threw softballs at First Son Hunter Biden during his 2021 book tour. Meanwhile, the cultural Right has done little to balance the scales. Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” may be a late-night ratings winner, but it’s essentially a panel show aimed at a pre-sold conservative crowd. The show doesn’t do comedy sketches that might go viral and engage those who might otherwise watch “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” or the left-leaning “Tonight Show.” The right-leaning Babylon Bee has done some solid sketch comedy in recent years, but the site relegates its toughest political gags to its fake news stories, not its YouTube channel. Social media fills some of the gaps, with amateur late-night hosts cracking wise or creating memes that deconstruct Democrats. The platforms’ algorithms likely keep those funny bits to one side of the aisle only. The comic gold, meanwhile, will only get richer. Consider the stunning rise of Democratic socialists and their tried-and-failed policies. Not to mention all the antisemitism. Colorado Democrat Melat Kiros is so far Left that she couldn’t call the Boulder thug who firebombed a Jewish gathering an antisemite. New York City Mayor Mamdani embraces socialism while enjoying prime viewing seats at the World Cup (and other perks). That might be worth a gag or two. (But we’ll never see it.) This may read as a conservative complaint. And it is. Partially. There’s a larger, bipartisan issue in play. Comedians, at their best, hold politicians accountable and keep them on the straight and narrow. When a gaggle of Democrats betrayed the nation’s COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, they should have been mocked so aggressively that they loosened those protocols. The country would have been freer and equally safe from the virus, as we later learned. Instead, they kept up the charade because Kimmel & co. didn’t lay a glove on them. Plus, if a Platner-style candidate got raked over the comedy coals in the early days of his senatorial push, he might have dropped out months ago. His campaign may never have gained that early head of steam. Instead, he dragged his party down with him as more scandals emerged, hurting both the Democrat brand and the country. Our Court Jester Class has let us down. And the future holds little hope of any improvement. *** Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. He’s also the host of The Hollywood in Toto Podcast. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto.