"This is the night I should go to the theater."

Chris — my son, the reader of presidential biographies — texts me another passage from "President Kennedy: Profile of Power" (commission earned).

"The Seinfeld cast refused to film this episode. So we animated it instead."

"Jerry and and Julia read this one scene where she has the gun and she's holding in her hand and she says to Jerry in the car, 'All right, Jerry, where do you want it? The Kennedy, the McKinley?' And she could barely get it out of her mouth. And I used to sit right next to Juliet... and I remember her saying it and just looking at me with the most pathetic eyes and then looking at Jerry... and she went, 'I'm not doing this. I'm not doing this.'"

"The shooter did not miss his intended target and did not chamber another round, leaving the spent cartridge in the rifle."

Wrote the lawyers for Tyler Robinson, quoted in "Charlie Kirk Suspect Fights Death Penalty, Says No Others Were in Danger/Prosecutors say they can seek the death penalty against Tyler Robinson because he also endangered people near Charlie Kirk, who was shot in the throat last year. Mr. Robinson’s lawyers note that the gunman struck only his target" (NYT gift link).

"I’ve been on their list for a long time. That’s what we’re dealing with. The only thing is, I’ve left instructions — if anything happens, to just literally bomb them at levels that they’ve never seen before."

Said President Trump, quoted in "Trump tells The Post he’s ‘left instructions’ should Iran assassinate him: 'Bomb them at levels' never seen before" (NY Post).

That's dramatic and colorful, but when he is dead, he will not be the President, and his "instructions" will be nothing more than an expression of a preference.

He seems to want it to work like the "doomsday machine."

There's a strong temptation to uglify what Trump has made such a show of trying to beautify.

There's all that water in the Reflecting Pool. Is it well guarded? There are all those fountains and statues. And then there are the great stretches of well-tended lawn.

Now, we're seeing "Large etchings of numbers signaling opposition to Trump appear on National Mall/A White House spokesman decried the numerals '86 47' marked into the grass near the World War II Memorial as an endorsement of political violence" (WaPo)(gift link).

White House spokesman Davis Ingle responded to a request for comment on the markings with an email. “Anyone who engages in or endorses political violence or assassination culture must be condemned in the harshest terms possible,” Ingle wrote. “They should also immediately seek psychiatric help to treat their severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has warped their brains and made them sick in the head.”

I just wrote, at the end of the previous post, "The more grim, puritanical, humorless, imperious, and repressive you are, the funnier it is to make fun of you." There's a similar concept at play here: The more you show how much you care about pristine beauty, the more exciting it becomes to besmirch it. We can't have nice things.

Oh, but those who endorse the idea "86 47" might respond, these "nice things" are not nice. They are Trump things and therefore the ugliest things of all. To desecrate them is to move in the direction of true beauty. 

"On Saturday night, May 23rd, a shooter once again sought to murder the President, his family, and his staff at the historic White House complex."

"We submit this urgent filing to update the Court on a second attempted assassination on the President within a single month. Last night, shortly after 6:00 p.m., an armed assassin approached a White House security checkpoint near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, professionally pulled a high caliber gun from a bag, and opened fire in the exact direction of the White House. Brave Secret Service officers returned fire. The gunman was killed...."

From the Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of the Government’s Motion for an Indicative Ruling Dissolving the Court’s Injunction, filed yesterday in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, the case about the White House ballroom, posted by Trump at Truth Social this morning.

"People worldwide were betting on the fall of Iran’s late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on prediction markets long before he was killed..."

"... in an airstrike on his compound in Tehran late last month. But when his demise was confirmed on March 1, the platform Kalshi said it would not pay out millions of dollars in expected winnings, citing a prohibition on wagers involving death. The company outraged bettors and fueled a fierce cultural debate about the ethics and dangers of prediction markets. Such bets have also highlighted national security risks. Several times, betting patterns have suggested that anonymous users were using inside information to gamble on geopolitical developments, like the timing of attacks. There is often little governments can do about it. Prediction markets allow trades on 'event contracts,' bets on whether almost anything will occur — an Oscar win, a natural disaster, or the president garbling his words...."

From "Betting on Ayatollah’s Ouster Ignites Ire Over Prediction Markets/Bettors are angry that Kalshi, citing a policy against death bets, did not pay on wagers. And with signs of trading on government secrets, some lawmakers want to restrict prediction markets" (NYT).

"I got him before he got me. I got him first."

Said President Trump, quoted in "How Trump assassination attempts played into his decision to attack Iran" (WaPo)(gift link).

At a briefing on the threats in September 2024, U.S. officials told the Trump campaign that Iran had multiple kill teams inside the country. Trump repeatedly asked whether Iran was behind the Butler shooting, and investigators said they could not rule it out.... The would-be assassin at Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida... represented himself at trial and was sentenced last month to life in prison.... 

No evidence has connected Iran with the two assassination attempts against Trump in 2024. Trump suggested he sees a connection, telling ABC, “They tried twice.” The White House did not provide evidence to support a connection....

A trial began last week for a Pakistani man, Asif Merchant, arrested in July 2024 and accused of trying to hire hit men to kill a political figure. Last month, a Brooklyn man was sentenced to 15 years in prison for planning to murder an Iranian dissident, working for an Iranian who prosecutors said was plotting to assassinate Trump....

Classic comments from WaPo readers: "And once again, he has an inability to see beyond himself." And: "Of course it’s about him. It’s always about him."

"Mr. Routh, a former roofer from Greensboro, N.C., never fired a shot during the thwarted assassination attempt on Sept. 15, 2024..."

"... a fact that his lawyer, Martin L. Roth, emphasized on Wednesday. A Secret Service agent spotted him outside a fence near the sixth hole while Mr. Trump was golfing nearby. The agent fired; Mr. Routh fled in his car and was caught shortly after.... Mr. Roth asked the court to consider setting aside the sentencing guidelines and instead sentence his client to 27 years in prison.... 'Defendant would be in custody into his 80s and would not pose any threat to cause harm to the public,' Mr. Roth wrote. On Wednesday, he described Mr. Routh as 'troubled,' but said he had 'a very good core.'... Mr. Routh told the judge before his sentencing on Wednesday that he was a do-gooder, saying, 'I’ve given every drop of who I am, every day, for the benefit of our nation.'"

From "Man Convicted of Trying to Assassinate Trump Gets Life Sentence/Federal prosecutors told the judge that Ryan Routh had 'plotted painstakingly' to ambush Donald J. Trump in 2024 at his golf course near West Palm Beach" (NYT).

Don't all assassins portray themselves as do-gooders?

I asked Grok. Full answer here. I'll just quote what Charles J. Guiteau, President Garfield's assassin, said after he was condemned to death: "I know where I stand on this business. I am here as God's man and don't you forget it."

"President Trump has said he would ensure Iran was 'wiped off the face of the Earth' if the country carried out any assassination attempt against him...."

"In an interview with NewsNation that aired on Tuesday... the president said: 'I’ve left notification, if anything ever happens … the whole country’s going to get blown up. I would absolutely hit them so hard. I have very firm instructions, anything happens, they’re going to wipe them off the face of this Earth.'"

The London Times reports.

Famous.

I'm reading "Conan O'Brien Party Guests Recall Nick Reiners 'Creepy' Questions Hours Before Parents Slain" (Enstarz):

Guests at a holiday gathering hosted by Conan O'Brien said they were unnerved when Nick Reiner repeatedly asked strangers "creepy" questions hours before his parents, Rob and Michele Singer Reiner, were found slain in their Brentwood home, police and prosecutors said. According to RadarOnline, attendees described the questions — "What's your name? What's your last name? Are you famous?" — as abrupt and repetitive, delivered without context and continuing even after people tried to disengage.... 'It didn't come across as simple curiosity — it felt driven and repetitive,' one guest said. 'You could see people growing uneasy.' Hosts later asked him to leave, according to two attendees....

Hours later, Nick Reiner made himself famous. The murder he committed is a famous murder. It is now the most famous thing about his long-famous father. 

It shouldn't be possible to become famous through murder, but it very clearly is.

"At 3:00 a.m. on the morning of November 3, with the nation still anxiously waiting to learn who its next president would be, Garfield went to bed."

"When he woke up a few hours later and was told in no uncertain terms that he had won the election and was to be the twentieth president of the United States, he was, one reporter noted with astonishment, the 'coolest man in the room.' Later that day, Garfield gave his election to the presidency little more mention in his diary than he had the progress of his oat crop a few weeks earlier. 'The news of 3 a.m.,' he wrote, 'is fully justified by the morning papers.'  In the days that followed, surrounded by celebrations and frantic plans for his administration, Garfield could not shake the feeling that the presidency would bring him only loneliness and sorrow. As he watched everything he treasured—his time with his children, his books, and his farm—abruptly disappear, he understood that the life he had known was gone. The presidency seemed to him not a great accomplishment but a 'bleak mountain' that he was obliged to ascend. Sitting down at his desk in a rare moment to himself, he tried to explain in a letter to a friend the strange sense of loss he had felt since the election. 'There is a tone of sadness running through this triumph,' he wrote, 'which I can hardly explain.'"

I'm rereading "Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President" (commission earned) to go along with the Netflix series — "Death by Lightning" — that's based on the book.

Why change the title to something factually inaccurate? Garfield once said "Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; it is best not to worry about either."

The series is very visual, conveying information only impressionistically. Great sets, costumes, actorly finesse in the delivery of short emotional lines, but there is so much more going on in the book. That's just a typical book-is-better-than-the-film observation, not a rejection of the adaptation, which is excellent.

I'm interested in the Presidents who have not wanted to be President, who have felt bad about winning. I asked Grok to list them in the order of how much they did not want to have to do it and got this:

"What drove you to want to try to assassinate President Ford?"/"Well, everybody asks that. And the thing is that everybody was talking about it."

"They say, 'Where did you get the idea?' I don’t know about the rest of the country, but in San Francisco people were saying this all the time. Number one, we elect our presidents. We don’t appoint them. And Gerald Ford was appointed — and he was appointed by a crook, if you will pardon the expression. So it wasn’t a unique feeling. It was partly that there were other people who had talked about it, who I thought were much more important to what we were thinking of as a revolution, and we really, truly thought there was going to be one. And I thought somebody like me — I was a nobody — it would be better coming from somebody like me and not destroying these people I thought were leaders. If they did this, it would destroy their leadership."

Said Sara Jane Moore, who was sentenced to life in prison but was out on parole and talking to CNN in 2015.

I'm blogging about Sara Jane Moore not because her reason for trying to assassinate Gerald Ford is chillingly resonant today: She got the idea from the way everybody was talking about it.

I'm blogging about her because I see her obituary in the NYT: "Sara Jane Moore, Would-Be Assassin of President Ford, Dies at 95/A mother of four on the fringes of radical leftist movements, she fired at the president outside a San Francisco hotel in 1975. She had hoped to spark a revolution, she said."

And here's a bit of Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme in the Stephen Sondheim musical "Assassins":

Should the widow stand back and know that her place is to quietly mourn and to express no opinions?

I'm reading The Washington Post: "Erika Kirk emerges as vocal public figure, redefining role of political widow/Vocal and stridently determined to advance her husband’s work, she has embraced her public role" (gift link).

In modern times, the number of women who have found themselves in this unenviable and tragic situation in the United States is small. The group is largely limited to the widows of the men slain in the tempestuous mid-1960s. Some biographers who chronicled the lives of those men — Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and John F. and Robert F. Kennedy — are wary of drawing historical comparisons that might by extension elevate Charlie Kirk, who made numerous disparaging remarks about Black people...

Inflammatory characterization casually inserted. 

... to the stature of an iconic civil rights leader or a president. But they see important distinctions between the ways the widows of the ’60s acted in their unwanted roles and the ways Erika Kirk is defining it.

“It’s such a different era and the partisanship is so much more extreme now,” said David Margolick, who wrote a book on the relationship between Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, and whose journalism is being turned into a documentary about Coretta Scott King and the Kennedy widows flying RFK’s body home after he was killed. “And people are all in their respective political communities and have very little interaction with people on the other side. In [the era of the earlier widows], as partisan as it was — and some people really hated the Kennedys — there was respect for the presidency that crossed party lines. The mourning wasn’t red and blue.”

"When Secret Service agents approached him, he claimed to be a member of law enforcement and said he was armed, the service said."

"'The individual is not a member of authorized law enforcement working the event and is currently in custody,' the service said, adding that he had not been arrested as of late Friday night.... The apparent unauthorized entry raised security concerns around the memorial, which is at capacity and is expected to include President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and many other administration officials and top aides."

I'm reading "Armed man detained at site of planned memorial service for Charlie Kirk/The service, which will feature President Donald Trump and Cabinet members, has a top-level security designation akin to a Super Bowl" (WaPo).

How is it possible to have enough security when malefactors are capable of attempting to infiltrate security — either by faking being a member of law enforcement or by managing to become a member?

There are prominent historical examples of political figures killed by their own security guards. I think of Indira Gandhi, but you can go back to Philip II of Macedon:

"From where does all this hatred, violence, and moral vacuity arise?"

"Why did the shooter inscribe his bullets with 'anti-fascist' messaging, cruel taunts, and trans jargon?"

Asks Victor Davis Hanson, in "Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University? America’s descent into violence and moral chaos—from Kirk’s assassination to suppressed crime truths—traces back to the toxic ideologies nurtured in universities" (American Greatness).

Is the hatred caused by the media... Or is the promulgator the Democratic Party and the Left... Or, finally, is the culprit for the madness found ultimately in the elite university?... Why, in the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, are so many teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats so eager to gloat over and cheer his death?... Hundreds of thousands of students emerge from campuses not just indoctrinated with contempt for the Western tradition and American exceptionalism, and not just often thousands of dollars in debt from inflated tuition, but also poorly educated by the standards that once defined education. The working classes and high school graduates, supposedly the losers of our society, are not those who are dividing the country. They are not often advocating violence or trying to use any means necessary to overturn the established order. But so often the products of the modern university are doing just that....

Interesting... but Charlie Kirk's assassin dropped out of college after one semester. He'd been a promising student and won a scholarship to study engineering, yet he veered off that path quickly and into an electrical apprenticeship program. Wouldn't that put him in with the "working classes and high school graduates" —  "supposedly the losers of our society" who "are not those who are dividing the country"? Perhaps the assassin had contempt for the very "teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats" who have been "so eager to gloat over and cheer" his action. We don't know, do we?

The assassin is contemptible — a murderer. But whether his motive aligns with the ideology of the "teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats" who cheer and gloat, they are contemptible — quite independently. They need to stand in the light and take criticism for the ideas they've taught and enforced.

"It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year..."

"... in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.... Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died — the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, and the patriotic devotion and love of God.... Today, because of this heinous act, Charlie's voice has become bigger and grander than ever before, and it's not even close...."

Said Trump in an address from the Oval Office last night.

My attention was called to that by this Maggie Haberman piece in the NYT: "At the White House, Trump’s Grief and Shock Turn to Rage Over Charlie Kirk/President Trump asked for updates and met with advisers in the Oval Office before recording a four-minute video in which he blamed rhetoric from the 'radical left' for the killing."

The headline prompts us to question Trump's basis for purporting to know what motivated the killer. Maybe we ought to wait until we learn more, and maybe the hateful rhetoric is coming from both sides, and maybe there are leftwing targets of violence. I'm imagining those on the left scurrying to prevent Trump and his allies from controlling the narrative.

I wrote that last paragraph based on the headline and drawing on my own expectations. Then I read the article and did not find what I'd thought I'd find. It is more of a straightforward description of the scene at the White House yesterday. We're told "the corridors... were quiet, as staff there absorbed news," and "Televisions affixed to walls in different rooms blared minute-to-minute coverage.... Some staff members appeared to have been crying."

The last sentence of the article makes me jerk my head to check the calendar icon in the sidebar of my computer: "The president was still on track for a visit to New York on the anniversary of the last significant event to unite nearly all Americans across parties: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

It's a very somber day, not a day to strain to find a way to advantage your side. And yet, there is Trump in that video, forthrightly blaming the radical left. He didn't take a day or 2 off for reflection and what either is or looks like prayer. And that's a temptation to all on the left and all those pumping for Democrats to assert that the right is also responsible for the violence. Yield to that temptation and you might be the next Matthew Dowd.

See "Matthew Dowd Fired From MSNBC for Charlie Kirk Comments" (Variety). What Dowd said, probably feeling this was measured, accurate, and smart: "[Charlie Kirk] is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in."

"We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!"

Writes President Trump, at Truth Social.

I asked Grok, "Did Charlie Kirk die?" For what it's worth, Grok answered: "No, Charlie Kirk did not die. He was shot and injured during an event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, and was taken to a hospital for treatment. While rumors of his death spread rapidly on social media, including X, no credible news outlets have reported his death, and the incident remains under investigation as a developing story."

I'm seeing apparent eyewitnesses on TV saying they saw him shot in the chest/neck with "gushing" blood. I note that it is taking a very long time to hear an update on Kirk's condition, and I don't think that is a positive sign. Looking at the video embedded above, I think it appears that he was shot in the chest.

ADDED: I’ve removed the video of the shooting and of the man who was detained and then cleared. 

Why did it take so long to find Vance Boelter if he was right near his house with his getaway car parked in front?

Why did the big manhunt take 43 hours?

ADDED: Here's my other question. Boelter (it seems) attacked 2 political figures and also their spouse. Isn't it unusual for an assassin (if that's what he was) to go after the spouse?

"When we did a search of the [fake police car], there was a manifesto that identified many lawmakers and other officials."

Said Police Chief Mark Bruley, of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, quoted in From "'No Kings' protests in Minnesota canceled as authorities search for suspect who shot 2 lawmakers/Police in Minnesota are cautioning residents to avoid 'No Kings' protests after two state lawmakers and their spouses were shot early Saturday" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Melissa Hortman, a former Minnesota House Speaker, and her spouse were shot and killed early Saturday in their Brooklyn Park home. A second state lawmaker, Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, were shot multiple times in Champlin. Officials say both Hortman and Hoffman were mentioned in the suspect’s writings.....

State Patrol Col. Christina Bogojevic asked people “out of an abundance of caution” not to attend any of the “No Kings” protests that were scheduled for across the state on Saturday. Bogojevic said authorities didn’t have any direct evidence that the protests would be targeted, but said the suspect had some “No Kings” flyers in their car. Organizers announced that all of the protests across the state were canceled....

UPDATE: "A former appointee of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is being sought in connection with the assassination of a state lawmaker and the shooting of another, police sources said. Vance Luther Boelter...." (NY Post0).