Testimony Builds Case Kirk Was Assassinated For Christian Belief 5%

By Hannah Bates0%

7/9/2026, 4:53:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.7% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 697 faulty-reasoning hits from 447 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.4% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,829 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.20% of the article peer group.

Image Credit gage skidmore/flickr / cc by-sa 4.0 
Judge Tony Graf fully admitted the now-released three-page testimony on Charlie Kirk’s religious beliefs by pastor, TPUSA board member, and friend of Charlie Kirk, David Engelhardt, on July 9. 
The statement details Kirk’s “orthodox-Christian position on marriage, family, gender, and sexual being, which find their basis in various Biblical scriptures.” 
Defense attorney Richard Novak disputed the admission for more than 30 minutes on the second day of the preliminary hearings because the document does not reveal accused assassin Tyler Robinson’s views on Kirk and “this is not a case about religion.” 
However, because Graf ruled that the document is admissible as evidence for Kirk’s political beliefs, he bolstered the prosecution’s case for the victim-targeting enhancement, which could increase Robinson’s punishment if he is found guilty. 
The Engelhardt testimony: 
1)As noted in Turning Point USA’s filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Turning Point USA is organized and operated exclusively for educational and charitable purposes in accordance with section 501(c)(3), to empower informed civic and cultural… 
- Breccan F. 
Thies (@BreccanFThies) July 9, 2026 
The prosecution hopes to increase Robinson’s punishment by proving the assassination was motivated by hatred of Kirk’s “political expression.” 
If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson killed Kirk for his political views, then under Utah Code § 76-3-203.14 , the state allows for a sentence to be “enhanced” or increased because a victim was targeted for his political beliefs. 
Novak told Graf that he does not believe the document is “relevant” to the enhancement and told the court, “I didn’t bring the Bible to this courtroom. 
The state brought it.” 
Graf initially chose to provisionally admit the document because “it is relevant as it relates to the victim targeting enhancement [since] it relates to Charlie Kirk’s political expression,” and he fully admitted and published the exhibit Thursday. 
Lack of audio was due to the admission of an exhibit considered Tuesday and provisionally admitted  that of Pastor David Engelhardt, which is a statement of political and religious beliefs, motivations, and mission of TPUSA, Charlie KIRK, etc. 
STATE is using this to lay the… 
victim-targeting enhancement 
Shop The #FDRLSTSWAG Store 
Here’s What You Need To Know About The Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial, Day 4 
Watch: Trans Lover Says Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Admitted He ‘Wishes He Hadn’t Done It’ 
Judge Blocks Charlie Kirk Family’s Request For Transparency In Hearing Evidence 
Trump’s Immigration Enforcement Really Is Slashing Violent Crime 
IVF Couple ‘Devastated’ By Sperm Mix-Up After Depriving Child Of Biological And Birth Mothers 
Lawsuit: Minnesota Students Can Be Expelled For Saying Men And Women Are Different 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.8%Hannah Bates: 5.7%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias1.8%This article: 1.6%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias1.6%This article: 6.5%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 8.7%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Hannah Bates: 10.9%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Hannah Bates: 3.2%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias1.1%This article: 8.3%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.9%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man2.9%This article: 8.1%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.8%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 9.2%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring9.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.7%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion10.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 1.0%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.8%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof9.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.9%Hannah Bates: 2.3%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote19.9%This article: 1.6%Hannah Bates: 1.7%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 10.1%Hannah Bates: 2.0%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice10.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 1.6%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Hannah Bates: 2.3%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.8%This article: 10.3%Hannah Bates: 0.9%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.3%

447 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech302writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Novak • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageTurning Point USA • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Novak • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Novak • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTony Graf • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Turning Point USA

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words25% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+97.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Turning Point USA: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%Turning Point USA: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Turning Point USA: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Turning Point USA: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Turning Point USA: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.