IT’S A FEW days now since Robert Mueller died and Donald Trump offered a typically forthright tweet on the event.
I don’t intend to go over exhaustively what other people have said on this, just give you my take. And the particular bit I want to address is the idea that what Trump said about Mueller was morally the same as what Democrats and leftists said about Charlie Kirk. I want to describe the differences, because these differences also describe the fundamental schism in moral awareness between us and them.
Here is what the two things have in common: leftists celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk. Trump celebrated the death of Robert Mueller.
Celebrate the death of an innocent child and you are a sick bastard. Celebrate the death of your child’s killer and you are entirely justified in doing so. There’s a moral difference based on who died and what relation they held to you.
So let’s discuss the relation that Charlie Kirk held to leftists who celebrated his death, and the relation that Robert Mueller held to Donald Trump.
The vast majority of leftists who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death did not personally know him. Kirk had never addressed them either, in any personal way. He had never named them, shamed them, humiliated them, persecuted them or harmed them in any way specific to them as individuals. So two things are encompassed here. The hatred they delivered towards Charlie was based in ignorance, and the hatred had no real source in terms of Charlie hurting them.
This was people hating someone they did not know because that person had opinions they do not share. What was expressed was ignorant and often wildly inaccurate offence that considered being politically offended justification for celebrating a murder.
On questioning, most of those who celebrated Kirk’s death would not have been able to quote him accurately on anything, and did so by general statements that were wildly untrue (he was a fascist, he was a racist, he was a sexist, he was a white supremacist, he wanted women to be forced to have babies, he wanted school shootings, he rejected all kindness and empathy etc etc). They were hating a person not just based on them having different opinions, but on their own understanding of those opinions being completely false.
There was also a broader false idea supporting the virulence and loathing towards Charlie expressed by these people. This was the false idea that they have the right to determine what others are allowed to say based on whether that statement offends their very easily offended positions. The people who hated Charlie enough to celebrate his death did so on the basis that everyone in society is supposed never to contradict their beliefs, never disagree with them on political or social topics, and never annoy them by saying that they are wrong on something. Clearly, this was an extreme and absurd position. None of these people was harmed in any way by anything Charlie Kirk ever said, even if they perceived his words as harmful to them.
Different opinions do not become acts of real harm unless those opinions are targeted at you personally in obviously hateful ways designed to distress you (personal hate mail of a repeated nature, bullying and intimidation directed to you as an individual) or unless they are targeted at a group in ways that directly instruct people to harm the group you are in (saying ‘kill all the Jews’, for instance).
With those exceptions, considering a general view on abortion as harmful to you personally, or a general view on what defines a woman that is consistent with objective biological reality as harmful to you personally, is irrational. You are not, and cannot be, actually harmed by the expression of such views.
In short, all of the ways in which any of those who hated Charlie Kirk felt aggrieved, offended and harmed by him were aspects of their own irrationality, divorced from true knowledge of the man, disconnected from objective fact regarding his opinions, and inflated to gloatingly disrespectful and callously unwarranted malice without any foundation or justification at all.
Contrast all this with Trump celebrating the death of Robert Mueller.
In that case the hatred comes from a place of real knowledge. Mueller’s words and actions were not described to Trump by others, causing offence through inaccurate portrayals. Trump personally knew Mueller. He had met Mueller, spoken to Mueller, and Mueller had spoken, at length, both to and about Trump. This was not an abstract expression of loathing from someone who knew nothing about the man being loathed. It was a comment from someone with a very personal knowledge of who Mueller was and how Mueller had behaved.
Robert Mueller was the spearhead of an attempt to destroy Donald Trump. His investigation was authorised and directed by the personal political enemies of Donald Trump. It was an investigation whose founding evidence and entire argument was a lie. There never was any Russian collusion by any member of the Trump administration, which is why the Mueller Report eventually had to admit that it had found no evidence. The ‘evidence’ which began the investigation was concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign team. The Steele dossier was a complete fabrication concocted by a British spy paid to create it by Trump’s rival Presidential candidate. The senior figures of the FBI and CIA were well aware of this. Mueller was well aware that the basis of his investigation was a deliberate smear with no factual veracity. He was also well aware that his personal animosity towards Trump and friendships which represented a conflict of interest should have seen him recuse himself from any position of judgement on these matters.
Instead, Mueller accepted a position as a special consul investigating imaginary offences. In the course of that investigation, which he knew to be premised on a lie, he spent over $30million of taxpayers’ money, including $9.7million pocketed as salary by himself and his staff. Multiple people were indicted, and some served prison sentences, on what were invariably process crimes with no link to Russian collusion. Highly dubious investigatory and prosecutorial conduct saw cases which had no substance and should never have been allowed used to harass and intimidate friends and allies of Donald Trump for years. Trump and others pursued by Mueller’s investigation not only knew Mueller personally, they knew that they were being persecuted through the courts purely on their status as critics and opponents of the Democrat Party.
When your name and reputation is deliberately smeared, when a crooked policeman uses his powers to try and imprison you and destroy you, and when a large chunk of that unjust treatment has a public face called Robert Mueller, that is an injustice of significant proportions, and it is very unsurprising thar the response from victims is one of resentment and hatred.
Donald Trump was the victim of an utterly partisan, shameless, corrupt investigation led by Mueller. That’s a very different relationship than one composed of being offended by ideas you don’t share. Trump and others suffered real world harms from Mueller.
This, too, is to say nothing regarding Mueller’s other unjustly treated victims, because his misconduct and corruption was not limited to the Russia Collusion Hoax and there were historic examples of serious errors of judgment before that.
When you have actually been harmed by someone, the celebration of that death becomes brutal honesty. When you haven’t, the celebration of that death is evidence of your own delusions and malice. It’s fairly typical that leftists cannot comprehend that they didn’t have just cause against Kirk, but that Trump does have such against Mueller.
Trump told the cold hard truth about Mueller. The longest serving FBI Director after J Edgar Hoover was a partisan tool of the Democrat Party ready to destroy the FBI’s reputation in pursuit of the aims and power of the Democrats.
Somewhere along the line Mueller was one of many who stopped serving the American people and the newly elected Trump, because he was still serving Barack Obama and the D.C. progressive-globalist agenda without regard for whether or not that was in office.
He had a personal loathing of Trump which Trump came to reciprocate, far more justifiably. And Mueller’s extreme partisanship and corrupt willingness to lend his aid to attempts to destroy a Presidency did enormous damage, including to entirely innocent people, just as Trump truthfully stated.
This article appeared in Jupplandia on March 24, 2026, and is republished by kind permission.
