On Thursday, September 24, Turning Point USA answered hard after a Texas immigration attorney’s deleted post appearing to mock Charlie Kirk’s assassination ignited swift backlash.
The attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, represents the Venezuelan national who was shot by an ICE officer in Austin, the case that put her in the news in the first place.
Story Snapshot
- Deleted post referenced Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting and drew public outrage.
- Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet publicly hit back at the attorney.
- The attorney said the post was removed because it could be misconstrued.
- Screenshots of the post circulated after deletion, fueling the dispute.
What Sparked The Firestorm
Fox-linked reports said Austin-based attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch posted, “How do you resist getting shot in the neck? Does Charlie Kirk have any advice on that?” before deleting it. Critics saw the line as mocking the conservative leader’s murder. The post then resurfaced through a screenshot and began to spread online, drawing quick condemnation from conservative voices and beyond. The wording itself, rather than a broader context, drove the uproar and shaped the initial public reaction.
Lincoln-Goldfinch later said her office took the post down because it could be misconstrued. Her statement did not expand on intent or offer added detail. That limited response left the text of the post as the central fact in the debate. In these flashpoint moments, a single sentence on social media can define the narrative. Once shared as an image, it tends to harden views and cut off nuance, especially when grief and public safety are involved.
PERFECT MATCH: Turning Point USA fires back at the attorney representing a Venezuelan man shot by ICE agents in Austin, torching both lawyer and client after she posted — then deleted — a social media message invoking Charlie Kirk's assassination.
TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet… pic.twitter.com/pxkpBTyFCh
— Fox News Flash (@FoxNews_Flash) September 25, 2026
Turning Point USA’s Response
Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet responded after the screenshot circulated. Kolvet’s remarks aligned with the group’s defense of Kirk’s legacy and the dignity owed to victims. He criticized the attorney’s judgment and tone, framing it as emblematic of a broader disdain toward conservatives in elite circles. Kolvet’s pushback signaled that the group would not let perceived ridicule pass unchecked, especially when the subject is a fallen conservative figure.
The dispute also intersects with the separate Austin case involving an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer and a Venezuelan national represented by Lincoln-Goldfinch. Those legal facts remain distinct from the social media controversy, yet the overlap raised the stakes. When a lawyer in a high-profile case posts about a slain conservative figure, professional judgment quickly becomes part of the public lens. The deleted post turned that lens harsh and immediate.
Why This Matters To Readers
Public outrage followed because many Americans expect basic decency after a political killing. People saw the post as cruel toward a conservative voice many respected. The attorney’s “misconstrued” explanation did little to cool that anger. In today’s climate, online hits often aim to score points, but they also reveal values. This one read as contempt for conservatives at a time when families still mourn Kirk’s death and want respect for life and free speech.
The larger pattern is familiar. A sharp post goes up, gets deleted, then lives on through screenshots and outrage cycles. That cycle tends to punish poor judgment more than it resolves deeper policy fights. Here, the core facts are clear and not in dispute: the wording, the deletion, the apology that focused on possible misreading, and the organized response from Turning Point USA. Readers can judge the conduct themselves, but the record on those points is solid.
Sources:
foxnews.com, noticias.foxnews.com, wfmd.com, ground.news
