A shocking clip has surfaced of Bravo alum and podcaster Jennifer Welch viciously attacking Riley Gaines while laughing at footage of a protester who celebrated the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The exchange sparked outrage across the political spectrum and prompted commentators like Dave Rubin and Clay Travis to call out the grotesque cruelty on display.
Welch’s on-air insults toward Gaines were not merely rhetorical; they were personal and demeaning, dragging a woman who speaks for fairness in women’s sports through a gutter of profanity and mockery. Reporters and conservative outlets have detailed how Welch derided Gaines’s athletic record while taking visible delight in a protester’s comment that Kirk was “not here” anymore, an image that should horrify anyone who believes in basic human decency.
Riley Gaines has built a public profile defending the integrity of women’s competition and calling out unfair advantages that undermine girls and women in sport, a principled stance that has repeatedly made her a target for vicious personal attacks. Rather than engage on the merits of the debate, Welch opted for cheap shaming and rancid laughter — the exact kind of performative nastiness that substitutes for reasoned disagreement.
Let’s be clear about the context: Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at an event in September 2025, an assassination that provoked shock and sorrow across the country as authorities investigated and charged a suspect. In the aftermath, a disturbing minority celebrated the killing online and at protests, and clips of those reactions have been circulated — yet instead of condemning the cheering, Welch amplified and laughed at it on her program.
This episode exposes a rotting double standard in modern media culture where outrage is rationed according to political convenience. When the target is a conservative figure, some on the left shrug, rationalize, or even revel in violence; when the target is anyone else, the full machinery of cancel culture revs up. That cynical calculus turns moral outrage into a partisan cudgel and makes public discourse more dangerous for everyone.
Platforms and sponsors have a responsibility to ask whether amplifying voices that normalize violence is acceptable, and media peers should not treat casual celebration of murder as entertainment. Public figures can disagree vigorously without pretending that threats or death are punchlines, and accountability should be blind to ideology: mockery at the expense of a murdered man is beyond the pale and must be condemned regardless of politics.
Conservatives who care about the rule of law, fair competition for women, and the health of public debate have good reason to call out this behavior and to defend the right to speak without being targeted by personal, violent celebration. This is not about silencing disagreement; it is about restoring basic standards of decency and insisting that disagreement be met with argument, not cheers for assassination.
