Former CIA Officer Andre Bustamante Witnessed Live Reactions to Charlie Kirk Shooting in Liberal New York Podcast Studio
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Michael Knowles Exposes Democrats Refusing to Condemn Political Violence After Charlie Kirk Assassination
51:34
Tyler Robinson's Gentle Surrender and the Legal Analysis of Charlie Kirk Assassination Case
11:46
That Star Wars Girl Speaks Out on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk and Murder Celebration Culture
14:36
Former CIA Officer Andre Bustamante Witnessed Live Reactions to Charlie Kirk Shooting in Liberal New York Podcast Studio
Andre Bustamante shares a haunting firsthand account of being in a liberal podcast studio in New York when news broke that Charlie Kirk was shot. Surrounded by producers who first asked "Who's Charlie Kirk?" and then made jokes about his death within minutes, the experience became an unforgettable lesson in how desensitized American culture has become to political violence. The conversation with Mike Ritland expands into a sobering analysis of foreign influence operations, AI-driven propaganda, the erosion of privacy rights, and whether America faces a surveillance state or civil war. This raw discussion captures a pivotal moment in American history and what it reveals about where the nation is headed.
Former CIA officer Andre Bustamante was in New York on September 10th as part of a book launch tour, having deliberately chosen to be in the city for September 11th to pay respects at the 9/11 memorial with his wife. What he didn't expect was to experience another moment that would be seared into his memory with the same clarity as 9/11 itself.
He was on set at a major liberal-leaning podcast around 12:15-12:30 PM Eastern time, waiting for the studio to get ready, when one of the researchers saw a notification flash across their feed: Charlie Kirk had been shot and killed. The immediate response around the table was telling: "Who's Charlie Kirk?"
As people began searching and discovering Kirk was a conservative youth influencer, the tweets started piling up. The main TV screen switched to Fox News, the only network covering the story at that moment. Then the actual footage began circulating—the video showing the bullet penetrating Kirk's skin and exiting. The liberal producers started passing it from person to person on their phones.
The Shocking Response
What happened next stunned the CIA officer. The producers had visceral reactions to seeing someone shot for the first time—"Oh, I don't ever want to see that. I can't unsee that"—the kind of responses you'd expect from people confronting death. But not ten minutes later, they started making jokes. The specific phrase he remembers is something like "Is it bad that I'm watching this and I just kind of think like... eh?"
Sitting there with his wife's hand on his thigh, both keeping their mouths shut, he was witnessing something profound: educated, wealthy people who run a podcast studio were blowing off a person's life simply because of his political views. Someone had possibly taken Kirk's life because of those same political views, and these industry professionals were joking about it.
"Observing people being people is so informative," he reflects. "That's not me saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good or vice versa. It's just me saying that we have become so desensitized to the value of human life that we think the politics matter."
Another Perspective on the Shooting
The host shares his own experience of learning about the shooting. He was in the middle of recording a podcast episode with guest Craig Douglas, one of those rare windows of time in modern life—like being on an airplane without Wi-Fi—where you're completely isolated from the outside world. During their first break, news had just broken that Kirk had been shot, with very little information available. After another couple hours of recording, he emerged to find the story was everywhere.
The shooting shook him more than he expected. While he'd never met Kirk and hadn't followed him extensively—just seen clips of interviews and college events—he'd seen enough to understand what Kirk stood for. What rattled him was the distinction between a politician who drafts legislation and a private citizen engaging in dialogue. Kirk wasn't in office; he was a civilian whose power came from conversation and persuasion.
The symbolism woven into the event disturbed him deeply: the JFK-style assassination, the timing right after what Kirk said, the venue, the state. "There are so many symbols woven into that experience that in my opinion should scare the shit out of everybody in this country," he says. But perhaps more disturbing than the shooting itself was the response in many circles—the jokes, the callousness, the trivialization of life over political disagreement.
America's Period of Darkness
The conversation takes a sobering turn as the CIA officer connects Kirk's assassination to a larger pattern he's been warning about for years. Two years ago, he began talking about his family's plans to leave the United States before 2030—a timeline they've since moved earlier. The reason? America is evolving into more chaos.
"Just like adolescence, we forget how young the United States is," he explains. "We have to go through a period of self-discovery to define what we actually care about. Not the propaganda lines that we used on posters to win World War II. Not the propaganda posters that we still use to recruit for the military services, not the promise, not the stuff that we say when we pledge allegiance to the flag as an empty pledge in school rooms that kids don't understand, but actually decide what we really care about, what we really stand for, what we really believe in as the American people."
Drawing on his CIA experience, he points out that espionage thrives in countries going through darkness, not in stable nations like Switzerland. "You're going to get far going into these developing countries, going to these dark parts of the world that haven't yet decided when you're working with warlords who are fighting each other in Africa or when you deal with Politburo members in China who are actively trying to undermine each other. When you deal with oligarchs who are trying to undermine each other in Europe, that's where you go to collect state secrets."
America, he argues, may be called the United States, but hasn't been unified behind a message since being bombed on 9/11. "We have to go through a lot more darkness before we land on our answer that carries us into the light."
The Unprecedented Petri Dish
The host compares the current moment to the cultural awakening of the 1960s—a confusing, divisive time with clear lines in the sand. But today's situation is unprecedented. Since the printing press accelerated the spread of propaganda, nothing compares to the current information environment where instantaneous global communication combines with a generation that's impressionable yet independent of parental oversight.
"You have this, in my opinion, petri dish of just absolute anarchy possible," he says. "The level of brainwashing, manipulation, and radicalization that can take place on the screen of a phone or a computer in a basement somewhere or in a college dorm room or wherever... it could be in a ranch in Montana."
This raises the critical question: How big of a role are foreign state entities playing in subverting American society in this way, and how can it be defended or defeated?
The Foreign Influence Machine
The CIA officer's answer is chilling. What once prevented foreign countries from influencing Americans was the incredible expense required to reach them. You had to be printed in newspapers or magazines, broadcast on television, delivered by a native English speaker. Countries like Venezuela, Congo, or Iran couldn't easily influence Americans because they lacked these expensive avenues.
Now all those barriers are gone. AI can translate scripts from Persian into English, add B-roll footage, and distribute content across TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, and YouTube. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement spread this content further and further. And it's only getting worse.
"Now instead of having to actually create a line of Farsi that gets translated, you can just have an AI create a new line of Farsi every two minutes," he explains. "You can just tell it, hey, every two minutes for the next 24 hours, create a new propaganda line that surreptitiously undermines democracy in favor of authoritarianism and send it out and it just does it... the whole thing can now turn into like an assembly line of misinformation, disinformation that just gets produced and produced."
Content goes viral not because of quality, but because it creates engagement—thumbs up, thumbs down, comments expressing love or hate. The more content created, the higher the chances something goes viral. And this isn't just enemies; allies like France, Britain, Spain, and Italy have incentives to create pro-NATO or other policy-favorable propaganda targeting Americans in English—a language their own populations don't primarily speak.
Can It Be Stopped?
Tools exist to identify AI-generated content. The CIA officer's own company uses filters to scrub job applicants, emails, social media activity, and website signups for AI-generated bot activity. But these tools are only as good as they are right now, and there's a critical economic question: if profit margins for creating AI content grow faster than profit margins for detecting it, the defensive tools will disappear.
More revealing is what government behavior signals about the scale of the problem. Centers for counterintelligence and information security have seen so much foreign activity that they've issued public warnings to American citizens—telling people not to trust everything they see on Facebook.
"Think about what they must be seeing in order for them to come to the conclusion that they need to make a statement about it," he says. "It means that they can't actually fight it themselves yet. It means that they know that Facebook is trying, but Facebook isn't doing a good enough job by itself."
If it was controllable, they wouldn't tell the public. If they believed they could control it in the near term, they might make small statements buried in platform notifications. For there to be national press conferences warning Americans to be careful means it's out of their control.
The Hard Choice: Privacy or Security
So is it fixable? Can America course correct, or are end times and civil war imminent?
The CIA officer doesn't believe civil war or end times are near, but Americans will have to face very real hard choices. The biggest one is privacy.
"Americans like to believe we have a right to privacy. We don't. It doesn't exist," he states bluntly. Privacy isn't in the Constitution or the amendments. What Americans understand as the right to privacy is entirely based on court precedents establishing "reasonable expectation to privacy" on a case-by-case basis. A pedophile has no reasonable privacy. Someone accused of embezzlement might.
As foreign influence operations exploit privacy protections, America will face a critical question: Will the federal government put individual privacy above national security? Search engines that obscure user data might be shut down. Operating systems might require constant monitoring. Cameras could immediately identify license plates and tie them to driver's licenses, credit cards, and bank accounts—surveillance infrastructure that already exists in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
"What if a surveillance state is the only thing that can really guarantee our safety?" he asks. "Are we really—is it more likely that we turn into a surveillance state in the United States or more likely that we go down the road of civil war? I would argue we're going to start to accept surveillance policies long before we start bearing arms against each other."
The Coming Decisions
Americans will need to make hard decisions about privileges, rights, access to information, what gets shared, and what doesn't. It might even become criminal activity to share a post originally tied to Iranian propaganda. The technology to trace every American who shared, commented on, or liked such a post already exists.
There are already claims that lists are being made of people speaking favorably about Charlie Kirk's killing. It's not beyond the realm of reality that all of social media could be scrubbed and people held accountable for their role in spreading disinformation.
The choice, as the CIA officer sees it, is clear: either accept surveillance policies that fundamentally alter American privacy expectations, or watch the country descend into chaos. The petri dish of manipulation, radicalization, and foreign influence will only grow more potent. The assembly line of AI-generated propaganda will only accelerate. And America's period of darkness—its adolescent struggle to define what it truly stands for—is far from over.
Charlie Kirk's assassination may be remembered not just as the death of a conservative influencer, but as the moment that crystallized the choice facing America: surveillance state or civil war. Based on human nature and historical precedent, the CIA officer believes Americans will choose to surrender privacy long before they take up arms against each other. Whether that's the right choice remains to be seen.
