Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly recounted an assassination attempt against him and pushed back hard on media and left-wing narratives, while The New Republic suggested leftist violence is a response to political grievances—a claim that drew blunt rebuttal and sharp questions about responsibility and consequences.

Scott Bessent walked into a press conference and did something the media was trying to avoid: he named what happened to him and called it an assassination attempt. He said it happened within hours of taking office and described how the case has moved through the system. That clarity mattered because the facts undercut a lot of sloppy, partisan reporting.

Bessent told reporters he was “the subject of an assassination attempt in February 2025 by an adult left-wing activist, two hours after being sworn into my job” before telling the reporters who think this is fiction to “be there for the sentencing this August.” Those are his words, delivered in public, and they deserve to be treated as the account they are. Downplaying that language is not neutral journalism; it’s a choice.

The person charged in the case is Ryan Michael English, a 24-year-old from Massachusetts who was arrested in February 2025 and pleaded guilty to firearm-related charges tied to behavior on Capitol grounds. Authorities say English admitted to possession of a knife and two Molotov cocktails and eventually pleaded guilty to unlawful receipt, possession, and transfer of a firearm and related counts. The paperwork and courtroom filings make clear this was more than angry talk.

According to court statements, English approached a Capitol Police officer near the South Door, turned himself in, and confessed that he had traveled to the Capitol with plans aimed at a presidential nominee awaiting confirmation. He reportedly had a note saying, “This is terrible but I can’t do nothing while nazis [sic] kill my sisters.” Those words show motive, not political theater, and they frame this incident as deliberate and violent.

English is due to be sentenced on August 14, a date that should remind everyone that the criminal process is moving forward and that facts will be laid out in open court. This is what accountability looks like when law enforcement and prosecutors do their job. It also shows the danger of letting rhetoric slide into action without consequences.

But check out this blurb from The New Republic on Bessent’s remarks:

https://x.com/UnderSecPD/status/2077905943543562727

Then Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent joined in on the fun, bringing up that he himself was the target of an assassination attempt by an “addled left-wing activist.”

It’s so interesting to watch these people wield what they see as this infallible moral compass, never once considering that they—and their predecessors—have created many of the conditions which have forced people to resist, whether it be abroad or domestically.

Translation: “It’s your fault we’re trying to kill you. You made us mad.” That is the subtext of the piece: a thinly veiled excuse for violent intent and a refusal to place blame where it belongs. When a media outlet suggests that political violence is a natural response rather than a crime, it crosses from analysis into rationalization.

They have not. But proverbially speaking, they need to remember the other side gets to move and shoot, too. Saying that does not celebrate violence; it warns against a culture that rewards threats and excuses attackers. Self-defense and deterrence are practical realities when institutions and rhetoric fail.

Bingo. That’s the hallmark of every abuser, by the way. When someone casts blame outward and claims injury as justification for harm, they are shifting responsibility to avoid consequences. That psychological pattern should alarm anyone who cares about public safety and basic decency.

Correct. And that half that thinks we deserve to die are egged on and encouraged by Democrats and their media allies, which is not academic—it has real-world consequences for public discourse and for law-abiding people. This encouragement is dangerous because it normalizes threats and dehumanizes political opponents. It’s a strategy that weakens the norms that hold a free society together.

This is the mentality of deranged children, and it’s them trying to create a permission structure under which they can use actual violence against us. That kind of moral infantilism should be rejected outright by responsible leaders, because it erodes the rule of law and invites retaliation. If we want to reduce violence, we need accountability, not excuses.