Michael Knowles stood up in front of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee and did what too few conservatives in public life dare to do: he called out Democratic hypocrisy with facts and the Democrats’ own endorsements. He used the record — and the party’s own champions — to expose how the left talks tough about “political violence” while quietly backing candidates who fantasize about it.
This was part of a formal hearing titled “Politically Violent Attacks: A Threat to Our Constitutional Order,” where witnesses were supposed to soberly examine real threats to Americans’ safety and civic life. Instead of the usual politically neutral fact-finding, the session revealed how partisan reflexes too often excuse violent rhetoric from one side while weaponizing any misstep from the other.
At the center of the controversy are resurfaced 2022 text messages from Virginia AG nominee Jay Jones in which he described grotesque fantasies about shooting a political opponent and even referenced wishing harm on children. The texts sparked bipartisan alarm and rightly raised the question: can a party credibly lecture the nation about violence while tolerating this kind of language from its own ranks?
Make no mistake: Cory Booker did more than offer mild praise — he officially threw his weight behind Jay Jones during the campaign, making Booker’s moral squawks about violence ring hollow to anyone paying attention. When influential Democrats endorse men who penned violent fantasies in private, they forfeit the right to lecture the public about accountability without practicing it themselves.
Conservative commentator Dave Rubin even posted a direct-message clip purporting to show Booker leaving the hearing while Knowles pressed the point about that endorsement, a petty but revealing moment if true — a politician stepping out rather than answering for his own choices. The optics are damning: walk away from accountability, and voters will draw straightforward conclusions about where your priorities lie.
This is the kind of moment conservatives have been warning about for years: double standards on speech and violence, enforced by media and political elites who reflexively defend their own. Michael Knowles didn’t invent the argument — he brought it into a forum where, for once, the Democrats couldn’t hide behind talking points and had to confront a simple fact: backing violent rhetoric is disqualifying, no matter the party label.
Americans who work hard, obey the law, and raise their children deserve consistency, not selective outrage. If Republicans want to win the argument for law and order, they should keep pushing the case that words mean something and that endorsements carry responsibility — and they should make sure every politician, from either side, answers for what they’ve said and who they support.
