Nearly 60 House Democrats Refused to Condemn the Assassination of Charlie Kirk
In a recent vote, 58 House Democrats refused to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Nearly two dozen more (22) voted “present,” and only 95 voted to approve the measure drafted to honor the “life and legacy” of Kirk.
This stands in stark contrast to an earlier resolution condemning an attack on state lawmakers from Minnesota who were shot earlier this year.
That resolution passed the House in a unanimous 424-0 vote in late June.
The hypocrisy from the left is clear.
“In June, House Republicans voted unanimously to condemn the attacks on Democratic Minnesota lawmakers,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on X. “Last week, not even half of House Democrats voted to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., recounted the tragedy in Minnesota with more detail, writing in a statement, “When Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered, and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were wounded, the U.S. House unanimously passed a resolution condemning the attack and political violence.”
“But after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, 58 Democrats voted against denouncing political violence,” Mace wrote.
Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., said he believed the decision by dozens of Democrats to oppose the measure would reflect negatively on the party as a whole in the coming midterm elections.
“58 House Democrats refused to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Every House Republican voted to condemn the attack against the Democrat lawmakers in Minnesota. This is why Democrats continue to lose,” Steube wrote on X. “Americans won’t forget in 2026.”
The GOP lead measure memorializing Kirk went into detail on the slain conservative activist as a person, lauding him as “one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding and strengthen the Republic.”
It also said Kirk “personified the values of the First Amendment…and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans,” while calling on all Americans to condemn political violence.
Several Democrats who opposed the measure said they were uncomfortable with its praise of Kirk.
Typical assholes. They are 99% of the cause of political violence
Is Willie really saying 60 House Democrats are “99% of the cause of political violence?”
Sorry son, with direct and indirect effects, you got one dead cop who died the next day, 140 injured cops, one dead supporter, four civilians who died on the day of the riot, and four police officers who died by suicide in the following weeks and months3 dead cops downstream144 injured cops, one dead supporter, 3 dead cops downstream, to cover from 1/6/2021.
We’re all in this together, we all did this together, and we will only get better, together.
I think politicizing violence is the wrong way to go. This shit is always a rubbernecking circus, but if our first question is “is the killer Red or Blue,” we have a much larger problem. The problem is political violence, not party affiliation. Frankly, political violence, statistically, is a nit against the normal violence we put up with in America. Over 46,000 offed by gun every year with higher rates in Red geographies, amazing when you consider Blue urban areas. Again, the issue is not Red or Blue, the issue is gun violence and those rates are much higher in American than almost anywhere on the planet.
So you’re talking about 1-6. We can also talk about 9-10. And a group of thugs that were called terrorists by the president. Sorry Dunger. The 1-6 patriots rightly believed that the election was stolen. But it’s all good. Justice prevailed with pardons. But the history of presidential pardons shows some interesting people being pardoned. Especially by the rapist Bill Clinton. Even domestic bomb terrorists were included. So we know where your loyalty lies. Just another America hater who depends on liberal media rags. But heads up Dunger. America has reached a “ turning point “. Just stay out of the way.
Uncle Tampax; I use this demeaning name to treat you fairly as less than human ONLY because you choose to do the same first. My name here, for now, is Frank Danger, and by your stated fear of me, you seem to act like my facts and truths are a frank danger to you. NO, I will not sit down and stay out of your way. Or anyone’s. I am a free man, it’s a free country, and as Jimmy Kimmel tells you once again, the 1st amendment, one amendment to rule them all. One amendment above the one that gets you to cream in your jeans, is still the top dog amendment for our Bill of Rights. That’s right: speech, religion, the press, to assemble, and freedom for redress all come before guns. As it should be, as it always has been, for us, the US of A.
You should not treat your fellow citizens as less than human. I am Danger, not dunger. And you folks expect a lot if you anticipate a response to that shit. Like saying “hey fuckwad” ever broke the ice for a great discussion. Fucking childish behavior for serious issues in serious times calling for all adults in the room.
“We can also talk about 9-10.” Uh….9-10? Did you forget? Already? “And a group of thugs that were called terrorists by the president,” a president who got paid from it for a building he declared damaged some distance away, said he was there on site, shortly thereafter, he wasn’t, and the man never went to one 9/11 burial. Guess he lost no friends that day. Then again, beyond Epstein, did he even have any NYC friends?
“The 1-6 patriots rightly believed that the election was stolen. But it’s all good. Justice prevailed with pardons.” Yes, because if you believe in something, then there is no crime. Manson said that too. There were cop beaters, seditious conspirators, and worse in that group of 1,600 convicts. Some are already back in jail, go figure. Worse than cashless bail I guess. Worse than the weatherman you bemoan who got 50 years, but had to do 16 before Clinton wrongly let her go? She rightly believed the country and constitution were being stolen and did no bombing.
“But the history of presidential pardons shows some interesting people being pardoned. Especially by the rapist Bill Clinton. Even domestic bomb terrorists were included.” Yes and no. He offered CONDITIONAL pardons to 16 FALN members. FALN in the 70’s did over 170 bombings to stop US imperialism and free PR. The condition of the pardon was to renounce violence and 14 agreed, two remained. NONE of these folks were convicted of bombing anything. Many were convicted on seditious conspiracy, the same overturned conviction for the 1/6-ers pardoned wrongly by Donald J. Trump. And now you have a problem with pardoning seditious conspiracy. How convenient for you. He also pardoned Weather Undergrounder Rosenberg after 16 years. She’s tied to by organization, but not tried to by the State for the Brinks robbery which killed three,. Your guy Giuliani said enough at 50 some years in prison for her on sedition, and he didn’t have the easy proof to tie her to Brinks. I’ll give you this one as “Pardongate” was wrong and opened the door for Trump Payola Pardons. How many millions has Trump raked in on the scheme? *https://www.inequalitymedia.org/explainers/v/trumps-pardons*
This grifter does not miss a trick. But Clinton did indeed start it, pretty sure he had some grift in him as well. IMO he was wrong on Pardongate, but that does not excuse Don.
Bill Clinton has never been convicted of rape or lost any civil cases for sexual abuse. He was however impeached for lying to the State over a blow job. Who amongst us has not said: “hell no, the lady did not blow and I as a gentleman affirm that,” wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Amazingly we say the same thing whether she did or did not. A gentleman of mystery that is, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Clinton did pay off Paula Jones at $850K to go away. Nothing admitted, nothing proven, and Don has paid off three known women, allegedly paid off a half dozen known of, and a potential for 2 dozen claiming abuse by this known abuser. His forte appears to be “the grope.” One accuser is a 13 year old from Epstein’s friendship, maybe that’s in the Epstein files? Donald J Trump lost his civil case to EJ Carroll for sexual abuse. For his nailing Carroll in the dressing room, Trump got nailed $5M. He appealed, was denied, and it’s heading to the SCOTUS. They did not get the rape charge to stick, however, Trump brilliantly countersued for defamation for Carroll saying “rape.” He got tossed out of court, with the judge, on the record, stating with incredulity that: “it was RAPE in the common sense of the word and you are lucky NY State law requires proof of penis insertion for a rape charge.” Not many men have been saved by a tiny, penis. Carroll sued him for defamation and got $83.3M; the appeal was denied, and it’s heading to the SCOTUS too. FYI: Bill Clinton is clean legally. Trump is a convicted felon. His business has over 30 felony convictions. He paid off his university students for ripping them off. He was fined and shuttered his charity foundation that he was robbing. He was find by NJ for rigging his cash flow when he Dad covered his bet under the table buying chips and then tossing them out. I don’t think even the Don would say he’s a saint.
Useless Trojantom: I do not hate America. I vote. I support our vets. Our police. Our fire-folks. Our EMT’s. The Smithsonian. I even own Savings Bonds. Do you? I read both conservative and liberal “rags,” but tend towards those with less bias and more factual reporting. I have almost always lived in red geographies except for about 5 years in Maryland. I have had no issues and vice-versa on politics with folks round there. Course I do not advertise as was brought up to not. Trust me though, my Irish side did the Frank Reagan Sunday dinner and rough n tumble politics were always part of it. We’re talking a hajf dozen kids per couple, huge families, so many a diverse idea. As I said: “I think politicizing violence is the wrong way to go. This shit is always a rubbernecking circus, but if our first question is “is the killer Red or Blue,” we have a much larger problem. The problem is political violence, not party affiliation.” Do you really have a problem with that? I’m talkin to ya, youse really got a problem with that? Sigh.
The commiecrats didn’t weaponized every law enforcement agency in the country to get rapist Bill. So STFU. Dunger. Nobody’s afraid of you. The darling of the Jack booted government thugs was indicted today. But some commiecrat will someday pardon him. But if you never remember anything else, remember 9-10. A better man than you got killed on that d. Just for voicing his opinion. A free country? Sure. Until your crowd has their way. Don’t you think that your party is a bunch of idiots? They don’t know the difference in a male or female
This only shows just how rotten the Demorat party has become ever since dictator wannabe FDR occupied the White House. That party has become the worst America Haters we have ever seen. They are also the biggest bunch of crooked politicians ever elected into our government ( By idiots who were educated by these same crooked rats …..) .How did a POS like ” Call Me AOC ” ever become a millionaire ? BTW I do call it AOC….AllOutCrooked and sometimes AllOutCrazy . They put people who walked into an OPEN Capitol and stood around gaping at the beauty and spent 4 years in jail , when these pieces of manure can’t condemn the MURDER of an innocent man. They are only showing the world just how FILTHY they truly are and what a disgrace they are to all humanity.
Joe, I read your header and sure, shocking. Unlike you, you investigative reporter you, I decided to look to see why as you said: “his stands in stark contrast to an earlier resolution condemning an attack on state lawmakers from Minnesota who were shot earlier this year. That resolution passed the House in a unanimous 424-0 vote in late June.” First, points for not running with yet another Mullin quote where he lied again, this time about both the Minnesota and Kirk resolutions being the same: you learned!! Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, Joe won’t do! Congrats (or was it luck?). But you could have done some real research reporting before you attempted this little piece. (or was it more spin as a set up like the bill’s authors)
Stark indeed. It was fairly easy, sometimes in their own words, to see why some Democrats demurred. Why didn’t you look deeper. The resolution was in no way similar to the Minnesota resolution. This resolution was replete with callouts to ideology and praise to ideas liberals don’t endorse, we stand against them as you stand against many liberal ideas. It was a set-up ideology pork belly resolution constructed by sponsors with a deeper agenda of some kind. As set up because the choice was to vote for the resolution and against your own principles and ideology OR no vote/vote no and be condemned as one of yours said: “This is why Democrats continue to lose,” Steube wrote on X. “Americans won’t forget in 2026.” I guess the fight continues, this time a sneak attack of conservative ideology affirmation resolution from the House floor masked as a condemnation of political violence in remembrance of a good man. And yes, as you note, some thought the praise of Kirk was a bit deep, again, often into the ideology as well.
We all should mourn Kirk, as well as all who are shot and killed. Even criminals. Or folks on a three-hour boat tour from Venezuela. Or our deportees to El Salvador. But many stand against a lot of what Kirk said, especially about blacks, transgenders, and gays. The choice was to affirm this stuff they are well known to stand against rather than honor a good man and condemn his politically motivated assassination. You guys went over the top in your praise of Kirk’s beliefs, ideologies, some of which preach hate and exclusion. No other resolution like this, including the MN one, ever attempted that.
Bottom line is there is an old adage: you never ask a question in court, unless you already know the answer. AND, you don’t put a vote on the floor unless you know the count. I hope they quickly re-write for acceptance and pass it.
You did not know the count, you did not ask, you attempted to ram something down their throats that you should have known they could not accept, it was the most partisan, ideology championing, condemnation of political violence ever introduced in Congress.
A simple sniff test across the aisle would have revealed that.
Bottom line: It was no way the same or even similar to the Minnesota resolution.
A Senate resolution, without the flag waving to the conservative cause, for Kirk, passed unanimously the week before.
When the Senate passed a similar resolution for the attempted Trump assassination, they put the bill in front of the Senators beforehand and got 90 out of 100 to co-sponsor. Wanna wonder if that resolution passed. That’s how you get er done boys. Otherwise, go alone, go fast, and reap what you sow. This is Congress 101, hell it’s business 101, it’s how you get things done in any large group or organization.
If you were not total rubes and knew what you were doing, then win or lose, you got what you wanted and now you can continue to shit where you eat in your House. My way or the highway is a bullshit way to get to OK.
That’s why they voted against it Joe. The detailed info was easy to find. I find it so very unfortunate that IF they were going to load the thing with trigger ideological words, they would be experienced enough to test the resolution before bringing it to the floor. Seems either pretty amateur not to know they would ruffle feathers OR perhaps the intent was to have it fail all along. I would have tested it amongst my side and across the aisle to know the count before the vote. OR actually write it to be consistent with the traditions of the House and Senate. For a long time in this case with WAY to many opportunities and examples.
Please publish the list.