Liberal YouTuber Tells CNN’s Scott Jennings It’s Trump’s Job To Tone Down Political Division, Sparking Debate Over Violence Responsibility
A CNN panel confronts who bears responsibility for political violence as rhetoric and incendiary statements become a flashpoint in the broader debate over US political division.
A Saturday morning segment on CNN featured a clash over responsibility for political violence between MeidasTouch’s Adam Mockler and panelist Scott Jennings. Mockler argued that the president should be doing more to ease political tension, while Jennings pressed him to acknowledge accountability. Mockler cited remarks attributed to then-President Donald Trump, who told reporters on Thursday, “The radical left is causing this problem, not the right, the radical left, and it’s going to get worse, and ultimately it’s going to go back on them. The right is tougher than the left, but they’re not doing this, and they better not energize them.” CNN’s Abby Phillip later described the president’s comment as an “odd thing to say.”
During the discussion, Jennings pressed Mockler and others on accountability. “Can’t you just take responsibility for it?” he asked. Mockler, amid cross-talk, replied, “Wait, me? You want me to take more responsibility than the president of the United States? I’m a 22-year-old YouTuber, dude.”
Jennings went on to argue that there is an “epidemic of left-wing violence,” citing what he described as incidents associated with the left and warning that political rhetoric can fuel real-world harm. He referenced the case of a suspect identified as Joshua Jahn, 29, who was arrested after allegedly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility and killing one detainee, and he also invoked examples like conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting and an arson at Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s mansion as part of his broader point. Jennings asserted that these events point to violence that critics say is fostered by the political rhetoric of the left and right alike; he insisted it was not fair to assign sole responsibility to the president.
Mockler later defended his position in a post on X, arguing Trump’s allies were constructing an “epidemic of left wing violence” in what he framed as a “pathetic attempt to blind us to his vitriol.” In a separate exchange, Mockler told Jennings that Trump’s vitriol is a central factor in the political climate, and he did not back away from his stance that critics were redirecting attention away from the president’s rhetoric.
The exchange comes amid broader debates about the relationship between political dialogue and violence. The discussion touched on leadership responsibility and media framing at a moment when partisan voices argue over who should bear the burden for violent incidents, and how much influence rhetoric from prominent political figures has on real-world actions. The discussion also occurred against a backdrop of government actions related to political extremism.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice reportedly deleted a study documenting the frequency of far-right violence and its relative prevalence among domestic threats, a move that some observers said reduced transparency on the matter. Days later, Trump signed an executive order designating the Antifa movement a terrorist organization, a development cited by Jennings as part of the ongoing debate over how to classify and respond to political violence.
The exchange on CNN also highlighted the media dynamics at play in the polarization around violence. Mockler’s on-air comments and subsequent posts reflect a broader pattern in which partisan outlets and personalities frame incidents through polarized narratives, while Jennings and others on the panel push for accountability and a more nuanced understanding of the sources of violence. As the 2025 political cycle intensifies, policymakers, journalists, and commentators face increasing scrutiny over how rhetoric, coverage, and reactions to violent events shape public perception and policy response.
The segment underscores a central question in contemporary US politics: who bears responsibility for the consequences of heated political rhetoric, and how should leaders and media stakeholders address rising violence without inflaming the divide further. As both sides contend with the competing demands of accountability and free speech, the public watches closely for constructive pathways to reduce rhetoric that could escalate clashes while preserving robust political discourse.