Monday’s attack on a federal building in New York City sparked a conversation on CNN’s “News Night” with the host strangely suggesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement was to blame for the attack.
On Monday, 43-year-old Andrew Arrabaca of Poughkeepsie, New York, was arrested in connection with a gas fire. Police alleged he started it at the entrance of building used not only by ICE, but also the FBI and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
According to The Center Square, Arrabaca told police he was willing to injure or kill if necessary, being described as an “anti-government extremist.”
That evening, “News Night” host Sarah Sidner asked conservative pundit Scott Jennings, “Is it possible that it’s the actions of ICE that has people talking like this, not just getting messaging from the Democrats, but seeing what’s happening in their communities?”
When CNN’s Sara Sidner suggested the anti-ICE attack in New York City may have been a reaction to ICE’s actions, Scott Jennings ended the debate on the spot.
In less than 30 seconds, he exposed exactly how utterly absurd that entire premise is.
SIDNER: “Is it possible that it… pic.twitter.com/n6i6Ke5AqI
— Overton (@overton_news) July 21, 2026
In other words, Sidner is deflecting blame away from left-wing terrorists who attack federal agents, putting the responsibility on those agents for being attacked.
Call it victim blaming, if you will.
Jennings picked up on this logic, or lack thereof.
“So, if you believe that a government agency is doing something that you don’t like, and your choices are A, cast a vote, B, use your words, or, C, go set off an incendiary device at the federal building in New York City, and you pick C, there’s no justification for this.”
“There’s no rationalization of it, and that’s patently ridiculous if that’s what anybody’s going to argue tonight.”
Imagine if Jennings or another conservative had asked, “What was the government doing before Jan. 6, 2021, to cause President Donald Trump’s supporters to go to the Capitol Building?”
The left won’t be applying the same logic.
It’s ceding force to the mob.
Sidner has two options, and they both play out poorly.
Either she’s inconsistent in condemning political violence, meaning she believes “it’s okay when we do it” while condemning anything the right does, or she is consistent.
In that case, we have a problem in what the mob represents in different cases. The firebombing was an attack to cause harm.
Jan. 6 saw Trump’s supporters insistent on delaying certification of the 2020 election by then-Vice President Mike Pence. To be sure, violence erupted, but the mob’s actions were secondary to the cause of the events, not the cause itself.
We do not need to comb over the finer details. We just need to examine Sidner’s logic at face value.
She’s taking responsibility away from an alleged terrorist.
Why isn’t there bipartisanship in upholding the law? Why isn’t the left insistent on law enforcement being in the right and terrorists in the wrong?
They don’t want to be hated. If they do their jobs, the Democrats’ voter base will become angry. But that’s no way to govern.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
