A recent exchange between Republican lawmakers in Kansas has ignited controversy after a discussion on the House floor appeared to allude to violence against a former Democratic representative.
The remarks, made during a traditional hazing ritual for new legislators, have led to strong reactions from both sides of the political aisle.
House Floor Interaction Raises Concerns
During the legislative session in Topeka, Republican Rep. Patrick Penn of Wichita led an interrogation-style exchange with freshman lawmaker Kyler Sweely, who recently won against Democratic incumbent Jason Probst. The interaction mimicked a military command scenario, referencing Probst under the phrase “that guy from Hutch”, which Probst often uses in his newsletter.
Penn, a U.S. Army veteran, quizzed Sweely on the mechanics of a firing command, which prompted the following interaction:
Probst Reacts to the Exchange
When reached for comment, Jason Probst responded with humor, saying that when people speak about someone so frequently, “they often wish to be that person.” He noted two possible interpretations:
- The remarks hinted at a violent undertone.
- The Republicans were expressing their excitement over narrowly winning the election.
Probst added, “It’s rewarding to know I live rent-free in their heads.”
Political Fallout and Democratic Response
The comments quickly sparked backlash from House Democrats. Many expressed shock and indignation, demanding an apology and potential disciplinary action.
Rep. Alexis Simmons (D-Topeka) criticized the remarks, stating that Republican members frequently raise objections over minor comments from Democrats, yet this statement, which she labeled “clearly violent in nature,” was allowed to stand.
“Suggesting shooting a political opponent is beyond irresponsible,” Simmons remarked. She urged House leadership to take formal action against Penn.
House Minority Leader Calls for Accountability
House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard (D-Lenexa) condemned the exchange, asserting that violent rhetoric has no place in politics, particularly given the rise in attacks on public officials.
“Political disagreements should be settled at the ballot box, not through threats of violence,” Woodard said, calling on Penn to take responsibility and issue a formal apology.
Lack of Immediate Response from Republicans
Neither Penn nor Sweely responded to inquiries regarding their remarks, and the House Speaker’s office remained silent despite multiple requests for a statement.
However, some House Democrats described the moment as deeply unsettling, with many exchanging shocked glances and questioning if they had heard correctly.
Penn’s Stance on Gun Rights
Penn, who has served in the Kansas House since 2021, is an outspoken advocate for gun rights. This year, he is co-sponsoring legislation with over 60 Republicans aimed at enshrining the right to own firearms, ammunition, and accessories within the Kansas Constitution.
Military Background of Penn and Sweely
Both Penn and Sweely have military backgrounds, having served in the U.S. Army in the Middle East. They were deployed at different times as part of Operations Spartan Shield and Inherent Resolve, which involved military campaigns in Iraq and Syria.
The controversial exchange between Rep. Patrick Penn and Rep. Kyler Sweely has ignited a heated debate over the use of violent rhetoric in politics. While House Democrats have called for accountability, Republican leadership has yet to respond.
As tensions rise, this incident underscores the broader national conversation about political discourse, decorum, and safety in public service.
FAQs
What was the context of the exchange between Penn and Sweely?
The conversation took place during a House floor hazing ritual, where new legislators are grilled as they present their first pieces of legislation.
Did the exchange contain a direct threat?
While not an explicit threat, many Democrats perceived it as alluding to political violence, prompting calls for an apology and formal action.
How did Jason Probst respond?
Probst mocked the exchange, suggesting that either the legislators harbor resentment or are celebrating their narrow election victory.