Rep. Crockett Votes Against Charlie Kirk Resolution, Claims She’s the Real Victim on CNN
Americans across the political spectrum have always found common ground in one basic idea. Political violence has no place in our democracy. Whether the victim is a progressive activist or a conservative commentator, decent people unite in condemning those who would use bullets instead of ballots. At least, that’s what we used to believe.
This week, that basic assumption about American decency got shattered. How? Well, 58 House Democrats voted against a simple resolution condemning the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Let that sink in for a moment. Since when did murder become a partisan issue?
Leading the charge was Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). She went on CNN to explain why she couldn’t bring herself to honor a man gunned down for his political beliefs. Her reasoning? She claimed Kirk was racist. The proof? She couldn’t provide a single example. Not one.
During her appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Crockett complained that “honestly, it hurts my heart” that almost all the Democrats who opposed the resolution were people of color. She insisted that “the rhetoric that Charlie Kirk continuously put out there was rhetoric that specifically targeted people of color.” Yet neither she nor host Dana Bash offered any actual evidence. None. Zero. Zilch.
Instead, Crockett launched into comparing Kirk to “Confederate relics.” She actually called him a “new age relic” that needed to be torn down rather than remembered. Think about that. A man gets murdered, and her first thought is to compare him to Confederate statues.
The most striking part of Crockett’s CNN appearance was what wasn’t there—proof. She made sweeping accusations about Kirk’s alleged racism. She provided zero examples, zero quotes, and zero evidence.
Her strongest claim? Kirk had mentioned her name on a podcast a month before his death. Somehow she connected this to what she called the “great white replacement” theory. Again, no audio clips. No transcripts. No context. Just accusations against a man who can no longer defend himself.
And where was Dana Bash during all this? Silent. No follow-up questions. No requests for examples. No challenge to the Confederate comparison. Nothing. Is this what passes for journalism these days?
This week, that basic assumption about American decency got shattered. How? Well, 58 House Democrats voted against a simple resolution condemning the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Let that sink in for a moment. Since when did murder become a partisan issue?
Leading the charge was Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). She went on CNN to explain why she couldn’t bring herself to honor a man gunned down for his political beliefs. Her reasoning? She claimed Kirk was racist. The proof? She couldn’t provide a single example. Not one.
During her appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Crockett complained that “honestly, it hurts my heart” that almost all the Democrats who opposed the resolution were people of color. She insisted that “the rhetoric that Charlie Kirk continuously put out there was rhetoric that specifically targeted people of color.” Yet neither she nor host Dana Bash offered any actual evidence. None. Zero. Zilch.
Instead, Crockett launched into comparing Kirk to “Confederate relics.” She actually called him a “new age relic” that needed to be torn down rather than remembered. Think about that. A man gets murdered, and her first thought is to compare him to Confederate statues.
The most striking part of Crockett’s CNN appearance was what wasn’t there—proof. She made sweeping accusations about Kirk’s alleged racism. She provided zero examples, zero quotes, and zero evidence.
Her strongest claim? Kirk had mentioned her name on a podcast a month before his death. Somehow she connected this to what she called the “great white replacement” theory. Again, no audio clips. No transcripts. No context. Just accusations against a man who can no longer defend himself.
And where was Dana Bash during all this? Silent. No follow-up questions. No requests for examples. No challenge to the Confederate comparison. Nothing. Is this what passes for journalism these days?
70-79, M
