So here we are. A conservative commentator is assassinated in cold blood, tens of thousands gather in grief, his widow forgives the killer, and the House of Representatives manages to do the bare minimum — pass a resolution condemning his murder.
But apparently, even that was too much for Rep. Jasmine Crockett.
On Sunday, she went on CNN with Dana Bash and explained why she voted against condemning Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Not because she disagreed with the language of the resolution. Not because of some procedural hang-up. But because, in her words, she was the “real victim.”
Yes, you read that right.
Charlie Kirk is lying in a casket, his family shattered, his movement mourning. And Crockett? She’s on national television explaining how his rhetoric hurt her feelings, and therefore she just couldn’t bring herself to condemn his murder.
The exchange was almost surreal. Bash asked the obvious question — why vote no? — and Crockett launched into a list of grievances. First, she complained that only two of the “no” votes had come from white Democrats, saying, “honestly, that hurts my heart.”
That’s the standard now? Vote counts broken down by skin color?
Then came the real kicker. Crockett claimed Kirk’s rhetoric “specifically targeted people of color.” No examples, no receipts, nothing. Bash, of course, didn’t press. She just nodded along as Crockett painted a man who spent his life promoting debate and dialogue as some kind of modern-day Confederacy mascot.
Oh, and speaking of Confederacy, Crockett actually compared Kirk to a “Confederate relic.” Her words, not mine. She explained that just as statues had to come down, Charlie Kirk should not be “propped up” or honored — even in death.
Let’s pause here.
A United States congresswoman is openly saying she refuses to condemn the murder of a political opponent because she personally disliked his rhetoric. And then she equates him to a Confederate statue.
This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. This was deliberate.
ENOUGH!!!
Scott Jennings just said NO MORE – fires back at Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett who falsely smeared Charlie Kirk as a racist on the day of his funeral:
“Charlie Kirk targeted NOBOBY. He was not racist in ANY WAY! I’ve listened to hours and hours and hours and hours of… pic.twitter.com/pCHz4TSvyf
— Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) September 21, 2025
She even made it personal, griping that Kirk had mentioned her on his podcast a month before his death. That was her justification for voting against a resolution condemning assassination. Because he said mean things.
Imagine the precedent. Members of Congress now weighing whether murder victims are sufficiently “honorable” in their eyes before acknowledging that maybe they shouldn’t be gunned down?
Meanwhile, conservative commentator Scott Jennings didn’t mince words in response. “Charlie Kirk targeted NOBODY,” he said. “He was not racist in any way.”
And he’s right. Whatever one thought of Kirk’s politics, no serious person ever accused him of promoting violence or racism. His work was rooted in argument, persuasion, and debate. But in today’s climate, debate itself is treated as violence — while actual violence is excused as long as the victim is on the wrong side politically.
So here’s the question no one on CNN asked: if a Republican congressman refused to condemn the murder of a liberal activist because they “didn’t like their rhetoric,” how would the headlines read?
We all know the answer.
Jasmine Crockett just tried to paint Charlie Kirk’s assassin as MAGA and MTG shut her down immediately.
“He was not MAGA, not one bit. That is a complete lie and it’s an insult to every single Republican and person that identifies with those type of politics. We will not… pic.twitter.com/6ksgUHm4LM
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 18, 2025
And yet, with Kirk, Crockett got a pass to turn his assassination into a conversation about her feelings, her hurt, and her personal vendetta.
The victim, it seems, is always her — never the man who lost his life.
