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?

From Daily Wire:

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) reminded the audience on Sunday that she was the real victim of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric, explaining to CNN anchor Dana Bash that this was why she could not support the House Resolution condemning his assassination.

Crockett joined Bash on Sunday’s broadcast of “State of the Union” to explain why she’d voted no — and she went on to equate Kirk with “confederate relics” and complaining that not enough white people had voted no along with her.

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.

Claims Without Evidence

Here’s what really gets me. 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?

Conservative Voices Respond

The pushback came from conservative commentator Scott Jennings. He appeared on CNN later with a forceful defense of Kirk’s character.

From ‘CNN’:

“Charlie Kirk targeted NOBODY. He was not racist in ANY WAY! I’ve listened to hours and hours and hours and hours of Charlie Kirk. The idea that he was some kind of racist is absolutely preposterous and it’s shameful that people would say that about someone who was just assassinated. He talked about free speech on college campuses. He talked about economic opportunity. He talked about conservative values. Never once did I hear anything that could be construed as racist.”

Jennings said what many conservatives already knew. Kirk was a mainstream conservative voice. He focused on policy issues like free speech, limited government, and economic opportunity. The attempt to paint him as a racist after his death? That’s a new low, even by today’s standards.

What makes Crockett’s position even worse is her admission. She actually said Kirk shouldn’t have been killed. “Whether it’s heated or not, the fact is, Charlie Kirk should still be here,” she admitted during the interview.

So let me get this straight. She admits he shouldn’t have died. But she can’t vote for a resolution condemning his assassination? This wasn’t a vote to endorse Kirk’s politics. It was just a statement that political violence is wrong. And 58 Democrats couldn’t even do that.

Key Takeaways

• 58 Democrats voted against condemning Charlie Kirk’s assassination
• Rep. Crockett called Kirk a “Confederate relic” but provided zero evidence of racism
• CNN’s Dana Bash failed to challenge any unsubstantiated claims
• Democrats’ selective outrage reveals dangerous precedent for political violence

Sources: Daily Wire, Yahoo News