Jasmine Crockett on Turning Down the Nazi Rhetoric: ‘I’m Using That Language Because It’s Accurate’

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
BASH: “Let me ask you, because I do want to play a couple of statements that you made earlier this year.”

Crockett: “Okay. Unfortunately, we have someone that is occupying the the White House, and as far as I‘m concerned, he is an enemy to the United States. They want to show that they are loyal to this. You know, I don‘t even know what to call him. I‘ve called him so many things, but this wannabe Hitler, for sure”

BASH: “And to be clear, the president has attacked other people, have attacked you in his.”
In his orbit. Maybe not him personally. But do you have a responsibility as an elected official not to raise the temperature, but rather lower the temperature, particularly when there are people out there who listen to elected officials all over the place who are not well, who use that as a way to instigate the political violence that you are calling out.”

Crockett: “I think that my responsibility is to be transparent and to be honest, and the reality is that we are living in a time in which this administration and this regime is not interested in making sure that people understand history. We need to understand why they are so problematic. And so I am using that language because it is accurate language. When we see the consolidation of power, when we see them trying to chill speech of jokesters, when we‘re seeing all of this, that is a playbook out of Hitler. And I won‘t deny it. Like these are the facts, but one of the things that I‘ve never done that the president has done consistently, is called specifically for violence. He has said, oh, beat that one up. He has said those types of things. We know that Charlie Kirk was saying things about who should live and who should die. I have never said those kinds of things, and I think that those things are the ones that are really, really dangerous. And even still, some of that will still be protected. We know that we still have laws that are on the books that certain speech is not protected, that it does cross over when you are inciting violence, such as what we saw on January 6th. When you are doing what we consider to be a terroristic threat of some sort, where it‘s a matter of I‘m not just saying it, but I have the apparent ability to carry that out. But me laying out historical facts, just like they don‘t want to talk about the fact that slavery was real in this country, and that my people were enslaved and dragged and raped and abused, and they don‘t want to account for any of that. They don‘t believe in reparations. No, I think it is okay for me to understand history and communicate in a very clear way about why we should feel as if there is a concern. And when we swear an oath, which is what that first clip was, we swore an oath to the Constitution to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And so if there is someone that is evidencing themselves, such as the president who is going out and says, yes, I will take a $400 million plane from a foreign government, or is engaged in receiving crypto that we cannot track in exchange for, say, giving away chips to Saudi Arabia? No, we absolutely need to understand how these things could cause us harm. Or when he‘s cozying up to somebody like Vladimir Putin, it‘s not only a problem for us, but it‘s a problem for our allies. When you have somebody like Poland that is like, yeah, this is what Russia is up to. And the president is like, oh, that may have just been a mistake. We need to understand what all his business dealings are. Even with Russia, because that has the potential of putting us in harm‘s way.”